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 -
So much clueless discourse and blathering on here really makes me think that a lot of people here have rather interestingly false conceptions of the gap between them and an attractive man in terms of dating success. That's not to speak of the absolutely massive gap between the average man and the average woman that I think could do with some amount of rectification though the use of a couple particularly pertinent examples. In short-- the average man i.e a guy who would probably get rated a 6 or 7 by most people is virtually invisible to women online to a degree that's frankly quite horrific when you compare it to the experience of an attractive man. The average guy could probably expect to reasonably manage about 5 to 10 likes a day, probably dropping off to less than that after the first week, with maybe a couple matches a week and perhaps 1 out of 50 matches actually converting to a date and an even smaller proportion converting to anything more significant than that. That doesn't sound too bad, right?
The thing is, an attractive man isn't just getting say 10% more matches, or even just doubling their matches. The amount of attention they get from women usually dwarfs the average male by several orders of magnitude. The top profiles on Tinder, Hinge, Bumble, are maxing out the like counter in give or take under an hour, the rungs below that with ease in under a day and so on and so forth. There are plenty of men who are not rich, not famous, not exceptional in any way really other than the face God gave them and perhaps the muscles Trenbolone gave them (though if you're thinking steroids alone will make you one of these men, you're living in a world of delusion-- women want the complete package) breaking 20,000 matches in relatively modest sized metro areas like Copenhagen, Stockholm or Denver. I should probably note that these profiles are typically white men though, as funnily enough even here racial gaps manifest, though this is frankly a matter of degrees, as even these disadvantaged attractive men of color are usually not lacking for women-- but it's going to be generally significantly less attractive and desirable women and they'll have to be a point or two better than their white counterpart to compete. These men have such an abundance of choice and easy access to women that they effectively dwell in a completely separate reality when compared to the average man-- they are the pickers and choosers and have no desperate need to compromise or settle down with one woman. Think of the gap between a man with 70 IQ and a man with 160 IQ in terms of capacity for intellectual output and perhaps multiply that gap a few times and you'll have a somewhat decent grasp of the dynamic in play here.
No amount of game or self improvement will ever get you close to that if you lack the genetic basis for it. It's like thinking a 70 IQ man can become a world class physicist and win the Nobel prize if he just tried hard enough-- the world doesn't work that way.
It's well known that attractive women have their pick of the litter, but I'll just add in that a woman need not be particularly attractive to be bombarded with options. The average girl you see on the street could open any dating app and find literal thousands of men throwing themselves at her within a day, maybe two or three if she's a bit ungifted in the face. Though as with attractive men, there's a pretty big gap between the kinds and amount of attention that white women get, and every other race of woman, including Asian women (of the northeastern and southern varieties) and having blue or green eyes supercharges this a surprising amount.
Here's an album of proof
There isn't nearly enough context in that gallery to prove your point.
To be honest, what strikes me most is how unattractive the guys in that gallery are. Gosh, doesn't Finn look like a git? A lot of those guys look like total pillocks. I am glad I don't look like any of those guys, and I regularly get complimented on my appearance by women in real life.
What I see here is an extreme generalisation with firstly little evidence that it's true on dating apps, and secondly little reason to believe that even if it's true on dating apps, it generalises to anything in real life.
As a woman, it's hard to figure out who his "incest, cannibalism and John 3:16" blub is attracting. Finn looks pretty average, kind of douchy.
My advice in general would be for guys to take photos from below, girls take photos from above, maybe seek a professional photographer if it's that important.
Yeah, I can't imagine who sees that line and thinks "exactly my type!" though there may be matches from girls just looking for some fun but nothing serious. Nikola, for instance: that would be fun if intense but short experience, but definitely not long-term boyfriend material, much less husband. Much too aware of how good he looks and poses like a romance cover model. He'd be kissing your hand and handing over a bouquet of thirteen red roses while at the same time setting up a date with six other women for the rest of the week 😁
Niko seems like a nice young man but he badly needs advice on "not a polo neck with a blazer with jeans, dear, and clear the paper bags off the table before taking the photo, and don't smile so hard, you look nervous not relaxed".
This kind of attempted mockery has always struck me a bit as being more or less being sour grapes. It's a bit odd that you'd write a couple paragraphs about how he needs to do this or that when he's easily already a top 1% profile on Tinder and has functionally infinite access to attractive women. Does seeing a man this sexually successful just make you insecure? Is it something deeper? There's pretty obviously no need to change your approach to dating if your approach has already given you north of 25,000 options to pick from.
I don't think it's sour grapes; my understanding is that HereAndGone identifies as asexual. Asexual people, having known multiple as friends... don't often understand just how little they understand about how sexual attraction works. You can see that in how none of her criticism is actually about attractiveness -- she's judging their personal style and how they come across in a social-presentation manner, not whether they're hot or not.
