Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
"...Perhaps laughter will then have formed an alliance with wisdom; perhaps only 'gay science' will remain."
User ID: 342
Yep, I link people to that book all the time.
No, she has to be white or at least east Asian.
I would counter that lots of games are not meant to be played for mastery. They’re meant to be played for fun
Well, they're the same thing for me (and a lot of other people too). I'm not having fun if I'm not trying to attain mastery, so I pick games where playing them at a high level of mastery is also fun.
I’ve had this problem in real life too - often your friend group picks up something like table tennis or a new fps and it’s great fun but after a few weeks one or two people have knuckled down and got good, and now it’s no fun for anybody else because you have to play 1v2 or 1v3 even to have a chance.
Yeah, if you're playing in a social setting you want to pick games that will work well for everyone obviously.
Its the asymmetry that grates me.
They have a uterus. You don't.
That is the asymmetry.
Well, we're getting to the root of your dating problems at least. "Ah, where have all the virgin 25 year old 130 lbs women who have more interesting hobbies than just Netflix gone..." You're doing the same thing as the women who say "yeah I have 20 options but I'm just not feeling any of them, you know?" It's the exact same thing.
but I'm sure that she won't ever be thinking about any of them or comparing your performance
It would be utterly bizarre if she didn't! How could you not compare! This is what humans do!
Basically we've discovered that you're not after "dating" (quite attainable), you're after "she has to be noticeably above average in most metrics, and I have to own her mind body and soul, there has to be no chance that she ever even thinks about a man other than me, lest I constantly be paranoid about cheating" (maybe not as attainable, unsurprising that you're having difficulties).
5 or fewer sex partners (‘bodies’). Under age 30.
Oh come on this is just getting silly now.
People have sex, and age. If that's a dealbreaker then you're basically just looking for an excuse to stay single at that point.
have yet to ruin everything by Excel spreadsheeting statistical models of damage and critical chance and elemental resistance until they derive, mechanically, the ‘most efficient’ build, after which everyone adopts the new meta
If a game gets worse when you play the meta then it's just a shallow, badly designed game.
There's been some controversy over how AI has impacted top level Chess and Go, but my impression is that top players of those games still find them enjoyable and worthwhile, even though many hours of AI study are required to succeed at the top professional level in both games now.
I play a lot of fighting games, which for the most part only get better and more fun as you get deeper into the meta. Learning the meta gives you more tools and options to integrate into your gameplay, but because the game has inherently unpredictable elements (twitch reactions, making reads on your opponent, etc), they always stay fresh and it's impossible to fully "solve" them.
Men are the ones writing long screeds on the internet about how they can’t get laid. Women aren’t. (Or when they do, it’s because none of the available options are quite good enough.)
This is not a random coincidence. It’s rooted in a biological asymmetry.
That’s all it means.
I absolutely have! I already have bustr installed on my phone.
I haven't actually tried to date anyone in quite a while due to, again, autism, general emotional and life issues, etc. But the intent is there don't worry.
Well, appealing for me, at any rate!
(Not the single mom part though. That's one of the few things that actually is a hard limit for me.)
Again, why is the onus on the men to settle, here?
Because female bodies have value, and male bodies do not. You belong to the less valuable half of the human species. We just had a whole ass thread on this.
Although it should be pointed out, said thread also included a post from a woman who said that she felt like she's the one who has to settle, so, maybe the grass on the other side isn't as green as you think it is.
I don't see how anybody is expected to do it if they haven't already these days!
I mean it's not that bad.
I was at a wedding for an early 30s guy not too long ago. Perfectly unremarkable dude in every way. Average looks, barely a penny to his name, floats in and out of odd jobs. But he's genuinely pleasant and easy to talk to, and he knows people everywhere, and I mean everywhere, he will be in random states he's never been to before and he's still bumping into people he knows. When you talk to a lot of people and play the numbers game then it's easy to meet potential partners.
The bride was admittedly a chubster, which is apparently the kiss of death for a lot of people here, but, c'est la vie.
