site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   31532 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 22, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

(I'm new, so I'm not sure if this is Culture War.)

Does anyone have any modern dating advice?

I'm interested in finding out what are the "real" rules that people operate under when it comes to dating, which might be different from the rules they ought to have or the rules they claim to have or the rules that they believe that they have (but subconsciously they use different rules). And of course the word "people" is very broad and presumably various subgroups operate in different ways, so I'd be happy for clarification on that point too. (And then of course individuals differ from the norms of the subgroups they belong to). Ideally I'd like to see some objective evidence, but personal experiences/impressions still count for something.

I identify with the difficulties in Scott's classic posts "Untitled" and "Radicalizing the Romanceless". Generally I'm paranoid about approaching women, because I feel like maybe they think I'm a creep and they're just too polite to say so. My biggest concern isn't that they dislike me per se; it's that maybe I've hurt the woman without realizing it. I'm very sensitive about that.

I've done dating sites and speed dating but I can't seem to find any connections. I should note that I have low self-esteem, so rejection is hard on me, which in turn makes it difficult to put myself out there. (Here's a question: How much time per week does the average single straight guy spend on dating sites etc., assuming he's actively looking for a date?)

I'm not a misogynistic incel, but whenever I talk about my dating woes a good portion of people feel the need to tell me "Don't be an incel!" when I haven't said or done anything remotely misogynistic. I figure the Motte is probably a good place to find people who understand my perspective.

I've been looking for dating advice recently, but everything seems contradictory. You're supposed to treat all people equally regardless of gender (which is great!), but at the same time you're supposed to conform to gender stereotypes and you should expect that most women will do the same. People tell me it sucks and it's not fair, but I'm the man and that means I have to initiate contact and get rejected a lot. They also tell me to be persistent but in the same breath they tell me not to be too persistent and it's not clear where to draw the line.

They tell me to be authentic but they also tell me to "fake it till you make it" and act like I'm a cool guy who dates people all the time. They tell me to express my feelings but they also tell me that "women can smell fear" so I should act confident even if I don't feel confident. They tell me to be honest but I've also had a (female) therapist suggest that I should tell some white lies to make myself more attractive. This woman gave a TED talk about her wonderful relationship with her husband (who sadly passed away) and she admits that the relationship began with lies: He falsely claimed to be a Fullbright Scholar to get her attention. Months later she found out the truth, but she was only angry for a short time. Ultimately, his lie made their whole relationship possible!

People tell me that women like it when you express interest in them, but also they think it's creepy. People tell me I must never express interest in a girl at her place of work, but the only relationship I had in the last 10 years began with that exact scenario, and the girl was flattered! (We eventually broke up, and since then I've also approached a few female coworkers at my own workplace, without success.) People tell me that if I show interest in a girl early on then I'm "too easy" and there's no "intrigue", so the appropriate thing is to give little hints about my feelings so she can pursue me. (In which case, apparently I'm taking the female role and she's taking the male role? I'm not offended by that; I'm just confused.)

People say that they met the love of their life on a dating app, but they also say that dating apps are trash and nobody likes them. (But even though everybody hates dating apps, apparently nobody can think of anything better to do.) People tell me it's ok to wear t-shits with the name of my favorite show or whatever (it displays my personality), but also I should never do that and the only way to be attractive is to wear solid colors with the occasional stripe.

One commenter on the Motte wrote "running a 'playing hard to get' game on a woman seems suboptimal. If you are looking for someone with whom you are authentically drawn to/compatible with, why set up these hoops or create a culture of deception within the relationship?", but in the next breath that same person wrote "it is also a risk to be overly eager. It's unattractive". But if I'm very attracted and I act like I'm only mildly attracted, doesn't that create a culture of deception within the relationship??

Long story short, I'm lost.

(And it surely doesn't help that I've got a long history of mental illness and isolation and thus I missed out on a lot of opportunities for social learning.)

I am actually bi, but in practice it's rare for a guy to get my attention, so I'm mostly concerned about how to approach women.

"Radicalizing" was written in 2014, and the advice at the bottom leads me to essays from 2001. It occurs to me that this might be woefully out of date.

Does anyone have any modern advice for me?

Treat it like a video game.

Pick the odd dialogue options just to see what happens, message through all your matches on the dating profile just to see what's there and what content's available, laugh at the ones that blow up in your face as a funny or interesting outcome, notice if you're in danger (like if it going wrong could threaten your job or friend group) and tread lightly accordingly...