But also people can be very critical, especially when evaluating people as romantic partners, and especially when doing so as an exercise instead of actually dealing with a real person. Men can be similarly critical of women, if you put them in the right context, or if they won't tell you about the labor dispute at Starbucks. This is a big reason why dating apps enable and drive some of our worst instincts -- people are caricatures and not people.
That being said, the turtleneck is a bit silly and the photos do look overly polished, but standing out by dressing slightly oddly and taking overly polished photos is basically what you have to do. If you're going to be a caricature of yourself, you might as well lean into it.
Meh, this is exactly the dating advice I'd expect from a cookie-cutter representative of Women, Inc.; the identification as "asexual" is... also exactly what I'd expect, too. So's the specific criticism, which appears to generalize to "this dude pattern-matches too closely to a woman to be husband material"- again, as much of a 'straight woman' thing as you can get.
Not that there aren't similar representatives of Men, Inc. around here, of course; you can tell someone is like that if they say things like "women who have sex have something wrong with their souls" or similar.
See, we already have a blueprint of what asexuality in women looks like; that's what that "secrets of female attractiveness" thing that gets passed around here is. Female asexuals just cold-open conversations with this type of thing and, if you're a man, will probably paint your nails for you if you ask nicely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The point of by grandparent commment was that it shouldn't be hard for people to match that guy's rizz. At least half the men at my college were as attractive as Finn. I didn't mean it in a sour grapes way. I have a husband who I think is much more attractive (though he has the benefit of being older.)
Edit to add on reflection: I just realized that the youngest guy I ever found attractive based on photos/videos (and not in-person interactions) is David Boreanaz in Buffy season 1 and he was 28. When I was young I found classmates attractive at times, but that was generally only after they had shown some kind of interest in me. (By doing me a favor, making art for me, something personal, not just a swipe or like.) A man who makes it to his 30s with under 25% body fat is likely going to have an ok time if he knows how to dress and style his hair.
I'd say that there's approximately a zero percent chance that half the men at your college were better looking than Finn or Niko, unless you went to a college full of runway models from Milan. Like most people here you just don't comprehend male attractiveness and have a seriously skewed view of both what makes men attractive and just how attractive the average male is. Saying that older men are more physically attractive is another hilariously delusional take. The reason why women go for older men isn't looks-- it's money, status, stability. And frankly the average age gap in relationships is usually quite small anyways. If you're not attractive to women at 20, you're going to be even less physically attractive to them at 35.
Look, I'm a woman. I married someone a decade older than me, so I am an outlier. For what it's worth, he didn't make more money than me at the time. I saw him as undervalued and received an excellent return on the investment. He was the first person I found very sexy, which was a feeling that only occurred after three dates. Mostly, we could talk to each other for hours and it was really nice to hang out with him, and then I felt real sexual attraction for the first time at the age of 26. (But also it was tied up in the thrill of the hope of a future together. Sexual attraction is different now, having attained that future.)
I feel 0 sexual attraction to Niko or Finn, just like I felt 0 sexual attraction to anyone who didn't first show interest in me. I would say that at least half my college classmates were not overweight and didn't have obvious deformities so that is why Niko and Finn go into the top half of the assessment. Every boy in High School and College seemed like a child to me - who would want to marry a child? Niko and Finn seem like children, too.
I think we're really hitting on something here if you can hear me out. Women are not men. Look at what my first comment was about - the words he chose to describe himself. I noticed that it's weird he put incest on his blurb. I don't know who that is attracting. I looked at words first to see if I would find this guy attractive.
The other woman here zeroed in on clothing choices and location of the photos. Not any immutable facial characteristic.
If a man is not obviously deformed or overweight, then to me it's not the photos causing the problem. Maybe there is some kind of woman out there who feels sexual attraction to a photograph, and these are the kinds of women who respond on Tindr? But I cannot tell you what motivates these women, because I have never been in a social circle with such a woman. From what I have heard, sexual abuse can lead to sexually promiscuous behavior in women. Maybe that's what's going on?
I'm not sure why you being a woman means you are innately blessed with the knowledge of what most or all women find attractive. Being a man did not endow me with the power to know what kinds of women most men were attracted to, nor did it give me any mystical or unique knowledge about attractiveness. Much of this just reads like completely delusional cope and the ramblings of someone who is seriously maladjusted and/or an outlier compared to the average woman-- which is frankly confirmed by the fact that you're posting on niche alt right websites when you're married and in your 30s.
This matters about as much to me as the fact that there are women that experience sexual attraction to dogs. You will not make yourself more romantically successful with women by putting on dog ears, getting on all fours and barking because there are a couple women out there that like dogs.
You either literally don't interact with women at all or your entire friend group is asexual. More than 61% of relationships start online. It's not nearly as rare or niche or abnormal as you make it seem, and implying a supermajority of women were turned to online dating through sexual abuse is either a hilariously bad faith argument or just genuine detachment from reality.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link