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 -
Absolutely, in the sense that she'll be more attracted to him than if he had simply helped her.
I think so because that's what I (and other men) have observed. If I had to guess at the underlying psychology, my hypothesis would be that when a man does nice things for a woman, he is putting her above him. He is "supplicating" as the PUA's would say. This goes against her hypergamy instincts, i.e. it becomes harder for her to look up to him. Which kills attraction.
Huh. It seems like the feeling of "looking up to" a man and thinking him significantly higher status doesn't necessarily kill attraction (movie stars are attractive), but it does kill the chance of an actual relationship most of the time, he's too high status even to interact with.
I would have to disagree with this. A man is going to lose a lot more romantic/sexual opportunities by being too low status than by being too high status. I don't see Leonardo DiCaprio complaining that no women want to date him because he's just too famous and successful.
Sure, being famous and successful will improve a man's status, and then he can get away with things. Even if his status is very polarizing, like Trump, he can still get away with a lot. That's an argument for being rich and successful, not for treating people worse. I assume DiCaprio, being successful and charming, would flirt about it and possibly hire someone to help his girlfriend out.
I disagree. Treating people too nicely (and a lot of men make this mistake) communicates that you are low status. People who are too nice need to start treating people worse. It doesn't mean that they need to start being actively mean, of course.
As a side note, once a man is in a sexual relationship with a woman, he has more leeway to do nice things for her.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I disagree with the maximalist version of this. I agree if we're talking about the guy bending over backwards to help a woman because she's a woman, maybe some sort of childish misguided chivalrous ideal is pushing him and women resent that because they feel like the guy taking on this chivalrous role is trying to push her into the role of the grateful rescued maiden. But the well-liked, pillar of the community, popular with women guy is a helpful guy too. The difference is that he would help anyone, not just "fair maidens", and women know and feel that difference.
I knew one guy like this in college. He would drop everything to help just about anyone. He was popular with women in the sense that they all raved about what a prince he was. None of them dated him and as far as I know he graduated with his virginity intact.
I do agree that if a man is high enough status, he can probably play the "I am a humble servant and a lowly worm" schtick and still attract women. I would call that "countersignaling."
"Literally me" would be hyperbole, but I feel kinship with this guy insofar as I was eager to help with classwork, except I went out of my way to help attractive women less because I realized what it would look like if it appeared I was simping. Unfortunately, being just enough of a normie to understand how I might be perceived for my actions wasn't enough to overcome aspie mannerisms.
If I must tie this personal anecdote back into culture war issues, I'd like to cite "Autism is the real Blackpill," but a DuckDuckGo search and a Google search isn't turning up anything. Did I just hallucinate this piece? Does it sound familiar to anyone else? I'd like to have another go at it and see if its sources actually held up, or if I just gravitated towards assuming whatever says the worst about me is accurate - a dangerous bias.
Was it this one?
More options
Context Copy link
FWIW the guy I am talking about did not have any aspie characteristics. He was just a very nice guy.
I guess part of the problem is that if you act like you are eager to please others, people perceive it as low status. In a medieval court, who would be running around trying to please everyone? Most likely one of the servants. Who might even be popular, but not respected. Not respected in the way that the king or his best warrior would have been respected.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, that's the thing, high status men don't play "signaling" games. They don't play act like they're servants, they're just bros to everyone. They just don't act like women are different in that matter.
Honestly, the second you start thinking about how to "signal" and playing games to attract women, you've lost; you're not and will not be high status that way. Maybe you'll trick some broken women into sleeping with you, which is maybe from some perspectives better than staying a virgin "nice guy". But high status men don't even know when their charm is on. I know some of these guys. They're just charisma black holes, there's no switch they don't act different to men and women, and their charm works on both equally, even straight guys. When they join a conversation, whatever the topic was is immediately dropped for everyone to talk about them and what's up with their lives and please talk more about yourself.
I strongly disagree. For example, let's suppose you're a typical guy. A girl wants you to do something nice for her, such as help her move something; hold her purse; buy her a drink, etc. Your brain (informed by years of propaganda) is urging you to do it. No, no, no. Don't do it. If you do it, it (generally speaking) ruins your chances with her.
Everyone plays "signaling" games, it's part of being human.
Your chances of what? Your chances of quick casual sex, maybe. I don't think it harms your chances of falling into deep, mutual love, though, which is best done on a solid foundation of honesty and friendship. You cannot build a soul-deep connection with another human being if, from day one, you're playing mind games where you treat them worse than you would a stranger in an effort to push their evopsych buttons. Those tactics may get you somewhere, but that "somewhere" will not be love.
Either one. It's very difficult to build a long term relationship if there isn't initial sexual attraction.
I'm not sure I would use the phrase "mind games" to include "getting in the habit of acting in such a way as to receive respect from others," but however you want to label it, you are incorrect.
You believe that sexual attraction, ceteris paribus, grows when she requests you to open a jar and you say "no"? I have not seen a single case where that was the deciding factor, except in the opposite direction.
Not necessarily, because if she was never sexually attracted, turning down the request for a favor won't help the situation. But if there was some degree of sexual attraction, doing a favor will -- generally speaking -- lessen it. Something very small, like opening a jar, might have a de minimus impact depending on the context.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link