It's a pregnancy risk, sure, but, life's full of risks. One of my ex's whole family was fat af, and they managed to reproduce.
Maybe next time before you pass on a fat girl, you could give her a chance for a little while, with the idea of suggesting Ozempic or an exercise plan once the relationship is more established? Just a thought. Could help widen your pool of available options a bit.
You don't actually know how to "git gud".
Ah, but I never said I did! All I said was two simple words: "git gud". You see the difference, yes?
Some of them became single moms, some decided to get into deeper debt for a master's degree, some of them got fat.
Again with the fat, it's always the fat... is it really that much of a dealbreaker?
I think fat girls are sexy af, so I'm biased, and I'm aware my biases are not shared by everyone. But, it can't be that bad, right?
Single, childless, drifting somewhat aimlessly, generally an emotional wreck on a daily basis. But what of it?
You see, no one ever likes to be told to "git gud", so there's a readymade generic counterargument you can always deploy against any assertion of "git gud". I see this in lots of domains, not just dating, it happens all the time in competitive games for instance. First you ascertain how gud the "git gudder" actually is, and then you have two options. If they're gud, then you say "well yeah, easy for you to say, you're already gud, and you probably got there by luck or natural talent anyway, so you don't know what it's like to suffer as someone who's not gud". If they're not gud, then you say "well what do you know anyway, you don't know anything about being gud, so just stay out of it."
So you see, the gudness of the git gudder matters not, because people will always just reject the message anyway. But it matters not. "Git gud" always reigns supreme in the end, for it is the truth.
Obviously if someone is giving concrete step by step advice on how to do XYZ, then it's reasonable to ask for their credentials. But attitude and intent are freely available to all the fortunate and unfortunate alike. Avail yourself of them.
Of course, I keep pointing this out to @Primaprimaprima, and they keep ignoring the point to drill down to individual solutions, which as we see are just not viable.
Bit of an odd way of phrasing it, considering I just wrote a post a few days ago where I said "we need to look at structural factors for the downturn in dating and not just individual factors".
So why, in spite of that, do you perhaps perceive that I still put a strong emphasis on individual factors?
One of my biggest pet peeves is whining. I can't stand whining. I'm empathetic to a great many things, I pride myself on my ability to consider things from other people's perspectives in fact, but even then, my sympathy has limits. And one of the fastest ways to make me lose sympathy for your cause is for you to start whining about it. We've all got a sob story, and rare is the stranger who will care about yours.
There's a very fine line between whining, and suffering just the right amount of righteous indignation so that you're actually motivated to go out and do something about what's bothering you. A very fine line indeed. It's a tough line to navigate, it requires judgement. We would never be motivated to change anything at all if we didn't suffer some sort of emotional wound. And "doing something" may, indeed, involve enlisting other people to our cause. But you have to thread the needle where you manage to do all that without being a bitch about it.
I'm not criticizing lonely men from the outside. I'm on the inside with all of you! I have a long history of being spectacularly unsuccessful with women. Like, actually embarrassing shit that I still cringe about when I remember years later. I'm a weirdo autist, I can't hold a normal conversation with a normal human. Women, predictably, find these traits repellent. So I know what it's like to suffer.
But I don't just go bitch and moan in the corner about how the world's unfair and how people should like me more and how we need "communism for pussy" as @HughCaulk so eloquently put it. What I do instead is I look in the mirror and say, "I'm a weirdo autist. That's not going to change. That's what we have to work with. So it's time to figure out how to make the best of that, rather than getting all mopey about it."
You are, apparently, suffering from some financial troubles. I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. But there are lots of poor people who fuck, y'know? There are poor people fucking right now, as we speak. There are even poor people in committed long term relationships. You could be one of them. What's stopping you?
It always comes back to your attitude, y'know? Forget about the structural and the individual and the historical and the metapsychological and whatever the fuck else it is. Think about your attitude first. Are you happy with your attitude, or are you being a bitch? Start there.
those are requirements to date the actually desirable girls.
What do you consider to be an actually desirable girl, exactly? Just curious. Because I feel like my own criteria is not the norm.