But generally go into dating like an RPG character looking to interact with all the NPCs dialogue's been written for and figure out which combos of outfits, objects, and skills open which doors...

Oh ya, and at some point you might form a connection with someone.

But its exactly like a video game, if you aren't advancing there's some content you're probably missing or some area you've been avoiding looking.

Woman here. Maybe I can help.

  1. Your odds of hurting women by talking to them are very, very low. We generally think of men we label creeps as mildly weird, not genuinely threatening. Don't get gropey or give sexual comments to strangers and you'll be fine.

  2. Don't take rejection personally! The average woman on a dating site is swamped by messages. Every girl you talk to has fifty other guys competing for her attention so the odds she would pick you are low, that's the unfortunate reality of internet dating. Real life dating is less complicated but even there young women tend to be aware they are in high demand. Occasional rejection is something every man has to face and you should absolutely not let it discourage you.

  3. Most women are attracted to confident dominant ambitious high status men. They do not want to be treated equally; They are biologically wired to seek a mate who could protect them and their offspring in the ancestral environment. You should aim to act like a tribal chieftain who believes he was predestined for greatness by the gods.

Really, the most important thing is that you don't give up. Remember that acting overconfident is always better than the opposite.

Your odds of hurting women by talking to them are very, very low.

That's good to hear.

Occasional rejection is something every man has to face

"Occasional" rejection would be wonderful. I get rejected at least 95% of the time. I haven't had a date in years.

Most women are attracted to confident dominant ambitious high status men.

So basically, most women are not attracted to me. Drat.

You should aim to act like a tribal chieftain who believes he was predestined for greatness by the gods.

Are you saying that I should lie?

Is it more or less understood that you will never be in a relationship? If not there's probably hope for you.

Get jacked, get social, get rich. Never make a social blunder. Survive life and death struggle. Ideally? Go to war for your country and come back in one piece.

  • -11

The short form for me (okay, happily married, not in the dating pool, but reasonably charismatic), is that you can't trust / believe what 95% of women say. The saying is "Ask a fisherman, not fish, how to catch fish".

Most women seem generally unwilling or unable to introspect when it comes to attraction, or feel they can't be honest about it. So they say the usual platitudes like "be yourself!" "don't try, it'll happen!" "don't try to treat me differently" "just be nice!". Hollywood is just awful.

I was a late bloomer. My success took off when I just started going for it -- leaning in for the kiss, just making things happen, taking things a step further. I admit, this is all a while ago, so it's possible it's all changed, but I think it's human nature, so I rather doubt it.

In terms of your "how much interest to show", I think the answer is, show interest -- you want this -- but don't be creepy, i.e. if she's not interested, no big deal, you'll move onto the next thing.

My take -- be genuinely interested in her, and make her feel special. Do interesting things, and be willing to be a bit traditionally masculine (be competent, show initiative, be strong).

Good luck -- modern dating seems like a messed-up, sad, confused scene. Try to straighten it, and not get sucked in by the bullshit that's been painted on top recently.

  • Be fit. Ideally, you'd look like a Greek God.

  • Be charismatic. Ideally, charismatic enough for a career in politics.

  • Make a million a year or more.

  • Have time for her.

If you're short (5'4" or less) or, God help you, autistic, this is what it takes. Otherwise, you're going to be deciding where you want the ambulances and be fishing in some really shitty ponds.

Complicated rules around creepiness are features, not bugs, designed to paralyze the unattractive or get them ostracized for daring to want sex or relationships.

For what it is worth, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

  • -12

Latinos in the United States tend to be low income, short and very fertile. Their romantic success is proof the traits you listed aren't requirements.

Complicated rules around creepiness are features, not bugs, designed to paralyze the unattractive or get them ostracized for daring to want sex or relationships.

For what it is worth, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

You don't see anything wrong with a system in which short men are ostracized for daring to want sex or relationships? Short people are people too, you know.

Choosing some people by lot for celibate life paths does not seem like a terrible idea. Someone has to drive truck or some other occupation that meshes poorly with marriage and family life.

5'3" here, and it's not quite that bad. Fit, but six pack only visible part of the year; not particularly charismatic and arguably mildly on the spectrum; less than half a million per year. I do make time for partners, and most people would agree they're conventionally attractive. It does take a lot more work than if I were a foot taller. TBQH the biggest issue in my dating history has been getting taken off the market for long periods by people who didn't really appreciate me because I thought I couldn't do any better.

less than half a million per year.

