faceh
15hr ago
This is my diagnosis.
There's a solid number of women who are absolutely down to clown if you get them in the mood. They don't just talk the talk.
But many, MANY of them get engrossed in the fantasy, they read the romantasy books, watch the shows and movies, maybe even watch the porn, and will engage in massive amounts of dirty talk, digitally, but are terrified of having the actual physical interaction. Maybe they dip a toe in and then immediately retreat back to the safe, comfortable world of fiction.
And in some cases, if you end up part of their fantasy world, and then break that fantasy in some way, either from rejecting them, or giving them the ick, or, hell, you actually help them act on the urges but your performance isn't up to snuff (good luck living up to minotaur standards), and they get incandescently angry at you.
Something about the collapsing of the ideal they imagined to the dirtier, lacklustre reality leads to disappointment that manifests as anger.
Its something like accepted knowledge that women get off way more on the mental side of sex whereas men, despite being very visual, really need physical interaction to be completely sated. Hence why strip clubs for women aren't really a thing. And current tech is much more catered towards entertaining the mental aspects of sexuality, whilst keeping the physical at a 'safe' distance. So I'd guess many women now have a completely enclosed, fantasy-centric approach to their pleasure, and the thought of making the jump to realspace is daunting.
faceh
15hr ago
Men will have interest in it insofar as it can lead to meeting attractive women.
I just think 'you're only doing this to get in my pants' is a reaction women often have when the guy enters the female-oriented space.
From what I've seen, mom is the source of the problem, wants to control her so she doesn't get into trouble but also wants to be 'best friends' with her.
The habits she's built up are probably quite set now.
faceh
1d ago
I have managed to find a balance where I can have a jovial atmosphere around the office, keep morale up by occasionally going out to dinner with staff but otherwise keeping healthy distance such that I don't engage with their personal lives much and definitely don't have text conversations about non work stuff that might lead elsewhere.
That said, since legal assistants tend to either be young women in their early 20's OR older, 50+ ladies, I do see the temptation that arises when you've got a nubile young thing around a bunch of Type A personalities.
I know of at least one attorney who imploded his personal life (not his law practice, funny enough) by getting an assistant pregnant.
We do a Christmas party that involves our other offices every year, and like 5 years back one of the attractive younger assistants got pretty drunk and was hitting on me slyly but openly. The means and opportunity was there, but equal parts concern for my job AND the fact I was still with my ex at the time kept me from acting. In all retrospect, since the assistant left the firm not too long thereafter, and the Ex broke up with me, it probably wouldn't have done much harm in the end. But its the principle of the thing.
It didn't even leave that much impression, since I cannot even remember the assistant's name. Else I might have tried to look her up after the breakup.
faceh
1d ago
I sometimes ask LLMs to do Fermi estimates on the number of single women in the U.S. who meet certain sets of criteria in terms of their eligibility as a partner.
Those results are usually disheartening on their own. But I haven't dared ask what percentage of those women are actually 'on the market' in any real sense, that is, available such that you might encounter them if your social surface area is reasonably large.
I fear that a relatively chaste/modest, low maintenance woman is also less likely to be out and about and open to meeting people. If you do see them in the real world you'll pass like ships in the night. AI boyfriends might exacerbate this.
I go to restaurants and bars these days and the phenomenon of "woman sitting by herself but dressed up like she wants attention" doesn't seem to be a thing (if it ever was?). You see older adults (in my area, anyway), a few mixed groups, usually one (1) lady's group sitting all together, and a smattering of couples or lone dudes.
More and more young adults living with parents gives a hint here.
Last year I encountered an extremely tragic case of a young lady, cute, petite but pleasantly curvaceous, smart, but her entire life was just working in her parents' business, taking classes, then home to live with her parents, where she played LoL or Overwatch until like 1 a.m.. If she went out it was usually with the same 3 people. Desperately seemed to want a relationship, but didn't know a damn thing about flirting and... get this... at age 25 her mother still controlled her bank account.
I don't think she realized how much of a honking red flag that last bit was, a guy won't want to date a woman whose mother has that much sway over her life at that age. She didn't get out to social events often enough to meet many guys, and wouldn't know how to converse with them if she did. And, alas, she turned my own offer/request for a date down.
