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 -
Why do a lot of women not like acknowledging the practical aspects of dating? By this I mean that women appear to be put off by me simply discussing:
Of course I'm not discussing these topic with women I'm trying to actually date, I'm not that autistic. But if you're trying to actually find a partner to settle down and have kids with, how do you not take all of these into account? Not only does it reek of impracticality, but on an even deeper level, it appears that any attempt to practically model the dating world at all produces a negative female reaction.
(Maybe it's because some of these women don't ever intend on having kids and therefore don't ever have to be realistic about dating.)
Because you're saying "yes, men do only want tits'n'ass".
EDIT: Also, you are strongly signalling "as soon as you turn 30-40, I'm dumping your wrinkly ass for a hot 20 year old, and forget that you are the mother of my children. I can have better kids with Baddie, anyway!" Your SMV has declined, it only makes sense to offload a depreciated asset and invest in a rising stock!
No. Men obviously want T&A. But it ain’t the only thing. I wouldn’t have probably been interested in my wife if she was an uggo but I didn’t marry her just because she looked (and still does) great in a tank top. That is, if people are honest there are non romantic truths about attraction that matters but it doesn’t mean the romantic things don’t matter either.
Regardless if it’s the only thing or not, the male penchant for T&A is the necessary residual complement to female hypergamy for heterosexual relationships to form.
To paraphrase one comedian’s bit (I couldn’t recall the comedian’s name or find a video after a brief search):
Women complain that men only want T&A, but what do women want?
Someone taller than them, stronger than them, richer than them, smarter than them, funnier than them, braver than them.
So if I get with a girl, it’d be someone who’s shorter than me, weaker than me, poorer than me, dumber than me, more boring than me, more cowardly than me. What’s left for me? Has to be the T&A, right?
That guy could get with a girl taller etc. than him, but he won't. Because his poor little fee-fees would be hurt that she's taller, better, etc.
It's long been a trope that men won't marry smart women, so pretend to be dumber than you are. Not too much dumber, just enough that you can gaze adoringly at him and murmur "Wow, Clemence, you are so smart!" so his little ego will puff up and he feels you truly get him and understand him.
That’s just the classic cope and shaming tactic to try and salvage women’s Wonderfulness and #BossBabe status. It’s definitely not that women want a daddy they can choose; it’s that men are just too shitty and insecure to handle taller, “better,” etc. women.
Men are fairly agnostic to female height, in contrast to the colossal female preference for tall men. I don’t doubt there’s some segment of men who prefer shorter women so that he’s taller than her (when she’s in heels, that is, as that’s how women see height). However, there’s also a large segment of men who prefers taller-than-average women because he likes long legs on chicks or because he doesn’t want to doom a potential short son.
And ultimately, all else equal, men will look to expend less time and social capital on taller women, as men know with greater probability taller-than-him-when-she’s-in-heels women will reject and perhaps gloatingly dab upon them.
It’s telling that men don’t leave well-poisoning quips in their online dating bios like “don’t bother if you’re over [height],” whereas it’s pretty common for women to disclaim “don’t bother if you’re under 6’0” or shorter than me in heels.”
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair, women flirt by being ditzy, and many don't realize they're doing it. Acting dumber than you are is attractive to men less because they want stupid women and more for the same reason lots of other flirty behaviors are.
More options
Context Copy link
I have seen many girls who put "I'm 5'11'', please be taller" in the bio, not a single one who'd put "I'm 5'11'', short kings come here". The dearth of short guys pairing up with taller girls, on face, appears to be entirely by choice of said girls. On the flipside, in spaces where men don't feel like they have to posture for women's (or men's) respect or approval, many state (honestly, I must assume) their desire for tall mommies.
Where do you find guys who say they don't want taller girls?
More options
Context Copy link
LOL, no. Because if she's better than him at some traditionally masculine quality, she'll despise him for it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
KT Tatara's the earliest form I (... and Grok/Claude...) can find.
That said, I'll give this the same criticism I do as aiislove's perspective: there are other values, some orthogonal and some contradictory; there is value for the mere presence of a second view even where it is not as strong as yours.
I mean, I don't know that this disagrees with the point -- in this framing, "the value of T&A" is a value that is orthogonal to "shorter, weaker, poorer, dumber, more boring," etc.
That said, while the joke is funny and it makes its point, I agree with you that reality doesn't say that T&A is the only thing men care about. "Poorer, weaker, dumber, more boring, more cowardly," isn't "not at all rich, not at all smart, not at all funny, not at all brave." In raw material terms, a woman in a two-income home, even if she takes home less pay, still contributes significantly to the household income.
Women are generally hypergamous, but not wildly so -- "peasant girl marries the prince" is a fantasy trope, but when actual princes marry, they marry members of the nobility, often just a step or two down from themselves. Or in modern times just a hot actress, I guess the joke lands a bit there, Meghan Markle got a damn good deal regardless of how she feels. I guess Kate Middleton wasn't noble either. She is beautiful, but in a refined way no one would hesitate praising in her presence, so I'll give half points on that one. This generation of princes can't be separated from their father's own desire for the commoner over the lady. Perhaps the takeaway here is that men don't care about their partner's status to a greater degree than women do care about theirs.
I don't feel any attraction to status, strength, wealth, but I do for intelligence and humor. I look for alignment on the ability to think about things intellectually and discuss them and a sense of humor that's compatible with mine. If anything, I kind of feel like I don't have the burden of hypergamy: if I meet someone at all attractive and they're kind and smart and funny, even if less so than me, I don't feel like I'm 'dating down' to fall for them. Their presence gets to be a place where I can be the best version of myself.
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