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 -
Are you sure about this? Do any women on this site want to share their experiences? I genuinely don't know if women think this way, because if I swap the genders it seems 100% true but I suspect women are less obsessed with being hot than men are, and are happier with soft status qualities like wealth, cleverness and happiness in marriage and so on. Personally as a man I don't really care about the secondary soft status I just want to be hot and loved for my intrinsic qualities rather than any sort of skill, virtue or prowess
Something you may not get if you are primarily same-sex attracted is that the qualities straight people find attractive in an opposite-sex partner and the qualities that make them feel fuckable for themselves are different. Most straight men don't care about being hot, except instrumentally in that it may (depending on the surrounding culture and the particular guy's dating strategy) help get them laid. They care a lot about their partners being hot, because male sexuality is what it is. Another guy, or even a woman who isn't in my dating pool, telling me I am physically attractive doesn't emotionally validate me in the way that someone telling me I am good at my job, or a good cook, or even physically strong - all expressions of prowess and not fuckability. As a happily married man I don't find myself getting anxious about fuckability, but in so far as I think about it what makes me feel fuckable is my wife praising my bedroom technique - i.e. prowess again. I think this is true for most straight guys who are not PUAs, and of course the whole point of PUA culture is to turn an attractively masculine personality into a learnable, teachable skill - i.e. prowess yet again.
I am not claiming to be an expert on women, but based on standard cultural scripts (outside spaces where everyone is performatively denying sex differences), women writing about their petty anxieties (Blue Tribe/Unculture elites give women a lot of high-pl), and my experience supporting first my little sister and later my wife, women assume (mostly correctly, given straight male sexuality) that their own fuckability is 90% about their hotness. But their own attraction to men is mostly emotional, and only partly visual, and they know this. For a woman to tell her girlfriends about her boyfriend's adorable personality is high praise. For a man to tell his bros that he is into his girlfriend because of her personality is a relationship-ended if she finds out - it's a euphemism for "she's ugly."
I strongly suspect that your desire to be hot and loved for your intrinsic qualities comes from the same source that made you trans-curious when you were younger. It is a profoundly feminine trait.
"Would you love me if I was a worm" interestingly suggests the opposite - that women would prefer to be loved primarily for their personality (which persists after they are no longer hot). Conversely, I feel better when complimented for my looks (primarily the immutable parts like height, face structure etc) rather than other personal qualities, and I suspect it is because having looks is effortless to me while keeping up prowess takes work - it is more reassuring. And I'm straight.
Don't PUAs hammer in over and over that the boyfriend's nice personality is only praise because it is predicated on him being the boyfriend in the first place?
Interesting. I interpret that statement as 'do you love me completely unconditionally?'. A worm isn't hot, but it doesn't have a personality either.
More options
Context Copy link
Ah, the God Emperor of Dune question.
More options
Context Copy link
Women (or at least the ones I encounter in my British PMC social circles, excluding the blue-haired feminists) only think or say, "Would you love me if I was a worm?" if they are hot and know it. Women want to hear "I love you and you are hot, but I would still love you anyway if you weren't." "I love you because you are hot" is second-best. "I love you even though you are not hot" is something that might work as push-pull/negging/whatever, but doesn't validate a woman or make her feel secure in the relationship.
Only because of the word "nice". The point of PUA is that women are attracted by certain personality traits which are not "nice" but are attractive - and indeed are attracted by these traits far more than they are by conventional hotness (hence why Mystery could get laid while looking like a tranny), and are turned off by a "nice" personality. Part of the promise of OG PUA is that you can get far more bangs for your buck by learning how to perform "alphaness" that you can by hitting the gym.
In general I support the basic tenets of PUA/TRP but I think they kinda get it wrong here.
Women actually love men who are nice*. The lovable himbo who's good around the house and would take a bullet for his beloved is a common enough trope in female-gaze content. The issue is that being nice on its own is not enough. You have to be nice and also attractive. Where "attractive" is a combination of 1) physically attractive (enough) and 2) a certain je ne sais quoi which is not strictly reducible to confidence or competence or dominance and etc, but is clearly related to them in some intimate fashion.
"Being nice" gets a bad rap because the types of low value / socially awkward men who make "being nice" their primary conscious sexual strategy 1) tend to have a poor model of how social interaction works to begin with, so they interpret perfectly benign actions (like mild negging, or well-timed sexual advances) as "being an asshole", when actually those actions are perfectly as "nice" as any other and are interpreted as such by the woman in question, and 2) the men who go all in on "being nice" unfortunately tend to not be attractive to begin with. There's a certain type of sperg who naturally sends out waves of female-repellent radiation. It's a je ne sais quoi of its own, but it's a negative vibe rather than a positive one. For these unfortunate men, "being nice" is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Their fallacy is to blame their failure on the fact that they were too nice, rather than on their own intrinsic unattractiveness.
(* Of course there's a wide range of tastes, there are hybristophiles, etc, but that doesn't detract from the basic point that both men and women enjoy interacting with people who are pleasant to interact with, almost by definition.)
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