She's like 80% of the way to being the complete package for a stable, friendly type of guy, but I daresay she'll hit 30 without a serious relationship under her belt unless she gets out from under Mom's thumb and puts herself out there while avoiding the pitfalls of modern romance.
Yep.
Dance classes/socials at least anticipate that you'll be interacting with the other members, and physically touching them, and getting to show off a skill.
The logic as to why single men would be able to pull attention there is at least sound... if there's a decent gender ratio.
Classes where you just show up, do some work on your own at an instructors behest, then leave without much of a fraternization period might encourage familiarity over the course of time. But that means the guy has to keep showing up, repeatedly, to show he's not just there to pull women, and HOPE that one he finds attractive is open to approach. Not a very active approach angle.
I teach Krav Maga classes at my gym, and when people, especially women, are new they tend to come in two minutes before class, do the class, then bolt, but warm up over time to the social aspect of it. If they don't, they often disappear within a few weeks.
But I've noticed a somewhat unfortunate selection effect where the single ladies who want to take the classes often have sexual assault, stalkers, or similar trauma that compelled them to seek out such training. And they thus have personal issues that make them a little wary of male attention in general.
So ultimately, the sort of event where:
A) Attractive, single women would attend;
B) They're actually actively looking for partners/accept approaches;
C) Aren't damaged goods;
D) Interaction between men and women is encouraged;
and
D) There's a balanced gender ratio.
Just do not seem to exist hardly anywhere, even when people try to intentionally create such spaces.
One's workplace might be good for this but huge risks there.
faceh
1d ago
Does pilates encourage interaction between the participants?
And ask any given woman what she thinks of random straight guys showing up to her pilates class.
faceh
1d ago
Not in my local area, distinctly the opposite.
But given the type of woman who signs up for speed dating (read: they aren't getting much attention elsewhere) men may have caught on as to the selection effects at work.
lso a lot of women don't understand how to do the intermediary stages of the dance where they make themselves available but also do some mild shit testing
Yep, separate but related issue. Young women don't know how to flirt, nor how to gracefully reject advances (or reject them in a way that encourages future attempts). I used to think it was just me being autistic, but nah. Often the signal just isn't there.
when they've dropped the handkerchief via liking 2 IG stories and stonewalling DMs. Literally seen women crying over failing to inspire hot pursuit vis texting conduct on their part that, to me if received from an online dating match would have me assume that they're soft dumping me.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I've also taken the initiative to push forward whenever I see any positive sign of interest whatsoever and gotten HARD rejected when I finally cross whatever threshold of comfort the woman apparently held in her mind. There's no push-pull. Its just me pushing pushing pushing then an ABRUPT pull away when some arbitrary line is crossed.
Like, I've legitimately heard a woman say that even viewing someone's IG/Snap Stories should be an actual hint, but then you follow up on such things and try to ask to meet up in person and they are suddenly super busy and can't make the time. Because guess what, in person you're expected to use your words and physical touch and you're not 'protected' by a digital barrier of plausible deniability any longer.
Something about the dopamine hit of being desired and getting the other party to express interest being enough stimulation, then the actual stress/tension of actually reciprocating interest seems to snag many of them.
faceh
1d ago
Is there a canonical definition, however? I say this with genuine curiosity / bewilderment. Capitalism, to my mind, is an economic condition bounded by certain conditions. I didn't know (and I am dubious) about there being a temporal aspect to it.
I think its just a rhetorical trick to suggest that the transition from Capitalism to something else is nigh, and all the weird, distasteful, negative aspects of society right now are therefore proof that we're near the end.
And maybe, by continually suggesting this, actually encourage behaviors that bring the transition about?
"Late" as a temporal stage can only be defined in relation to the actual end of a thing, right? If the end is indefinite, it is incoherent to identify something as 'late' prior to it actually ending/resetting.
Not like anyone is going to call them on their missed prediction if we're still doing Capitalism in 30-300 years.
faceh
1d ago
Well the original Woodstock had the benefit of there being a Documentary crew on site and, in the final cut, basically valorized the entire thing rather than focusing on the controversies or failings.
And I'm sure most people formed good memories of it in retrospect.
Boomer Lore, basically.
They had some great music, that much is true.
Woodstock was a last big hurrah before reality set in. The Altamont free concert where some Hells Angels killed a concertgoer (and a bunch of other stuff) happened a mere 4 months later.