The fact that you're using this number as a measuring stick tells me that you probably earn vastly more money than I do.

TBQH the biggest issue in my dating history has been getting taken off the market for long periods by people who didn't really appreciate me because I thought I couldn't do any better.

Sorry to hear that you had that experience.

The fact that you're using this number as a measuring stick tells me that you probably earn vastly more money than I do.

Quite possible. That said, in my experience there are rapidly diminishing returns to more money for dating once you get past, say, 100k/year. Going from 50k/year to 100k/year is far more valuable than 100k/year to 500k/year.

Honestly in my experience of dating amidst the Upper Middle Class clique, at a certain point it also becomes what you do to make money instead of exactly how it's made.

I'm fortunate enough to be very well compensated, but it's in a field that some would consider unethical/unstable and I've had a few romantic entanglements peter out after 3-4 dates since I wasn't seen as being worthy of meshing with a lady Surgeon or whatever, despite being in a similar earning caliber.

there are rapidly diminishing returns to more money for dating once you get past, say, 100k/year.

Again, vastly beyond my actual income.

In my experience there are rapidly diminishing returns to more money for dating once you get past, say, 100k/year.

Mine as well. I think the most effective way to improve your dating life is just to go where the women are; being able to live comfortably in the big city, without stressing over money, definitely makes that easier.

Beyond that, I think you're more likely to be judged on your looks and charm (at least by the women worth your attention). Luckily, both of those can be improved by pretty much anyone, given a little time and effort.

You (and @moonrider18) should know that SkookumTree is known to be wildly mistaken in his beliefs about women (check out past Wellness Wednesday and Small Scale Question Sunday threads to see what I mean). Basically, he's convinced himself that he's an ugly autistic freak whose only options for love are to get a bottom tier woman (literal drug addicts, someone who's so fat she will need full time assistive care before long, etc), and persists in that belief no matter how many people here tell him he's dead wrong. I would take anything he says about romantic relationships with not just a grain, but a giant fistful of salt.

Thanks for the info

Oh, I'm trying to provide a counterpoint to the idea that shortness inherently means a miserable dating life. Currently engaged and have had several attractive women who wanted to marry me in the past, despite my, ahem, shortcomings.

It doesn't inherently mean a miserable dating life any more than it locks you out of basketball success. Muggsy Bogues was 5'3" and played in the NBA. A relationship with someone who isn't morbidly obese, is sane, and can hold a job is probably slightly easier for Joe Average than playing Division I ball.

A serious question: which has been more difficult for you/would be more difficult?

  • Climbing to the summit of Mt. Everest

  • Finding a partner that isn't morbidly obese, works a job, and is more or less sane.

Also, are you a military veteran? If you are: did you see combat? What made you think that anyone would ever be into you: did you ever get The Talk that you should be single for life because only gold diggers would be interested in you (not hyperbole; happened to me, age 21).

What is remarkable or extraordinary about you, if anything?

Climbing summit of Mt Everest would be far harder; I get grumpy climbing Mount Tam or honestly running more than a mile or two. Not a military veteran.

Never got any kind of talks about anything related to dating, so I was pretty clueless and didn't understand why it was so hard and had to learn through lots of trial and error what works.

What makes me exceptional? Hmm. Education from an elite university, good generalist knowledge in most subjects. Jobs have tended to be with well-known companies with decent comp packages, but people with those are a dime a dozen in the Bay Area. I speak a couple languages (particularly, languages that line up with my desired dating demographics) and have lived on a couple continents, and in my twenties had a pretty unconventional path compared to most people I know. I have some hobbies that are pretty unique and typically female dominated. I can usually make friends with anyone, from bona fide meth addicts to rich girls who went to posh boarding schools to Trump partisans to enthusiast tabletop gamers.

Also, persistence. That's been a pro and a con (too much persistence gets you stuck with folks who aren't really that into you), but it gets you somewhere.

I get grumpy climbing Mount Tam or honestly running more than a mile or two

A young enough person who just happened to neglect exercise can easily to from unfit to running marathon in 2-3 months.

I can usually make friends with anyone, from bona fide meth addicts to rich girls who went to posh boarding schools to Trump partisans to enthusiast tabletop gamers.

Yeah - that's exceptional and counts for a lot. Also, it's supposed to be hard for guys like you - the only guy your height I know who isn't with someone morbidly obese or crazy is a future neurosurgeon with enough charisma for a career in politics.

