This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm dragging up the gender, dating, and fertility discourse for one last rodeo.
The below analysis is a possible infohazard for young single males. It contains analysis done by LLMs, but I solemnly swear I drafted this through my own brainpower, using AI only for the analysis I was too lazy to do myself.
I'm following upon a comment I made about a year ago that pulled out some raw numbers on the quality of women in the U.S., and how this might impact the desire of men to actually develop themselves and find one of those women and settle down.
At the time I didn't bother doing the work to produce an actual estimate of how many women would match the basic crtieria, given that these are NOT independent variables. The though occurred to me that AIs are the perfect solution for exactly this type of laziness, and now have the capability to do this task without completely making up numbers.
So, based on my old post, I chose 9 particular criteria that I think would ‘fairly’ qualify a woman as ‘marriageable.':
Single and looking (of course).
Cishet, and thus not LGBT identified.
Not ‘obese.’
Not a mother already.
No ‘acute’ mental illness.
No STI.
Less than $50,000 in student loan debt.
5 or fewer sex partners (‘bodies’).
Under age 30.
And ask both ChatGPT and Grok to attempt to estimate the actual population of women in the U.S. that pass all these filters, accounting for how highly correlated each of the variables are.
Notable criteria I omitted:
Religious affiliation
Race
Political affiliation
Career
Drug use
Sex work/Onlyfans
I argue that a reasonable man would NOT want to ‘compromise’ on any of the original criteria, whereas the omitted ones are comparatively negotiable, or alternatively, are already captured in one of the original criteria.
Would you accept a woman who was carrying $50k in student loan debt into the relationship? I guess maybe if she was a doctor or lawyer or made enough money to justify it. Much higher than that and it starts to suggest financial recklessness.
5 as a body count is definitely an ‘arbitrary’ number, but again, you get much above that and it implies more bad decision-making. Ditto for being STI positive.
The age one is probably the most ‘unfair,’ but if having kids is a goal then this is pretty close to the ‘reasonable’ cutoff given the ticking fertility clock. Adjust upward if needed, I guess.
Here is the ChatGPT conversation. I used o3 in this case.
Here is Grok, specifically Grok 3.
In each case I used the “Deep Research” mode for the main query. I used identical prompts to start them off, they each seemingly did slightly different interpretations of the prompt. I was not using any fancy, complex prompt engineering to try and force it to think like a statistician or avoid hallucinations.
ChatGPT Gives this conclusion:
Grok comes to quite the similar conclusion:
Then I asked the truly cursed followup question: “how many men in the U.S. might be seeking these eligible women and thus how much competition is there for this population? How many are likely to ‘fail.’"
ChatGPT:
Emphasis Mine.
Grok:
Then the followup, when I tell it to extend the age range:
The error bars are pretty large on this one... the 9-out-of-10 number doesn't quite pass the smell test... but I think the point speaks for itself.
I don’t want to say that this is bleak, per se. I mean, 1 million or so women in the U.S. with some decent marriageable bonafides. That’s not a small pool! The problem stems from noticing that said women will have somewhere upwards of 5 men, possibly near 27 who will be competing for their affections, or more if they’re near the absolute peak of physical attractiveness.
Hence my increasing annoyance with the bog standard advice proffered to young males “become worthy and put in some effort and you will find a good woman” as it becomes increasingly divorced from the actual reality on the ground.
It’s not wrong. It is incomplete. Insufficient. If we increase the number of “worthy” men, that’s just intensifying the competition for the desirable women… while ALSO ensuring that more of those ‘worthy’ men will lose and go unfulfilled, DESPITE applying their efforts towards “worthiness.”
You CAN’T tell young men both “be better, improve, you have to DESERVE a good woman before you get one!” and then, when he improves:
“oh, you have to lower your standards, just because you thought you deserved a stable, chaste(ish), physically fit partner doesn’t mean you’re entitled to one, world ain’t fair.”
That dog won’t hunt.
Thems the numbers. I’m not making this up wholesale or whining about advice because I find it uncomfortable. No. The math is directly belying the platitudes. I’m too autistic NOT to notice.
So where am I going with this?
First, I’m hoping, praying someone can actually show me evidence that this is wrong. All of my personal experience, anecdotal observations, research, and my gut fucking instinct all points to this being an accurate model of reality. But I am fallible.
If I’m wrong I want to know!
I’m also not particularly worried about ME in general. I am in a good position to find a good woman, even though I’m sick of all the numerous frustrations and inanities one has to endure to do so. I get annoyed when someone, even in good faith, tries to suggest that my complaints are more mental than real. I can see the numbers, I've been in the trenches for years, this is a true phenomena, the competition is heavy, the prizes are... lacking.
And finally and most importantly, I genuinely feel the only way we keep the Ferris Wheel of organized civilization turning is if average women are willing to marry average men, and stay married, and help raise kids. I’m all for pushing the ‘average’ quality up, as long as actual relationships are forming.
