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.
As a recovered simp, I can kind of comment
Dating is an extreme act of delayed gratification. Many men do not really enjoy the act of seducing women, which requires enormous investments in time and effort, and generally putting on at least a little bit of act rather than just being comfy and normal. Many men enjoy the thrill and payoff of a successful seduction but that is different from the act itself.
In irl seggs is good and all but with the latest gooning technology I would argue that hardcore gooning actually gives more seggsual stimulation than the real thing. As a result, the majority of single men do not actually have a lot of pent up sexual desire, because they are able to satisfy most of it with gooning. Incel types are different but their real problem is mental and not directly related to the physical act.
The remaining hole in these single men is therefore almost entirely social and barely physical. That makes them extremely susceptible to parasocial forms of entertainment. For lazy men, there is soooo much parasocial content available at the tip of their fingers. For free, you can listen in realtime to a girl whisper in your ear for hours, play games, talk about various topics, and depending on how popular the influencer is, even humor your messages, also for free. For a trifling amount of money - one dollar or less - you can buy her time to real your name and message, though not necessarily buy a thoughtful response. And of course, the big one, is that depending on the person, you can cheaply buy a certain level of girlfriend experience, either explicitly or unspoken. DMs, good night messages, even voice calls are all on the table. And for small time creators, it would actually be them, not paid chatters like is popular on OF.
For the content creator, it's pretty scalable, as it's relatively easy to simply manage chatting with a bunch of paypigs a few times a week to keep them on the hook. Creating the content to get them interested in the first place is relatively the harder part. For someone who enjoys creating the content, and doesn't mind listening to stinky old men ramble about whatever nonsense, it's actually quite an ideal gig.
For the simp stuck in the trap, it's extremely hard to get out. He already has gooning to satisfy physical needs, and one or several 20s women with perfect voices and decent intellect talking to him and giving him all the internet attention he needs. Even if he did want to go on dates, which he doesn't, he would likely be disappointed and disgusted by the women he meets. And don't forget that he's the one expected to do the seducing, which is something that he egirls don't need. From the logical intellectual perspective, the simp is a loser, only leaving the house to work and otherwise wasting away in his goon cave. But to the simp's reptile brain, he is living the ideal life, with constant seggsual stimulation and female attention.
I agree, but I think this is mainly a result of our modern techno-dystopia. No one enjoys swiping right on hundreds of profiles just so we can "take whatever we can get" from the bottom 1% who swipe back at us. No one enjoys being the orbiter/reply-guy on social media. No one enjoys fighting for the attention of the one semi-hot woman at a party/bar/club when she's surrounded by men jockying for her attention, with a 10:1 ratio of men:women. Noone enjoys doing our best to make witty conversation while she just stares into her phone (or even worse, texting her while she takes 48 hours to reply "lol") . Noone enjoys going into some women's space like a yoga class/book club/knitting circle and feeling the suspicious stares and closed-off body language. Noone enjoys awkwardly shaking our butts to shitty hop hop at the generic dance clubs.
What I do enjoy is if I can actually meet a woman IRL and have some sort of real connection. It could be dancing, a good conversation, sharing a meal, anything really, as long as I can tell she's actually focusing her attention on me and feeling something from it. But modern life makes it so damn hard to get even that... one time I was a cocktail bar talking to a woman who was not very conventioanlly attractive, but she was still fun to talk to. I was having fun until she mentioned that she was surprised how many men were trying to talk to her, including much younger men. I was like... "look around, you're the only woman here, and there's so many single men here. Of course we all want to talk to you!" The single women are all at home hiding out on social media and I have to pay them if I want even digital attention.
All that said, I still kinda like paying women to hang out with me and give me attention sometimes, just to have that kind of "great date" experience even if it doesn't lead to seggs. They're just way better at entertaining men than any normal woman. So maybe it makes sense for this to be the modern division of labor.
More options
Context Copy link
The thing that seems to be missing in your description of physical and social needs is essentially non-sexual/quasi-sexual physical touch. I could probably go without sex in life, but not being able to cuddle, or romantically kiss, or hold someone as they fall asleep, or just sit on the couch, or caress someone's back or arms... well, I'd find that hard to bear.
Most people under discussion here barely experienced that. Don't known what they're missing.
More options
Context Copy link
That's why you get a body pillow of your oshi
I have tried this, but it does not actually work. Maybe I need to upgrade my daki to a DHR7000 or something, but most fantasy centers around the closeness, etc. rather than just fucking.
I have no idea how people do it directly to pictures; I just lay on the bed and read them for the articles, so to speak.
More options
Context Copy link
Not good enough, damnit, not good enough!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Uh, how common is gooning really?
Like regular masturbation, sure, real common. But I was under the impression gooning was some technologically driven different thing.
Technically it means people keeping themselves aroused with porn without ejaculating for 30mins to hours
Used also as a shorthand for people who use porn to jerkoff widely in excess of what nature would allow.
More options
Context Copy link
My understanding is that the physical release is generally controlled by physical stimulation, while visual and fictional materials can provide a massive dopamine hit without it. This allows consooomers to easily consume more and more material without experiencing a sudden and messy end to the process.
I don't have any direct evidence but expect that regular users will tend towards longer and longer sessions as a result of Pavlovian conditioning.
My question was about prevalence. Yes, any 14 year old has probably figured out regular masturbation but I thought gooning was something different.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd argue assigning the loser label is pretty far from the logical intellectual perspective. It presupposes that male social status (as per the standard of being able and willing to date) is axiomatically good without explicitly stating that axiom.
under what logic can the simp not be described as a loser?
Under the logic that winning and losing can only be defined in relation to criteria and the criteria of being successful in life are subjective. Yes, even the criteria that have to deal with reproduction and Darwinism and so on. These are all parts of the same reptile brain that makes the simp happy with his lot.
If you want an explicit ruleset that would define the simp as being better than the player, then "don't waste time and effort on getting the approval of others when a simpler lifestyle will do just as well for physical needs" is one. If only hunger could be sated merely by rubbing the stomach.
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