Nobody was ever uncomfortable with the thought that you'd be anything other than a celibate programmer? And you're on the spectrum? Interesting. Also, how'd you get that charismatic? Can you get people to not only be your friend but also fight and die for you, or sacrifice for you?

I don't think that's particularly exceptional? Starting from the upper class and having a base level of imitation and willingness to do things that your local social group find distasteful when around other social groups should be enough to do that.

I have low self-esteem

My advice is to focus on that, using techniques from CBT, REBT, or whatever to get out of the habit of rating yourself, even when you are rejected. I don't mean "high self-esteem". I mean not esteeming yourself one way or the other. (Rate your actions as good or bad, obviously.)

I'm assuming that you already live an interesting life. If not, make it more interesting. It's one of the easiest ways to be hotter. It's also the way to be truly "hard to get". If your life is interesting outside of romance and you don't have distorted thoughts about e.g. needing a romantic partner's approval to have self-esteem, then any worthwhile partner will consciously or subconsciously compete for your attention.

In terms of actual communication and seduction technique, I think that if you can get your motivation right (work out what you want, work out how much you are willing to sacrifice, accept that things will be imperfect, and overcome your fears of rejection) then these are actually relatively easy - just a matter of practice. I try not to think about it and focus on enjoying myself on dates; I have zero "game" in the strategic or tactical senses. I don't consciously use any techniques like mirroring or playing hard to get. It seems to work well: acting naturally probably makes me seem more confident that I am, and confidence is a turn-on for most non-predatory people.

The advice given below is great, and a lot of it is probably from better daters than me, so I'll just throw out a couple random tips/comments that I think will be helpful.

-- Stop reading stuff like Radicalizing. Avoid content about how hard dating is, avoid content about how terrible modern women are. This isn't a judgment primarily on the accuracy/lack thereof of the content. It is mental hygiene. That kind of stuff will not make you better at this. There really exist women who will be interested in talking about interesting books/articles/poems/whatever, or at least they will pretend to be because your knowledge intimidates them, I know this from experience.

-- Learn to text well. The general advice to move to in person ASAP is good, but for various reasons I haven't followed it in years, I nearly always text extensively for days-weeks-months and the first time we meet up it is certainly to make love. Get off the app you met on asap to a full featured app like texting or telegram or snapchat*. Most people make the mistake of turning a text conversation into an endless series of Q&As hoping to hit it off. The best way to text well is to use pictures to bring observational humor and insights into your day. Look at this funny squirrel/advertisement/car I saw, wow I can't believe what I just read in the newspaper hear's a picture of the article. Ask for her advice on something, whether it's a small decision you are making or because "a friend" came to you for advice. This allows you to take the conversation in a different direction, and pictures are inherently more intimate, escalating towards pics of each other, toward increasingly intimate pics** etc. Aim to talk about your day and what is going on around you, not "what's your favorite song? :)"

-- Negging is mostly dead. Too many loser dudes who think it is just insulting women. Showing interest is a better expression of confident high value than hiding the ball. If your goal is to think and act like the hypothetical Alpha Male, then you express interest directly, because you don't need to play games, and you don't have time to. You tell her you want to sleep with her, because you know she will want to sleep with you, because it will be the best time of her life.

-- The first three women I slept with were, for all intents and purposes, practice. They had fun, I had fun, but I wasn't great. If I had met my wife first, we never would have hit it off, I would have fumbled it. They deserve partial credit for my later marriage.

-- Find how to make dating something you enjoy. Nothing is more attractive than someone who seems to be getting exactly what they want out of life, and the best way to show that is to be genuinely happy doing what you're doing. This is one area where fake it til you make it applies 100%: one of the classic Online Dating conversations is "lol online dating is wild right?" Don't ever bitch about women on the app. Tell stories about how well you are doing on the app, how women are crazy about you in funny ways, not ones about how you can't find a date to save your life or you keep getting ghosted or whatever.

-- The best first dates are expandable. They seem and are low commitment at first, but have options for progression as each stage goes well. Dinner/movie are bad because there's a distinct conclusory moment at which one of you has to make an affirmative decision as to what comes next. "Let's hop in my car and drive two hours to the beach" can be fun and spontaneous if it works, but it's too high of an initial commitment for most people. A walk through a street fair, art museum, interior city park, etc delivers both a framing activity and the natural "let's get a snack/drink/coffee/etc" value. The best dates are when everything just flows, no firm decisions are made but by the end it feels natural that you wound up in bed.

*snapchat completely sucks, but if the girl uses it it is what you get.

