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 -
Quoting my favorite Scott article,
Now of course, dating advice isn't Stalin-era Soviet academia, but it is absolutely an adversarial information environment. If you're a 20-year-old dude and you see the top comment in a Reddit advice thread saying, "Tee-hee, just ask us. Girls like sex as much as guys do.😊" and then you take this literally and use your own sex-drive as a baseline to model the mental state of women you might be attracted to, you are going to end up like poor little OP here. You have to be smart enough to know immediately that this is obvious bullshit even though you still don't know what the correct answer is. You have to notice things like:
You see a lot of men trying and failing to get laid, but almost never see women trying and failing to get laid.
The overwhelming amount of porn is geared towards men.
There seems to be a whole lot of anger and vitriol on places like /r/creepyPMs towards guys who do in fact just ask.
Now, most guys don't end up like OP. It's not that hard to figure out some upper bound on how creepy and assertive you can be, below which you can be sure not to suffer social embarrassment (or worse). The main issue is that many men (myself included) will adopt the "never initiate a conversation with a woman IRL about anything except academic or professional topics," rule.
That, I think, is part of the entire problem in this whole arena. Men don't see the girls who try and fail to get laid, or want more than just to get laid on a one-night stand. They see the guys around them trying and failing with women; they aren't in the same set of women, amongst women, seeing the girls who want something and can't find it: plenty of guys willing to fuck 'em and flee, not so many willing to take it slow and stick around. I have seen guys writing online about "if she doesn't agree to have sex by the third date, I'm dumping her. No point wasting time when I can get someone who will have sex on the first date".
So then we get into a stupid arms race, where women think they have to put out or else they can't get the guy to stick around, and the guys think "look at all those bitches riding the cock carousel!" (for the most jaundiced reaction) or "women have no problems getting laid if they want" (for the milder one).
More options
Context Copy link
I'm fascinated by how the 'male looking to [dm]ate female' information environment became so over-the-top noisy and downright adversarial.
My theory is that;
The lack of granularity in information. What should be a flowchart/decision tree based on features such as 'self attractiveness',' target attractiveness',' self social skills',' target social status', 'target flirting ambiguity', etc? (I've conjectured in the past that if a dataset such as this existed, modeling it would be trivial using a tree-based model.) Is just flattened down to lower dimensions and your end up with a shitty model.
Wrong people giving advice: "You don't ask a fish how to catch it, you ask a master fisherman". That statement is absolutely on the mark. Women have 0 idea on how to attract women and you should just about never take their advice (The statement is always preemptively prompted with "the proposer is prince charming"). Having spoken about this with male friends who span the gamut of body counts, I have noticed that only average looking men with very very high body counts (>30) have any useful advice at all (controlled for confounders). At least pre tinder you didn't achieve that high a body count without being physically attractive AND having game, with OLD you can get away with shitty game if attractive enough.
Moreover, everyone chimes into the conversation because there is some universal aspect to attracting a mate, so you get people who are just bad at articulating things shitting up the space even further and the entire circus along with it.
Gynocentricism. Certain dating advice that will actually work might paint women in a negative moral light. This is verboten in the same way implying that black people have weaknesses as a group is just about verboten. Women's true preferences must not ever be discussed and you will be called an INCEL if you point that out, you must tow the party line that height/looks/wealth has nothing to do with it and its all about a lack of body odour and pErSoNalItY (Seriously, this is the most damning plot I have ever seen, and it doesn't get brought up enough, but it is seriously eye opening, my lying eyes tell me R >= 0.95, the perfect proxy variable, you tell me which is the cause and which is the effect).
I'm not sure what the mechanisms for this are, perhaps just simple ingroup outgroup dynamics? I would posit that given women are the gatekeepers of sex, any line of actions that short-circuits the expected mating ritual is seen as the equivalent of the dark arts?
Another one is that the women who give out dating advice or write about relationships (and thus who's opinions you see in online discourse) are either useless or non-representative:
1.way inside the basic normie female bubble. Cosmo-tier advice.
