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 -
The specialization of [parasocial] romantic/sexual partnership
(More than a shower thought, less than a fully formulated theory.)
While the median person in the US is still in a romantic relationship, singlehood is on the rise, with some claiming a prevalence of 30%.
It is very apparent that the median man and the median woman have quite different ideas about what they seek in a romantic or sexual relationship, with men being more interested in casual sex and women being more interested in long-term relationships.
(
This seems plausible from a kitchen table evo psych point of view: in the ancestral environment, all things being equal, the man who jumped at a chance to have no-strings-attached sex had a greater inclusive genetic fitness than the man who did not. Realistically, quite a lot of the opportunities for no-strings-attached sex in the ancestral environment were probably wartime rapes, but there were likely opportunities for consensual casual sex as well.
For women, it was likely more complicated. There was a selection for pair bonding to secure paternal investment -- because that increased the reproductive chances of the kids. If one had paternal investment, one would have preferred someone had has the status or ability to provide well for ones family.
On the other hand, one also wanted to select for genetic fitness to boost the reproductive chances of one's offspring. For a lot of traits, this coincided with being a good provider: being a great hunter is partly genetic, so there were both immediate and genetic reasons to prefer such a mate. While being the victim of wartime rape was quite bad also from a genetic point of view (zero paternal investment!), having a partner who was genetically inclined to wartime rape was preferable. One also wanted a partner who was winning the Keynesian hotness contest in your society, because that will bode well for the reproductive success of one's sons. If all the other women of the society thought that men with blue eyes were icky, marrying a blue-eyed man was a very bad reproductive strategy!
In short, from kitchen table evo psych, the ideal man was someone who had a lot of sexual success who was also willing to enter a committed long term relationship.
)
In my world-model, the median single woman going on a successful tinder date is going to meet a man who is great at getting tinder dates and convince them to have sex with him. This is a highly specialized skill. Women pass 95% of the suggestions. Together with a 2:1 gender imbalance towards men, this means that the average man who gets a match probably had to outcompete 30-40 other men to get there. However, being found hot by one woman is strongly correlated with being found hot by another woman. Of course, part of being found "hot" here is "being willing to breadcrumb women into thinking that there is a long term potential".
There are probably men who are moderately successful at dating which use apps for a while, find true love in their fifth match and live happily ever after, but those are also unlikely to stay on the apps (and if they are, will likely state outright that they are in a happy primary relationship, which will likely lower their appeal significantly).
While most of the men using online dating are trying to get laid with little success, I think that for the few men who are able and willing to sacrifice time, money, and ethics to get really good at tinder (or the offline equivalent: being a PUA), stringing along three or four women seems achievable.
While the link in the last paragraph bemoans the fate of these women, I think that it is fair to say that their revealed preference is to pay with sex for the illusion that a hot promiscuous guy is going to go exclusive (or primary) with them any day now. There is a difference between being the hottest unconquered available woman within driving distance on some cloudy Wednesday and being the woman who will make him forget about all other women, forever, though. Relatedly, if a real Nigerian royal had trouble getting money out of the country, chances are they would contact specialized firms on the Cayman Islands, not random owners of email addresses. (That does not change the fact that scamming or lying to get laid is evil, though.)
(Of course, this is not only an online thing. For most offline social situations, the workplace rules are more or less in effect. You have to know what your relative status and SMV is and what you can get away with. Also, flirting is all about deniability and avoiding establishment of common knowledge. I would argue that the possibility to commit a social faux-pas is intentional, being willing to do something which would be transgressive if you had read the signs wrong is a costly signal to send and generally appreciated if you are right. In the real world (at least outside Aella's RMN parties), people do not wear wristbands indicating what they are comfortable with, so engaging with women is left to those men who either are good at reading the cues or who do not care if they come across as sex pests to any women who are uninterested. Dark triad and all that. For spectrum-dwellers like myself, the main advantage of online dating is that women there can be safely (if mostly futilely) approached: as long as you do not use crass sexual language or send unsolicited dick picks, you will be considered background noise, not a sex pest.)