**Never, ever send a dick pic until she has specifically asked, nay begged, for one. She will.

I'm autistic as fuck, fit but in an ugly way (real Cro-Magnon man shit), short, I buy all my cloths at costco and wear whatever is on top of the clean cloths pile until it's dirty. There is very little about me that is traditionally attractive, BUT!

I am way closer to asexual than most people/I'm just not that interested in fucking, and I'm autistic enough to not care about embarrassing myself by being passionate about nerd shit at people.

That is literally all you need (and some jokes. some bantz, if you will. a supply of bits). Everyone talking about confidences is, sadly, correct.

IN MY EXPRIENCE: if you are worried a lot about romance shit, the best way to solve you problem is to be less worried.

Negging is mostly dead. Too many loser dudes who think it is just insulting women.

Isn't it? What is negging, if not a stealth insult designed to make the woman lean on you to boost her injured self-esteem?

Tell stories about how well you are doing on the app, how women are crazy about you in funny ways

So...I should just lie to everybody?

Isn't it? What is negging, if not a stealth insult designed to make the woman lean on you to boost her injured self-esteem?

Done right, it is very different. Negging is supposed to be a negative compliment, the opposite of the humble brag.

Right now if a woman is dating, she's going to get a dude a week who cruises in and just shouts "NOT THAT HOT AND UR PROBS DUMB TOO." So they're very on alert for insults, they read as low value today. Genuine, up-front interest is much rarer in a girl's in-box these days than it was a decade ago when negging was the fashion. Contrarianism is always the play.

So...I should just lie to everybody?

I mean, yeah, pretty much. Or just don't talk about it. Just don't ever complain about how hard dating is.

Negging is supposed to be a negative compliment

"Negative compliment" sounds like a fancy term for "insult".

they're very on alert for insults, they read as low value today.

Was there a time when insults were considered high value? Were woman walking around thinking "God, I just wish someone would insult me already!"?

-- Learn to text well. The general advice to move to in person ASAP is good, but for various reasons I haven't followed it in years, I nearly always text extensively for days-weeks-months and the first time we meet up it is certainly to make love.

How the hell is this workable? I had a few extended (month+) texting sequences end in pretty immediate clunks in person, that admittedly I probably should have vetted better with selfie swapping and social media stalking, and the sheer palpable letdownery of those engagements scared me away from letting things go longer than a week or so without a first meeting in person.

I've had pretty good luck with them. Can't speak to anyone else. There are plenty of duds that fade prior to meeting, and some that don't among to much after, but I've yet to run into one that was significantly below spec in person.

Generally tons of pics/videos are exchanged, phone calls and video calls are a good addition as well. I've yet to be disappointed in person, but I've definitely cut bait on or lost interest in people I started texting who were setting off my Spidey senses with how they took pics. (No social media, ever)

It might also have to do with my location, I'm sorta out in the country but within half an hour to an hour of many options, and two hours from an infinite supply. So maybe it works better for me because there's not the same expectation that we could meet tomorrow that there is in the same city?

I will say I once hit on a girl on Facebook, circa like 2010, who was just outside my friend circle. Showed up to her house to "watch a movie" and holy shit this girl was huge. I had to make an excuse to get out of there right away. In her pics she looked great!

I've been catfished and that's been an immediate ending to an in-person first date, but also I feel like sometimes it's just vibe/energy mismatch even if the texting is good and nothing's been misleading perse.

It's definitely a risk, though I haven't had that problem.

Maybe it's one of those times where the extremes work but the middle doesn't? Like the real rule is either do it right away or work at it for a month or more. Anything in the middle doesn't work? Idk.

I mean...are you a tall dude that looks like he could be a male model? Are you a multimillionaire with yacht pics? Famous? Or...are you okay with women twice your weight? If this guy ain't conventionally attractive he needs a million a year and enough charisma for a career in politics plus the body of a Greek God, otherwise he's decidin' where he wants the ambulances.

I mean...are you a tall dude that looks like he could be a male model?

Yes. I'm so good looking I could model female clothing and it would sell.

I have the face of a young Robert Redford, the body of a cruiserweight boxer, the charisma of Colonel Jose Aureliano Buendia after two drinks.

The ambulances can come nowhere near me.

Okay, dude, this constant one-note refrain of "If you are not rich, tall and handsome you are doomed to settle for a morbidly obese chick there are no exceptions" is entering "egregiously obnoxious" territory. You are allowed to vent about your own personal lack of success with women (though the Wednesday Wellness thread would be better for it), and you are allowed to comment on dating as it relates to culture war, but "Only chads get acceptable women, everyone else has to settle for landwhales" requires more than just dropping it as a hot take.