Objectively, that is not happening. And so I’m worried because if society breaks down... well, I live here and I don't like what that implies for me, either.
(Yes, AGI is possibly/probably going to make this all a moot point before it all really collapses)
I find some of the cutoff criteria rather questionable. Is >=5 sexual partners that bad? Wouldn't be a deal breaker to me, but if they broke double digits and weren't unlucky serial monogamists, I'd raise an eyebrow.
A hard cutoff of the age of 30? Nonsense, you can cross that by half a decade before having at least 2 kids becomes an uphill struggle.
Obesity? Not ideal, but we live in the Age of Ozempic. It's a solvable issue, if everything else was fine.
I feel like a more realistic model would use a point or percentile system, weighted by how much the average man cares about things. Has had 8 sexual partners, but is hot and filthy rich? I bet my ass 9/10 men would overlook that.
At any rate, my experience is that assortative matching works pretty well, and whatever someone's "sexual market value" is, they tend to find someone else who is a close fit. This can entail compromises on different axes, maybe you'd accept someone being below average looking if they were smart and kind. Or a hot model snagging a balding and chubby multimillionaire.
I only observe the US dating scene from a great distance, but as others point out, people aren't suffering that badly.
At the end of the day, if you're trying to sell yourself for more than others think you're worth, you'll find yourself with no buyers. And in the marriage market, your value will inevitably decline at some point, age being the most likely reason. Of course, if some 37 year old career woman malds about not finding a 6'3 witty finance guy with a strong family orientation, then she either settles for less, or decides that she won't settle and goes unmarried. This applies both ways.
Your analysis strikes me as catastrophizing, directionally correct but magnitudinally wrong.
You go much above that and it has a VERY noticeable impact on divorce rates which guys are aware of.
I would admit that many guys would accept it, of course. But that says more about THEM, I think.
But if you were talking to a 23-25 year old women who admits to 6, 7, 8 whatever, what does that imply about her decision-making?
And suffice it to say, even if you exclude that criteria entirely, it doesn't really fix the ratio problem.
Check in on Gen Z sometime.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-much-of-gen-z-will-be-unmarried-at-40
Show the countervailing evidence. I beg you.
Relationship formation is in freefall across the fucking planet, I think 'catastrophe' is actually a fair characterization.
Make that a 23-25 year old man, and what does that imply about his decision-making? You can't have it both ways: you can't have "the guys get to sow their wild oats but then there is a crop of fresh virgin brides when they decide to settle down", or else you get "the fresh virgin brides are snagged by the 40-50 year old successful men leaving the 23-25 year old guys to be incels".
Unless we had a sex ratio where there's one man for every two, three or four women, we are not going to get "Joe gets to sleep with a ton of hot chicks while he's young and randy before he settles down to be a family man husband and father aged thirty, but Josie only has one boyfriend since high school who she marries, or if he breaks up with her, she then finds a guy at college and marries him aged twenty-three". The numbers will not work out. Joe, Bob, Bill, Sam, Phil, Ben and Tom can't sleep with ten girls each unless those ten girls all sleep with ten guys each to keep the access equitable. Certainly Joe can sleep with ten girls if he's hot and rich etc. but that means Bob, Sam, etc. don't get to sleep with those girls or only get to sleep with one or two girls instead of the ten they envy Joe for getting.
That's the point I want to get across: both sexes do not get to eat their cake and have it. Joe can't have a stream of girls to have fun with and then settle down with a maiden bride because there aren't enough spare women for each man to have a string of sexual adventures but each girl he sleeps with only sleeps with two or three men over her dating life. Josie can't sleep around like a guy and not face consequences because the good old double standard and when she wants to settle down to be a family woman wife and mother aged thirty, the men in her age range will still be looking for the twenty-three year old maiden bride instead.
I understand you're a woman and you feel this is unfair, but further up faceh posts an article claiming that 80% of women are sleeping with 20% of men.
How much more sex-suppression can there be done among men? Female selection is already enforcing the sex suppression. 80% of men are receiving lower than average amounts of sex!
How much room is left on the female side? Well, 20% of men are running through 80% of the women. It's a small share of men creating the "bodies" problem, while 80% of women are cooperating! Why is it that this smacks of double standards to you?
I don't know if I believe the 80/20 thing, but part of the problem is the divide between what men want from sex (sex), what women want from sex (intimacy) and that there are men who want love and romance and women who want sex and no strings attached.
The plaint is that it's easy for women to have sex, that a single woman can just go out and hook up with a guy whereas a single guy has to jump through all kinds of hoops. Yes. Think about that. Men have such low/no standards that "a standing prick hath no conscience" so if the woman isn't actively repellent, they'll sleep with her. That's where we get the "a woman can have sex just for the asking" part.
Meanwhile, women want (I'm not going to deny it) casual sex too, but a lot of women want "sex AND", where it may be as simple as "sex with the hot/desirable guy" or more complicated with "sex with the guy I'm hoping will commit" or "sex turned into feelings and now I can't leave even though I know this is just a fling for him".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link