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 you're on the second date, a woman proposes sex, you say warmly that she is incredibly hot, but you'd like to wait because you're just enjoying getting to know her, and she... storms out? Blocks you? Calls the cops?
It's been a few years since I was on the market, but the rules were generally as follows:
first date--if I didn't make it very obvious that I wanted sex asap, there would be no second date. There wouldn't necessarily be sex on that first date, but I had better be pushing for it.
second date--if she proposed it as you suggest and I did anything but enthusiastically accept, the evening would've cooled immediately, the date would've ended, and there would be no third.
Trying to take it slow as the man is interpreted by the majority of women as a lack of genuine interest.
This is so genuinely foreign to me as an account of female behavior that I'm not sure what to say. I can't imagine acting this way, no woman I personally know has ever acted this way, I've encountered lots of younger women who blush at discussing sex in public and would self-evidently not act this way; but your experiences are your own, so I'm not going to refuse to #believemen.
I'm inclined, though, to probe the context of some of the experiences you're describing-- for instance, how often did you actually encounter women openly proposing sex, then turn them down? When you say that women would ghost you if you refused to sleep with them by the second date, were you arguing from a substantial base of direct experience in trying this, or just speculating from vibes like that one guy upthread? I can easily imagine its being a dealbreaker if a guy doesn't show enthusiasm and desire, but that's not at all the same as a "put out or get out"-style ultimatum about intercourse, specifically. For one thing, the initial question was whether guys could avoid rape accusations by holding off on sex until later in the relationship, and I've never encountered a rape allegation where the man countered that actually the woman openly threatened him if he refused sex.
But maybe it's just that dating is a land of contrasts, who knows.
I'd suggest your female friends and acquaintances are not necessarily portraying the same image of themselves to you (or anyone in their closer social circle for that matter) and the men they're attracted to.
I mean, sure, maybe? But at this point, in my own understanding, on the side of "the modal woman prefers emotional intimacy and romantic attention well before sexual intimacy" stands: my own introspection (n=1); the consistent testimony of any woman I personally know who's ever discussed relationships with me; the example of the various happily married women I know (myself included) whose husbands were their friends first, then committed boyfriends/suitors , then sex partners a good long way into the relationship, possibly even after marriage; and the revealed preference of women in our most popular female-authored hetero romance novels and films, all of which consistently center on a man who is passionately romantically interested, separately from his sexual interest in the woman as a piece of meat. So much so, indeed, that the plot of these movies usually spends a good bit of time introducing cheesy and implausible situations where the guy might prove his romantic interest and care-giving potential in definitively non-sexual ways.
On the side of "naw actually women are thots who adore, indeed insist upon, getting pumped ASAP by otherwise-indifferent guys" we have... a few vague assertions from gentlemen in heavy porn-watching circles who so far have confessed they never actually tried not seducing a woman ASAP, but they're pretty sure it wouldn't have worked out anyway, that ho.
Past a certain point, it starts sounding like "Who're you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Hold up. OP's claim was actually this: "Trying to take it slow as the man is interpreted by the majority of women as a lack of genuine interest."
More options
Context Copy link
What I hear is more "no one I know voted for Nixon!" As a guy who went around the block many times in his 20s and 30s, I can say that an awful lot of women voted for Nixon. But they move in different circles than you and your friends, and they certainly don't talk about voting for Nixon when they're around you.
More options
Context Copy link
Employees hate it when their managers do that too. You give them a reason to stick around- some sort of buy-in- and they're more likely to stick around even though the wage might be lower. They might even do those special intangible things that further your goals just because they like you.
Companies spend a great deal on patronage and branding because, among other reasons, it favors the goals of the employee that asked for it. I hesitate to say "potentialfag" because it's stupid, but why else do people stay in relationships other than the promise that it might get better or stay the same? Evaluating a company is hard, since it's incorporeal and its logo means nothing to what the potential of working there could get you, but you can be attracted to what it is and what it does- SpaceX employees obviously feel their organization is spectacularly muscular.
I don't see many movies for men based around how great it is to serve garbage managers/companies, but stories that involve characters eventually surpassing them (the "boyboss" trope, if you will) are perennial.
That said, job insecurity is still a real thing; in this case, "if you're not interested in my ability to do the job, whose minimum wage is very low yet competition is very high (thanks, PornHub), I'm going to find someone else who is so the relationship actually has some grounds/stability/stakes to exist in the first place" seems pretty natural to me.
[We assume men
womenwho actively want to provide free laborsexwithout this are a rounding error, as it's counter to biologically-imposed limitations and instinct doesn't fully account for UBIsIUDs. Sorry, asexuals.]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
Depends, did she have a hoe phase and is now settling down? Is she currently in her hoe phase? (ghosted, r.i.p.) Is she a loyal serial dater with less than 5-10 body count? Is she inexperienced/a virgin? Is she a divorced mom of 3?
Women control the pace and progress of dating, so turn down her advances at your own risk.
edit: I personally try to calibrate my behavior based on the girl I'm dating, and based on my prior experience while simultaneously being the active partner in the dance of seduction. It takes supreme mind reading skills, but my experience so far has been easily replicated. And it converges with the body language/human sexuality research (Love Signals - David Givens is a well-sourced intro to this field), and the individual methods that "pickup artists" shill on youtube. Seems seduction is both a science and an art
Right... so it sound like you haven't particularly tried, then. Understandable, for an elite master of seduction like yourself.
But your friends who are so terrified of rape accusations that they renounce marriage and procreation altogether, what happened to them when they tried slowing down and getting to know the girl first?
True, I haven't turned down a woman's sexual advances so far.
They have a leads problem. They can't get dates. My bachelor friends average one date every 3-6 months. These are normie guys in their late 20s; none are ugly.
This is an exaggeration. My friends, and young men in general, are not giving up completely. They are just adjusting their strategy to a much more passive approach to dating. Almost like what you're describing. They (against my advice) let the woman their dating make all the first moves, which sometimes results in no moves at all.
These guys are all jerking off to porn, and have been for years. They don't approach attractive women in real life, and they're not trying to eek out an optimized hinge profile to get in the top elo rankings. I wouldn't say they've given up, but they're barely trying to play a heavily rigged game.
I'm lost. In a discussion about fertility (so, the ability of young men and young women to pairbond, marry, procreate and form a stable family), I understood you to claim the problem was rape accusations, which cause men to be fearful of dating.
I suggested that men exert self-restraint and not sleep with women until they're in a reasonably committed relationship, which for an individual would virtually remove the risk of rape accusations.
You said that this isn't possible in the fast dating market.
I asked why: what would happen if you did wait? Have your friends tried?
You claimed that your friends have tried, but it seems what they tried was becoming entirely passive about the whole relationship, never approaching attractive women, presumably not approaching unattractive women either, just staying home and jacking off. So at least on this end it appears you're presuming that if serial opportunistic seductions are off the table, the only alternative is non-engagement. And you attribute this to the women's agency, but can only give examples of men choosing to enforce that binary.
"Can't hook up, then dating's not worth it" is a fair strategy for someone doesn't enjoy actually spending platonic time with women, who's prioritizing sexual novelty, isn't picky about porn fantasy vs. real encounters, and wants to minimize the amount of romance/ attention/ effort/ commitment/ emotional engagement they give in exchange for orgasms-- that is, for someone who is not great father material, as the women have correctly identified. No shade to men who feel drawn to that path, mind you, but I don't see any relationship to fertility at all. PUAs aren't contributing to prosocial family formation any more than incels are.
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