I am sorry for not being insufficiently clear. For a lot of things, there are three (not two) levels. Rich, middle class, and poor. Attractive, average, and unattractive. Hell, strong as fuck, average, and puny. My intention wasn't to say the equivalent of "If you ain't rich, you're a hobo begging for spare change"; that is just straight up false. I meant to say that if you were unattractive (as distinct from average) your dating options sucked.

Also, there are exceptions. I knew one.

I mean...are you a tall dude that looks like he could be a male model? Are you a multimillionaire with yacht pics? Famous? Or...are you okay with women twice your weight? If this guy ain't conventionally attractive he needs a million a year and enough charisma for a career in politics plus the body of a Greek God, otherwise he's decidin' where he wants the ambulances.

This took me less than two minutes to find and is just one example of you doing the exact thing you claim here that you're not doing, and going out of your way to be clear and explicit about it.

Also, I think much of the objection is not to the content but to the repetitiveness. Making a dozen to a score of posts saying essentially the same thing (including two substantively similar direct replies to the OP) in something on the order of 48 hours is pointless and obnoxious.

Not advice but for me personally my mental state and happiness improved remarkably when I fully accepted and acknowledged that I had a good alternative to the current broken Western dating system, namely that whenever I feel ready I can just ask my parents to find me a good girl from my culture and within 12 months I will be married to someone who shares my values and belief system, comes from a similar social class as me and is likely to make an excellent long term companion. I understand that this option might not be available to you, but know that there definitely exist good alternatives to the current situation in the West.

For a while (back when I was foolish and supported western modernity) I was quite opposed to the way we do things back home, believing all the standard arguments westerners are quick to trot out against arranged marriages. I wanted to stick it to my parents by showing them that their system was out of fashion and unnecessary and I could do equally well without them.

Looking back, my foray into the western dating system was empirically not good for my mental health and I've been much much happier since I internalized that I have an escape valve, ready to use whenever I wish and that I shouldn't give a shit about western behaviour in this realm beyond it's popcorn value, much like how I don't give a shit about Luba hunting practices because they don't affect my life in any way, shape or form.

My position on the issue has completely shifted: from thinking that arranged marriages are one of the worst aspect of our culture to believing that it is probably one of the best ones.

It appears that you've never actually used this "escape valve". If that's the case, how do you judge its value?

What if your parents do a bad job of choosing a partner? (I certainly wouldn't trust my parents to choose a partner for me.)

Obviously the Western world is flawed, but I don't think arranged marriages would be an improvement.

I've never had to use the reserve parachute when going skydiving (it's a secondary parachute in case the primary one fails). I can still value it very highly.

What if your parents do a bad job of choosing a partner? (I certainly wouldn't trust my parents to choose a partner for me.)

Sucks for you then, besides you can always say no to their choices and find someone you like as long as you can convince your parents to give their blessings to the marriage. Arranged marriages are an extra option open to you (that's generally a good idea), not something forced upon you. If all else fails you can just say you are marrying person X and tell your parents to pound sand (as you are an adult etc.) and they can't do shit about it beyond cutting off contact from you, it's not a particularly good idea, but very possible.

Generally in a functioning societal system parents want their children to do well and in an arranged marriage system finding their children partners is a parental duty, so there are support systems not present in western societies that make finding a suitable partner for your children a lot easier.

Yeah, arranged marriage can be good. Forced marriage is fucked up. Maybe you can bite the bullet that it's necessary to keep society stable in Afghanistan or some shit, but it's a hell of a bullet to bite.

Fortunately forced marriages are extremely extremely rare these days outside of rural uneducated shitholes where the literacy rate is <20%.

As other users have said there is no perfect formula. If you're looking for the "one weird trick" to get a date you're in for a bad time.

At the same time, I think I can offer some advice. There's a common failure mode of the male and vaguely on the spectrum mindset that says "I'm depressed and fat because I can't get a girlfriend" when a more accurate summary of the situation is "you can't get a girlfriend because you're depressed and fat." It may be a cliche to say that "confidence is sexy" but the cliche is true.

Step one to making yourself admirable, is to figure out what you admire and make a conscious effort to embody that. And admirability is only a half-step away from attractiveness is it not?