So they go from genuinely believing that free love, free drugs, and free music had the power to change and fix the world, to eventually facing down the fact that all of those things had some major downsides.
This encapsulates my entire objection to the Apps as a class.
Regardless of how they advertise the intentions of their service, the ONLY thing they 'promise' is to show your profile to other people, and to initiate a connection if you both click 'like.'
They have done no vetting, their algorithm is sorting your matches but makes no guarantees as to quality, and they give you no recourse if your match doesn't pan out despite doing everything 'right.'
They abdicate all responsibility for filtering and policing and otherwise giving any useful feedback, basically disclaiming any blame for what happens after the match. WHICH IS THE PART THAT MATTERS.
And yet, they expect to be paid money for this service, and refuse to openly admit they can't help police people's behavior, continually implying the blame lies solely with the user.
This would be intolerable in about any other industry.
Anyway, if I were going to pass just one law to regulate these apps without banning them outright, I'd require they post their 'success rates' for the average user (by gender) for both achieving matches, and achieving actual relationships.
And have these appear on the screen for like 5 seconds every time you boot into the app.
If you're going to turn dating into a casino, you should be required to post the odds.
I've observed it multiple times over the last 4 years.
Any space that is likely to have attractive, single females to interact with in a group setting will quickly draw males who want to interact with such women, and inherently, more guys show up for this explicit purpose. So there DOES NOT exist any mythical IRL space where a straight guy can enter and find a favorable gender ratio to work with. Other than a college campus, perhaps. Other males would notice and also come to exploit it.
This creates the gender imbalance, and the attention/distraction gets overwhelming for some of the women, who might stop showing up altogether (or go to events specifically reserved for women).
This further throws off the Gender imbalance, and also might block new women from joining. No woman is seeking out a space because she heard it had an excess of single guys. And even if some of the guys give up and leave, there'll be plenty more new guys coming in to try their luck, so this imbalance can persist for a while.
So the only women who continue show up are extraordinarily confident... or already have partners. This is maybe the final blow, when the remaining pool of women are already partnered, and drag their partners in with them so that the actual ratio of single women to men is even worse than it appears.
So you can legitimately have like 5+ single guys for every 1-2 single women in attendance.
This happens in any space that doesn't intentionally filter by gender.
I've also commented on the difficulty of getting women to show up to social gatherings even when directly invited. If there aren't other women already going, they're less likely to show up themselves. Even when they claim to want to go they have a decent chance of flaking.
The ability to ensure that a certain number of attractive women will be present is thus very, very valuable.
Most spaces/events don't have someone with this capability.
I'm not entirely sure why this is, because dating apps don't seem to particularly work for women either. Maybe the illusion of abundance is enough to keep them from thinking that they need to meet people in real life? Maybe they're all in a situationship with the same man (lol)? Maybe women just have stronger social connections in general and don't need to do something like dancing to meet people?
Partially that they seem to have female friend groups that they can spend time with.
Partially because a lot of women, esp. those with anxiety and other mental issues, find it easier to just stay home and binge Netflix or play games online and build "communities" in Discord or similar.
I know of an upsetting number of women whose lives are basically "work/school, outings for shopping and then... staying in at home, nose shoved in their phone with a TV show on background." They're being 'social' in that they're texting/chatting with a bunch of people, but their actual social presence IRL is virtually nil, and it is VERY hard to coax them out of this cocoon.
Ask me how I know. Female shut-ins are an increasing phenomenon, I think.
And because the underlying logic of romance is "men chase, women select," guess what happens if women don't make themselves 'available'? Men have fewer people to chase, and women have no pressure to take any 'active' steps to find someone.
faceh
1d ago
There are several other similar islamic nations in that particular area that have sided with the U.S., at least nominally.
faceh
2d ago
Yeah, it surely helped that these guy were absolute no-names so no need to get prissy about the physical demands/possible injuries.
Which created a bit of a contrast when Ruhian and Rahman showed up in John Wick 3 and the fact that it was choreographed and they were pulling punches and waiting their turn was blatant by comparison. Not really buying it, even if they bother to spotlight the respect the fighters have for him.
Sorry John, if it is hand-to-hand then Mad Dog solos you.