--
On the flip side, catering to the sexual and romantic needs of single men is also a trade which greatly benefits from specialization. Para-social relationships allow for economics of scale far beyond what the fuckbois can achieve. With straightforward porn, there is little malicious deception going on (stepsibling status aside), but I think that there is a niche of softer content (e.g. without guy participation) where romantic attachment from the audience is actively encouraged, and the relevant persona's foster an air of singleness despite being in a happy relationship or married.
--
This symmetry is not perfect, of course. The fuckbois are motivated by their sex drive or some obsession, while the women selling sex to men online are mostly motivated by cash.
Given that this is the CW thread, I should probably show some links to the culture war.
Highly recommend you checkout the blueprint decoded by RSD Tyler aka Owen Cook, he has an understanding of this dynamic that is much better than any I've seen so far.
PUAs are not the same as those on Tinder. Most pickup artists, people who teach it, are trash, the good ones are really good.
The pickup artist short circuits all of the Evo psy stuff by being less cowardly and showcasing the ability to lead men and attract women, these two are very strong forms of status that you cannot fake.
Human verbal communication is very shallow, full of noise, women subconsciously pickup on subcommunication or subcomms. They were at one point in the 90s given routines so that they could feel confident delivering lines, it was never the lines that did it, there's no such thing as a pickup line. Women were attracted to the self perception they saw which I can firmly state is extraordinarily difficult to fake. Something not tied to looks, actual status or money.
Female attraction is 100 percent status based. Highly recommended everyone who sucks with women to pick up the book of yareally and get better at banging girls they meet the night of.
As for women hating men who fuck them over, it's not true at all since anyone here who's met enough can confirm that chicks dog jerks, they don't have just one ex who they thought were a prick, they have a few of them.
The real redpill is that there are no good girls, none left today at least and virgins can cheat whilst club hoes can remain loyal depending on your level of game or your status (your self perception being colored by it I mean). The best we can do is bang as many as we can and always have women on the side.
"Frame" or "Presence" is probably the best way to put it.
Physical appearance (being tall and large, that is, muscular) helps a lot. Voice being deep helps. Eye contact. And good fashion sense.
But beyond that, it comes down to being so self assured and unbothered by anything that this particular conversation with a woman is just not a big deal to you, and you're clearly going to go off and do something fun and awesome as soon as you leave it, and she can tag along if she plays her cards right, but if not, its not like you care much.
Its not enough to act like a king. You must be the king.
As you say, the lines themselves don't matter. If you can capture the attention by just being present, and command her attraction by exuding confidence, its easy.
Precisely. My grandfather met Robert Kennedy when he visited Jaipur as he was a part of the royal staff. In all his life, he'd never seen a man with a presence like his, when Kennedy was riding the elephant, you could tell he was like an emperor.
Can't fake that, good PUAs are the real deal for this reason. You can't read your way out of being unattractive.
Tyler's product the blueprint decoded was presented as a short ebook, hacked from the lectures that were gonna be in the package, the book begins with the line "do you think you can change?". Frame is 100 percent real. Very astute observations on your part btw!
Hard earned insights that were A/B tested for quite a while.
I've done a lot of lifting over the past year and a half and I'm already 6 foot 2. I won't say that I can capture any given woman's attention at will, by any means, but if I can get that initial attention its funny how positive the interactions are regardless of whether I'm being a dick or just being friendly. Its like the words don't matter in the slightest.
Learning how to flip between a general aloofness and then a more intense, undressing-with-your-eyes energy was also key.
It's quite easy, accepting you suck and taking the requisite help solves this.
PUAs solved women completely, I'm better looking than my friends, it gives me more positive reactions, though I'd have gotten the same had I been short and ugly.
You're not a wimp which is a good thing, many men workout, are rich, yet they remind me of the phrase "look like Tarzan, fight like Jane".
Good point there about aloofness and being playful. Quite a bit that happens during human mating the day we see in modern environments makes sense for small pockets but they seem bizzare when you look at it in its entirety. I can't justify why push pull works beyond that women want to play.
Your interactions work because you have put in the work and have past reference points that are positive, it's a positive feedback loop. You can be a campy homo looking guy like that British comedian who does boomercon shit now, and still get girls attracted because you're genuine. You only get there by a b testing things a lot.
I've been lifting for a few months, though I am not eating and sleeping enough, definitely not recommended. I think I'll look better once I can bench 2 plates.
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