I know it's not what people want to hear but I really do believe that the best advice is to be polite, be professional, and have a plan to kill everyone you meet be better. Modernity be damned.

The problem is quite frankly there is no perfect formula for asking out a girl. Every girl is different after all. What would flatter one girl would get another to want to call the cops. I can share my experience and what's worked with me though.

First, you should identify what you want and what you're willing to do. Think about whether you want a hook up or whether it'd leave you disgusted with yourself. Whether you're willing to be 50 and single or if you'd happily marry a sub-optimal partner as long as they shared your most important values. You might be wrong about guessing what you really want until you try, but it's better than going in totally blind. In my opinion it's a good thing to go on dates even with women you're not super attracted to, because the cost of one evening and paying for dinner is small compared the experience gained at socializing and the potential opportunity to unexpectedly connect.

The next step is to get on the big dating apps. Tinder, Bumble, and Hinge, and maybe a more niche one like Christian Mingle if you fit the demographic. Make a profile with nice pictures and a bio. I've read the advice "Be unique! Stand out with something silly!" but in my own personal experience making my profile as inoffensive but flattering as possible works best. Like every profile, in my experience it does not actually lower your elo, and takes much less time and energy than trying to determine whether you're attracted to someone who 99% will not match you anyway. When messaging first, comment on something in their profile or pictures. Expect to carry the conversation for the first bit. Ask for their social media at the first good opportunity, or as a casual hail mary if the convo is dying. Ask them to meet up for a movie or dinner or whatever you like to do at the next good opportunity. Don't bother playing games/hard to get. Don't necessarily respond the second they do if they're spacing out their messages, being that available can make people go "oh I kinda want to keep talking to him but I don't want a whole conversation right now, so I best not message because he's going to respond immediately". Waiting 15 minutes to 1 hour is fine. If they ghost you or are really dragging out their messages(24 hours+ between messages) they are not interested and you can stop wasting time on them. Even if they say they're interested, they are not actually.

That approach has gotten me a few dates and less wasted energy, ultimately no one I really liked, but still a big step up from where I was before learning all that.

If you're willing to work out at the gym and get sexy, that's an even bigger advantage, but personally I've always found that difficult.

What would flatter one girl would get another to want to call the cops.

You can see how Loss Aversion might lead me to avoid talking to women at all. =(

In my opinion it's a good thing to go on dates even with women you're not super attracted to, because the cost of one evening and paying for dinner is small compared the experience gained at socializing and the potential opportunity to unexpectedly connect.

First I need to find someone who's willing to go on a date with me.

Like every profile, in my experience it does not actually lower your elo, and takes much less time and energy than trying to determine whether you're attracted to someone who 99% will not match you anyway.

Does this mean I should just click "like" on hundreds of profiles? (Here I was being respectful and actually reading each profile and thinking about it first.)

Ask for their social media at the first good opportunity

What social media things are most popular these days? (I've heard tell that Facebook is dying and I'm behind the times.)

Lower your standards until your main concern is that she's not a danger to herself or others. Don't go out with that type unless you are okay with being in jail or the hospital. Then go on a lot of dates. See if you can build your social skills. Maybe you will find an unexpected connection.

Don't go out with that type unless you are okay with being in jail or the hospital.

You were asked to drop this. You didn't. 3-day ban.

Last I checked Facebook was still waaaaaaay bigger than all the alternatives proposed by people who say it's dying put together. I think that's mostly people trying to be all hipster-y.

(EDIT: Looked up some numbers and this is no longer true as stated. Insta in particular is far closer to catching up than I would have guessed. But it's still only close to catching up, not in danger of eclipsing it or anything.)

Does this mean I should just click "like" on hundreds of profiles? (Here I was being respectful and actually reading each profile and thinking about it first.)

In my opinion, yes.

What social media things are most popular these days? (I've heard tell that Facebook is dying and I'm behind the times.)

It depends on personal preference. The main ones I think are Instagram, Snapchat, Discord. You can just ask "Do you have any socials?" then they'll give you any they want to share.

I (35M) just got married to a woman I met on hinge. She’s awesome and I brag about her to anyone who’ll listen. Before that, though, I was an extremely active dater and hooker-upper. I probably went on dates with a couple hundred women and slept with about a hundred. Here are some thoughts:

  1. Dating can be extremely fun!! You should be excited to get out and do this. Chasing girls is fun. Banter is fun. Flirting is fun. Leaning in for the first kiss or knee touch or any small escalation is fun. Slightly risky behavior is super fun. Try to have fun, don’t just obsess about the destination. I racked up quite a body count and have great memories about a lot of these girls and experiences still. So do they. I love my wife more than dating but I loved the process of dating and sleeping with hot women a lot too.