Extremely online and ideological (or cynical). Giving Dating Advice is really just them finding a soapbox to talk about how Men Need to Do XYZ. Often it's tuned to attract clicks, not to be useful to anyone, male or female.
Extremely online and incredibly anxious and atypical, (and also ideological). Girls who think dating game begins and ends with avoiding being raped.
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is mostly true but it is somewhat culturally dependent. I have some female French Canadian cousins and I find that that culture is much more honest about dating. I have learned some useful things from them about what attracts women that I think are true.
I also find foreign women are much more upfront about wanting a man with money and status.
They don't always have good advice though. I have a friend who is pretty average looking but very charming and social and always had a girlfriend. His advice to me - which I immediately recognized as bad - was to just wait because "relationships just happen".
IME that's most women's advice, too, or at least most attractive women. And from their point of view it's perfectly true, but that doesn't make it helpful for people for whom it's demonstrably not true.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But that's the thing right there! "High body counts"! That is, the kind of women willing to have, or only looking for, casual sex who don't want anything more long-term and aren't interested in a relationship. If you're fishing in that pool, of course your view of women is that they don't mean what they say, don't know what they want, and all the rest of the views about women only wanting handsome bad boys and ignoring the nice guys who would want a relationship, until they're too old and used-up to get men and then they want to hook a beta provider.
Do the guys with high body counts pick a permanent/long-term relationship out of the girls they landed and then discarded, or not? That's the question that needs to be answered.
Yes and no. Do you think a handsome guy who is smelly and mean will get anywhere? A rich guy who is smelly and boring may do, and we all know what the bargain is there. I think the longer version is "Okay, if you're average looking and not very poor or very well-off, the thing that makes the difference is grooming and personality", and that people do have to understand that, life being unfair, the best-looking, richest, and most charming (in whatever combination of those qualities) is going to get the benefits first. Just like tall men allegedly do better than short men even at work, which is unfair, but that's how things are set up.
How many guys, faced with a choice between a plain girl with a lovely personality and a 10/10 girl who is a little bit dumb and airheaded, are going to pick Plain Jane? Works the same way for women.
So yeah, the advice should be worded "if you're not handsome and rich, then in order for Sally to pick you over George, Bob, Phil, Mike, Harry, Eugene and the twenty other guys online dating, you need something like an edge, be that grooming or being funny or whatever".
Another complaint I've seen is that women judge most men on dating sites to be unattractive, and while that sounds wrong because c'mon, they can't all be uggos, I do think that there is a problem of aesthetics going on. I have seen (and being as vague as possible so as not to identify any place or person) dating profiles where the guy puts up a selection of photos, clearly under the impression that "yeah, I look good here" or, something I am coming to think is the salient factor here, "this shows off my interests".
So he'll put up a photo of him after mountain climbing or hiking, thinking "This shows how outdoorsy/fit and active I am", and thinking this is something to back up what he's put in his profile. Meanwhile, looking at it as a woman, he looks like a bedraggled drowned rat in it. A woman isn't thinking "wow, he loves hiking" (unless she's really into hiking too), she's thinking "oh my God, couldn't he at least have taken a shower first before taking this photo?" I've seen photos that made me think "He could have looked really good here, if he only did X, Y and Z" and that would have moved him out of the 85% pile.
So advice like "get a better haircut, get someone to help you pick out clothes, get a good photo taken" really does make a difference.
EDIT: Also, I think guys have no idea of the amount of photoshopping/airbrushing that goes on with magazines etc. when showing models and actresses. I saw one cover today of a woman in a bikini and I went "yeah, they did photo editing to give her wider hips" because the figure as presented wasn't anatomically possible. But a man will look at that and think this is how women can/should look (see the thigh gap thing - when taking fashion photos there's tricks of stance and angles to get the apparent gap).
Men look at photoshopped Insta and OF pictures all the time.
Not the same photoshopping, one removes pimples (or buccal fat) the other makes tits and ass bigger. Most of womens complaining is about the former.
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