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 -
Men talking about dating in a strategic manner or discussing it as a market-based supply/demand-driven matching process ruins women’s Disneyian notion of courtship and romance as a FUN, magical process that Just Happens. Courtship and romance are things that Just Happen to women like acts of God while they passively exist, so there’s no feedback cycle to disabuse them of such a notion aside from the possible exception of men talking about it.
On top of the fun and magic aspect, women are quite sensitive about 1) signaling and protecting their own personal Wonderfulness and 2) signaling and protecting the Wonderfulness of women as a whole. Men discussing dating in a practical manner may say things that are perceived to be unflattering to women’s Wonderfulness.
Kind of like how, in talking with a four-year-old about how presents get under the Christmas tree, explaining supply chain logistics and household finances takes the fun and magic out of it. The child will actually feel better about and be more satisfied with some platitudes involving elves, Santa Claus, reindeer, and chimneys. At least children aren’t as sensitive about their personal wonderfulness or the wonderfulness of children as a whole, so such discussions are easier to navigate.
Men discussing and/or practicing looksmaxxing is toxic, problematic, and misogynistic as it implies that women are shallow and primarily value appearance. In contrast, if women spend a lot of their effort and energy on makeup and clothing it’s because they’re victims of a misogynistic culture that Socializes them into thinking they’re only valued for their appearance.
Additionally, women want naturals, not someone who looksmaxxed their way to trick some poor woman into dating an imposter. See, for example, how much the thought of men getting limb-lengthening surgery (or even just wearing lifts) triggers ick and seethe in women. Or the thought of men strategically exploiting social media to inspire female mate-choice copying (which totally doesn’t exist by the way, since everyone knows women are strong and independent thinkers and could never fall for such a thing).
Relatedly, women hate the thought of men grinding approaches to gain EXP, or grinding approaches/shotgunning messages to play the numbers game. Surely each woman is infinitely unique in her Wonderfulness and women cannot be treated like hack-and-slashing monsters for item drops in a video game.
Many women get butthurt that a large part of women’s bargaining power with men for long-term relationships and marriage is the prospect of children. Women are clearly so Wonderful that men should want a lifelong commitment with them even without such a prospect. He’s TA if he wants biochildren when he can just adopt or enjoy the privilege of being with her without children in the picture (ugh, stupid men and mUh lEgAcY). Women also don’t like reminders that having their FUN and FREEDOM when they’re young before settling down after they’ve Had Their Fun can have opportunity costs—or that their desirability in general goes down with age, such as illustrated by the infamous OKCupid graph or the Bruch-Newman paper.
This is very true, and it’s not even primarily because of the genetics. It’s because men who get hot later in life are to the man bitter about it. They mourn the imagined youth (including plenty of casual relationships in high school and at college) they missed - in the end, even if they find a pretty wife who they like, they are more likely to cheat, and they will always be bitter they didn’t date around and enjoy attention from women in their youth. There are women who get hot in their late twenties or early thirties who are similar, but it’s less universal - they are more likely to just be happy they ‘made it’.
If you are going to marry an attractive man it’s always best to find someone who had a girlfriend (or several) in high school, because he does not have the same regrets as the late bloomer. Sure, there are lifelong lotharios who will never be faithful, too, but you can weed those out in other ways.
Do you have evidence to back this up or are you mainly going by your general observations and common sense? I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong, but here's what my general observations and common sense say:
Based on your description, one could divide men into 4 categories: (1) the high school loser who gets hot later in life; (2) the high school loser who remains undesirable; (3) the high school hottie who fades in desirability (we all know people like this); and (4) the high school hottie who remains desirable.
In my view, guys in groups (2) and (3) who marry are less likely to sleep around on their wives. Because I think that to a large extent men cheating on their wives is a crime of opportunity. If a guy is attractive, and women start throwing themselves at him, there's a good chance he will give in to temptation even if he's already in a relationship. It seems that in your view, guys in group (4) are less likely to stray than guys in group (1), but I'm skeptical. Because as I mentioned, male infidelity is -- to a large extent -- a crime of opportunity.