Okay, to contrast and add to the point, the OTHER time I saw a two-on-one was that was a believable challenge is that infamous Mission Impossible fight. "Yeah, I can accept Henry Cavill getting bodied by an Asian half his size, that guy is badass."
faceh
2d ago
The first Raid movie was the first time I watched a martial arts film that sold me on the "these guys aren't choreographed, they're hitting each other for real" element.
Which simply means that they were immaculately choreographed, but the EVERY strike was delivered like they wanted the other guy dead. And still maybe only time I've seen a two-on-one fight where I truly believed the two weren't holding back and the one was still winning.
faceh
2d ago
The MI series truly peaked with 4. Tom climbing the Burj Khalifa still puckers my butthole to watch.
After that they had the formula perfected so they remain extremely entertaining and work on the strength of their script and the chemistry Tom has with everyone. So they're all eminently watchable.
I kind of assumed their personality got wiped once she took them over, but maybe that's just cope to protect my psyche, because that is fucking horrific.
I think this was semi-confirmed when the ending said that some of the kids managed to learn to talk again. Oh, and they had a clip of a nature documentary about the Cordyceps parasite.
Honestly could go either way. If there was a full personality wipe then some of the deaths are a tad less tragic since it wasn't actually 'killing' the person... they were dead as soon as their brain got wiped.
I guess it just logically makes sense to me that if Gladys was clearly able to hijack the lower brain functions, the motor cortex and some of the basic primal instincts (i.e., switch off pain reception... or at least the ability to react to pain) the higher brain functions/awareness were probably still 'intact' but just couldn't override the commands given to the lower function.
(obviously, killing something that is sockpuppeting body of a loved one is still pretty freaking horrifying/traumatic even if they're not sentient)
You're clearly a big movie person, you need to watch both ASAP
I really have to be in the right mood for horror, is the thing.
faceh
2d ago
I still see the uncertain and unknown as aspects of powerlessness.
Right, I'm mostly agreeing. But I'm just making the point that even the most powerful person around still fears the unknown.
Even if the unknown turns out to not be all that dangerous, later. I guess "powerlessness against the inevitable mechanisms of fate" is still powerlessness.
Fear of death, well, that's largely about uncertainty about what comes after, so those with immense faith aren't really afraid of it. What makes the SCP files frightening is usually the implications of the redacted stuff that your brain has to fill in details on, somewhat less about the actual abilities of the thing in question.
There's the fear that comes from the near certainty of what is going to happen, and then futilely trying to avoid it.
Huh. Here's an innovative idea for a horror film: what could scare an omnipotent god?
The Exorcist is a great example, the movie is a giant metaphor for parents feeling powerless to help a sick kid.
Yep.
Weapons played with this as well, I loved Josh Brolin's character. And kind of gets to my point. He was a man of action, he didn't believe he was powerless, and they played with that to comedic effect while he was tossing the druggie around. But when your kid is missing, there's a feeling of helplessness there.
I wouldn't consider Aliens' main genre to be horror because for the most part the marines don't feel helpless,
Well, like I said, I tend to like films that hide the horror until later. It was definitely a rip-roaring 80's adventure movie for almost half of it.
faceh
2d ago
Saw Raid II in theaters and was BLOWN AWAY. High expectations from the first one and they topped it in every conceivable way.
Even the goofy bits (girl with hammers and batboy) worked really well in-context.
That giant brawl in the mud pit at the prison is one of my favorite scenes because all the 'skill' sort of goes out the window as everyone is slipping around barely able to stand, but the brutality of the moves are still fully there. Another of those "how are those guys not dead?" movies.
It indeed taps into the root of horror: powerlessness.
Hah, while I don't disagree I never really found that to be the core of horror for me.
For me its always 'uncertainty' and fear of the unknown/poorly understood.' I think that's why The Ring did resonate for me. Its all this shit happening to you for reasons you simply do not understand and its clearly building to something but having little time to figure it out, and the further along you get the 'less' sense everything makes.
And by the end... it turns out you DO have the power to escape your fate... but only by condemning others/playing into the evil's plan.
I also like films that play with the cold, uncaring nature of fate/the universe where you can do everything 'right', make all kinds of necessary preparations, and still lose when random circumstance plays out just so.
Hell, I love Aliens because the characters are armed to the fuckin' teeth, and the horror comes when they realize the actual magnitude of the threat. All the power they have and it might barely be enough to win... or not. Similar with the original Predator.