What dating crisis? This is just the almighty hand of the free market at work. Standards are high, as they inevitably will be when all parties are equally free to enter into voluntary associations.
We need to take "collective action as a society" to remove impediments to men's access to women (including, presumably, the "ugly, mean, and poor bottom 50%" of men) -- yeah, ok, have you asked the women how they feel about that? "I have this plan that will make it more likely for you to date someone who's ugly, mean, and poor". Wtf that's a terrible sales pitch.
Guaranteed monogamy for all is nothing more than the socialized ownership of the means of reproduction.
I'm not left of center, but I'll comment anyway.
Of course he's correct. Of course people want to feel like underdogs, of course they want to feel like they have their own "secret club" that the Squares In Power don't have access to. Like, duh. The right is very much not immune to this. Being the underdog lends moral credibility to your cause, it galvanizes your base, there's an intrinsic thrill to the feeling of powerlessness itself, etc.
But, and here's the kicker, all of this applies to the left too. And he's so close to getting it, he's describing everything perfectly, "for the right it's really all about their libidinal investment in their own symbolic matrix of floating signifiers, they love the struggle itself more than what they struggle for, the goal of every political cause is ultimately just to reproduce itself", and I'm nodding along going yes yes yes... but then he has to tack on, "but of course the left isn't like this at all, when we talk about microaggressions it's just a purely rational response to objective conditions of oppression, there's nothing libidinal to analyze there, no siree", and I'm like... no you were so close! Everything you were saying about the right applies to the left too, they're exactly the same in this regard.
I not infrequently have this experience when reading posts from leftists, where they're right on the ball and they're so close to understanding everything, and then at the last minute they veer off into "...but of course, we are Good and they are Evil, and that is the chasm that separates us". Their ideology is axiomatically predicated on the explicit denial of this aspect of their own psyche, so they remain forever blind to it.
The problem with freeing and protecting women from men is that you must also free and protect women from women. … the propaganda about men being the real evil exists specifically to confuse these women about this issue
Huh?
In complete seriousness, when guys complain that it would be so nice to have a body with intrinsic value in others' eyes, why do they not explore the many places where this is already true?
It's a good question!
So, this is something that happens from time to time, straight men going into various types of gay spaces for attention and validation. And I have occasionally heard a few straight men say they wish they were gay, because it seems like it would be easier. But obviously for the majority of straight men, these are hard limits, they would never even think about going there.
My whole post was basically about how the whole "intrinsic value" thing has both good aspects and bad aspects. It's not a panacea (but it's not a uniquely awful tragedy either). So a man who thought that getting lots of free sexual attention would somehow solve his problems would be making the same mistake as the overly-bitter feminist who imagines that men have access to a special level of existential authenticity that she is forbidden.
What breaks the symmetry in your example is the fact that straight women do, actually, find at least some men attractive some of the time. Some of the attention she gets throughout her life will be from creepy undesirables. But some of it will be from men who are genuinely attractive, and who she may be attracted to in turn, and who she may judge to be good romantic partners. Drawbacks, but also benefits; thinking about the whole dynamic over the course of a lifetime, rather than just one night at the club. A straight man getting attention from gay men has a zero percent chance of ever finding any of the potential suitors desirable, which obviously puts a different spin on the experience. It's the difference between "lots of people want something of value from me, and some of them may be able to pay a fair price" and "lots of people want something of value from me, and none of them will be able to pay a fair price".
Yes, but that was the whole point of the comment you were replying to. “You think being able to get sexual attention from men (many of whom will in fact be gross and old) is so great? Well, how would YOU like some male sexual attention?”
Well, y’know, it actually does! Every social practice that humans have ever engaged in throughout history has confirmed this fact.
So a man has to find something with which to supplement his value. This is no Herculean task, the barrier is very much intended to be surmountable. There are many types of goods and labors that men exchange for access to women’s bodies. But the point is that he has to find something; he’s not born with it.
- Prev
- Next
Speak for yourself!
More options
Context Copy link