Simply put, my general observations and common sense tell me that when a guy who gets hot later in life cheats, it's mainly because he got hot later and life and not because of his past.
But if you have evidence or argument that guys in group (4) tend to be more faithful, I'd be interested to hear it.
I don’t know that men in group 4 tend to be more faithful. Rather men in group 4 tend to know what they want and the kind of man who has been a lothario since he was 15 is usually relatively easy identified. Women who marry men in group 4, Hillary Clinton types, usually know what they’re getting into. The same isn’t necessarily true if you marry a group 1.
Well, I think that's what you kind of implied before:
Edit: And by the way, I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong, just that I would be interested to hear the evidence/argument for this idea.
I've actually heard this kind of argument from before, but from the reverse perspective. i.e. "Don't marry a slut because she's developed an appetite for D so she'll cheat on you" versus "Don't marry a virgin because she'll feel like she missed out and so she'll cheat on you." You can certainly argue it either way.
I think the general rule is that once you have crossed a line it's psychologically easier to cross it again. So I am tempted to say that if the choice is between (1) guy who is recently hot; and (2) guy who was hot all along, you are better off with the first option in terms of fidelity. But I think that at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, because the male urge for variety in sexual partners is just very strong. So that a very large percentage of married men who are desirable enough to have women pursuing them are going to stray.
Fair, I could have been clearer. I mean they are more likely to cheat if they are in a supposedly monogamous relationship. This is because the lifelong lotharios tend to be relatively obvious. They have reputations. They mostly know what they like. If they settle down, it is either with an earnest effort at monogamy after a long period of promiscuity, or it is with a woman who (on some level) knows what is going to happen. The man who becomes attractive later in life might settle down with the first pretty girl who looks at him twice, and only thereafter decide he wants to play the field, which is a failure mode the lifelong lotharios who settle down in their thirties or forties experience less often.
Well I think this basically boils down to "if you marry a man who is highly desirable, there's a pretty good chance he will cheat -- even if he doesn't have a promiscuous past." Which is probably true, but it's not the guy's past which is causing him to cheat or not, it's his current desirability.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, it sounds to me like the things some of my rural relatives say, that we should vote for politicians who have already been in power for years "because they've already stolen enough", while the new guys are not rich yet, so they will start stealing more. There is no such thing as having stolen enough and stopping. As the saying goes "the appetite comes with eating". In relationships, I just don't see any guy saying "I had a lot of awesome sex 5 years ago, therefore I don't desire it now".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It makes sense when you think of the genetics. The guy who used surgery and lifts to look tall will still have short-person genes, which will hurt her legacy in the long term (or at least, be associated with things that hurt her legacy). The tall genes last forever. Same reason men would prefer a woman who's naturally beautiful over a woman who uses tons of makeup and cosmetic surgery to "fix" her looks.
I've noticed this cliche and also the mirror cliche in both sexes where men/women will tend to praise other men/women for looking good in ways that are the results of effort, not genetics. E.g. men will praise other men for successfully bulking up at the gym, whereas women will praise men for having a "great personality," and women will praise other women for doing such a bang-up job with their make-up, while men will praise women for having big, natural tits. I think there's a heavy influence of selfish interest in both sexes here, where if you can bootstrap your way into convincing the other sex (or at least bullying them at least long enough for you to escape the game) that [effort-based] rather than [genes-based] (everything is based on both, of course, and this is a matter of degree) things are greater contributors to one's attractiveness, then you individually have more control over your own destiny.
This is just politeness. It's rude to rub it in that you just have some fundamental flaws that cannot be improved. So people focus on the things you can change. Also praising makes sense in relation to stuff you did. You expended effort and achieved a positive result, that's laudable. You deserve no cookies for how your face looks or similar. "Anyone can achieve anything" is the western (or rather just American) myth. Nurture over nature, growth mindset etc. It sounds warm and cozy, a just world, up in the fluffy clouds. Talking about the dirty reality down here is just ugly and a vibe killer. Other cultures are much more matter-of-fact about these realities.