Now, if you throw in the element where some other person you care about is powerless and you are tasked with trying to help/save them in the face of massive uncertainty, that's what gets me. Like when Ripley arms up with the exosuit to fight the queen and save newt... Get away from her you BITCH, indeed.
The Bourne movies have one of the best sequences to this effect. Bourne frantically trying to save Nikki Parsons from an implacable assassin, sprinting across rooftops while she's trying to evade the guy (and, consequently, Bourne has difficulty tracking her). Hell, even earlier in the movie, when he's trying to help the reporter escape capture.
Being a powerful guy and still being uncertain if it'll be enough to survive, or save the day? THAT starts to scare me.
My personal benchmark on Horror films is The Ring which was innovative as it was a monster movie but the monster doesn't appear until the end, after the fakeout that things were 'fixed,' and most of the horror is the sense of dread that permeates the film.
And that movie only 'works' because of that brief period where CRT TVs, VHS tapes, and landline phones were the most common tech of the day. I don't think you could remake it effectively now!
And as I understand it the recent crop of horror films avoid this issue by making the horror come from psychological conditions that may or may not have a literal personification onscreen, sort of a 'the monster is inside you the whole time' concept, or more abstract "racism/sexism/right wing politics/relationship drama" as the looming allegorical danger.
I think what I mean wrt horror films is that they inherently play with the same tropes over and over again. Body Horror, Jumpscares, indestructible/implacable entity that wants YOU, specifically, dead, straight up gore (hello, Terrifier 3), psychological uncertainty (am I crazy or not?), various metaphors for sexual assault, and the occasional thick layer of existentialism.
I haven't heard of one that really breaks the mold of audience expectations in a while. Cabin in the Woods was innovative for satirizing how formulaic they tended to be.
I watched Weapons last year, and it was a satisfyingly entertaining movie, and the ending was great. But after the initial mystery of "Where the fuck did those kids go" resolves, I felt pretty disconnected. The film wisely switches over to 'action' mode whenever the pace starts to lull. And the concept of being 'locked in' and conscious whilst your body is compelled to commit violence against people you care about is indeed horrifying.
I just feel no need to watch the film again!
Perhaps the most 'innovative' recent horror movie I saw was 2014's The Guest. And it was innovative in the sense that the 'horror' element was hiding in plain sight, then escalates to the point where its basically a straight-up slasher movie... but also with competent action. Oh, also Bone Tomahawk (same year) for hiding behind a Western facade for 90 minutes and whipping out the horror only after you've gotten comfortable that the movie plays by the standard Western rules. I feel a need to watch the film again... but not sure if I can stomach it.
I guess I just like Horror movies that masquerade as something else so you don't KNOW what they're trying to do until it is too late. Straight horror movies generally have me anticipating most of the scary bits well before they happen. Also it always annoys me when the core danger in the film could be handily solved with a gun.
But I do have to retreat from my argument about horror not doing much innovative for decades. I've also heard good things about Nosferatu and Midsommar.
I've basically resorted to telling any women who suggest mere friendship "I literally have all the good friends I need or want." Nicely, but making it clear I'm not that guy who will remain in orbit indefinitely.
Now, if I know them as part of an existing friend network or through work or because I happen to run into them on semi-regular occasions, fine. I can pop by, be friendly and engaging, and see where it goes. I just won't be fielding long, emotional text conversations or helping them move heavy objects.
The effort required to put up even the facade of friendship with multiple women doesn't seem worth it unless she is actively wing(wo)manning for you. And maintaining mere 'facades' of friendship is way too manipulative/dishonest for my taste.
And my experience with women wingmen is laughable. They'll bring this one friend who is "single and super nice that you should meet" to a gathering. And she's 50+ pounds overweight or a major butterface and usually poor social skills to boot (i.e. there's reasons she's single). So you have to politely reject without either insulting your friend or the referral.
Happened to me 2, maybe 3 times in the past 5 years? And if you're out and about they'll suggest the most insane approaches to you. "You should talk to that 45-year-old cougar-looking lady with the back tattoo!"
Yes, having female friends is important so you can have a some social proof you're not a creepy loser and have access to her potentially single friends, but don't expect them to be that big a help in landing one.
More options
Context Copy link