No one's talking about rubbing anything in here. The conversation is about praising others.
Why not? Someone having a prettier face due to luck of genetics makes things more pleasant for others around them, almost by definition. If such people receive praise that they value, that provides incentive for such people to show their faces more often than those who aren't genetically lucky, which makes the lives of those around them, including my own, better.
But even before we get into the logic of incentives, by default I'm going to praise people based on how I appraise them. Proving you can accomplish things with effort is one way of raising my appraisal of you, but also proving that you are genetically gifted in a way that makes my life more pleasant is another way. This is why, again, women praise men for things like being tall and assertive and men praise women for things like having big, natural tits. They don't care about how much effort these people put into accomplishing these things, they just care about the effect they have on themselves.
People praise each other for succeeding at hard stuff. Men also praise men for building a cool shed or doing cool skateboard tricks or whatever else.
Among each other or to the man? Towards him, it's a signal he should keep up the way he is treating her, not to get too lazy comfortable, thinking that his physical appearance will carry him all the way.
It's effort and taste, again. Praise is feedback to keep up up the good work. Positive reinforcement. There's not much to reinforce about how good you are at being tall again today.
In their face? Not the best strategy unless you're already having sex. Or among the boys? Don't women also fawn about a guy in non-personality ways when among trusted female friends?
I'm not sure what the point of your comment here is, because all your points seem entirely orthogonal to the phenomenon I talked about. So I'll just directly answer the direct questions that were in your comment.
It's probably not the best strategy, but it's absolutely a very common one, and for good reason. Men complimenting women for their great figure or other genetically-determined aspects of their physical appearance, such as their "big beautiful eyes" as part of flirting is pretty much cliche.
AND among the boys, not OR, though in all-male settings, they'll often feel more free to use crude language, such as using the phrase "tits."
I'm not a woman, so I lack any meaningful insight into this, but I'd guess that this is probably the case.
It's a big faux-pas to comment on women's tits in a mixed environment, creepy drunk uncle territory, it's like construction guys catcalling and whistling-territory. Eyes work because eyes are emotionally expressive, it's the window to the soul. You can similarly compliment her smile, but not her thick lush lips, unless you're already having sex or petting.
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
I mean, plenty of men also want a woman who is deeply in love with them, and will stay a loving and caring partner regardless of his health, abilities, or achievements. Men get incredibly disappointed when that is not the case. For example if the wife leaves because she "fell out of love", or a girl he was flirting with is suddenly no longer interested after he got in a fight and lost. Hell, a lot of the original redpillers seem to be men who experienced these things and became disillusioned about women as a result.
While I do think that the current romanticized idea of love as a magical, inexplicable thing that just happens to you and ties people together forever is part of what is wrong with current dating norms, I also don't think it is fair to blame this solely on women. Men want unconditional love just for being themselves too, and are more than capable of deluding themselves into believing they have it.
More options
Context Copy link
While I can sympathize with the plight of men who want children more than they want romance, I object in the strongest possible terms to a dichotomy that writes off love as a Disneyan fantasy and otherwise irrelevant. It is in fact perfectly reasonable to want one's romantic partner in one's life primarily because one is deeply in love with them. Being deeply in love with someone is indeed fun and wonderful - for men and women alike. And if what you're looking for is such a relationship, rather than a transactional arrangement geared towards child-rearing, then it is perfectly reasonable to reject a partner who is offering the latter and uninterested in the former. This isn't a gendered thing - it's the same reason men are afraid of their wives turning out to be gold-diggers. They don't regard themselves as buying sex and kids for a fair price (in which scenario "wife" and "gold-digger" would be synonymous), they want to be married to someone who loves them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link