  2. Location matters, a lot. I was dating mostly in the Bay Area (but would also go on lots of one-offs while traveling for work in other cities). There are just way more people to date in a city and even though there’s also more competition a deep market is good for everybody. If you are not in a big city and are really serious about dating, you should move to one. New York is the best in the US, by a lot, but most big cities are good.

  3. Take 3 months and improve all the low hanging things you can about yourself. These are mostly physical. Lose weight if you’re even a little overweight. Go to the gym. Run, do cardio. Take care of your skin. Learn how to dress well. Get a good haircut. Switch to contacts if you have glasses. If you have bad teeth, get them fixed. Old me resented that I had to change something so shallow about myself, but I did it, and it vastly expanded my dating options and dating success. I personally wouldn’t go this far, but if you really have a big physical flaw on your face, consider cosmetic surgery. Also, these improvements will benefit you in your non-dating life as well.

  4. Get over any ego/insecurity you feel. You just need to ask lots of people out and you’ll get rejected a lot at various stages. That’s fine. You’ll get much much better with practice, and also learning to persevere in the face of rejection is a good skill.

  5. Most of my dates came from apps, with one-off random things materializing from in person encounters. Tinder sucks, bumble and hinge are good, and Raya is the best.

  6. It’s important to not come across like a loser. Nobody wants to date a loser. You need to project confidence, happiness, and can’t seem desperate. That said, earnestness (not obsessiveness) is generally attractive, so don’t bother playing games like “only one text in a row” or “don’t text right away after the first date.” If you like the girl it’s fine to say so. That said, don’t write ridiculous walls of text if she’s not reciprocating.

  7. You need to move from app convo to text to date planning to date quickly. Like 10 on app texts is plenty to ask for her number and suggest meeting up. It’s impossible to overstate how many matches a typical woman will have, and however witty or special you think you are over text you have no hope of standing out. You need to meet up in person, quickly. If you don’t meet up within a week of matching you probably won’t meet up.

  8. Things get way easier with age. I was hooking up with way more hot 21 year olds when I was 30 than when I was 21.

  9. Don’t get too invested in any one person, especially early on. As a man, you will typically be the one pushing for dates/sex initially, but the natural dynamics is that the woman will be pushing for the more serious things later on. Don’t bother getting invested until this point.

  10. The advice for hooking up is exactly the same as the advice for a serious relationship. You need to get your foot in the door first and foremost. That’s the hardest part as a guy. In my experience the conversion rate from “she wants to have sex” to “she wants something serious” is nearly 100%.

Good luck; have fun.

I probably went on dates with a couple hundred women and slept with about a hundred.

Your experience is vastly different from my own.

Dating can be extremely fun!! You should be excited to get out and do this.

It's hard to have fun on a date if nobody agrees to go on a date with me in the first place.

Location matters, a lot.

This may be a key problem for me. And unfortunately it wouldn't be easy for me to move.

Take 3 months and improve all the low hanging things you can about yourself. These are mostly physical. Lose weight if you’re even a little overweight. Go to the gym. Run, do cardio. Take care of your skin. Learn how to dress well. Get a good haircut. Switch to contacts if you have glasses. If you have bad teeth, get them fixed. Old me resented that I had to change something so shallow about myself, but I did it, and it vastly expanded my dating options and dating success.

Unfortunately, mental illness makes all of this more difficult than it would otherwise be. I tried getting contacts, for instance, but I found it psychologically impossible to actually stick the thing in my eye, even with a optometrist's assistant trying to help me.

Tinder sucks, bumble and hinge are good, and Raya is the best.

I'm told that Raya has a 1% acceptance rate. https://elitedatingmanagers.com/raya-app/

If you're on Raya, maybe that's because you're among the top 1% hottest (or most popular) men in the world, which probably explains why you've had so many partners.

Things get way easier with age. I was hooking up with way more hot 21 year olds when I was 30 than when I was 21.

This does not match my experience.

The link about Raya also states it used to be easier to get accepted.

In general, this is a common theme with dating apps. Most of them work much better (for men) during their first growth phase before becoming too mainstream and flooded and monetized. So it is a good idea to be on the look for new popular apps.

Would the cycle of dating apps being better at the start be weak evidence that early-adoption correlates with attractiveness in some ways?

The obvious problem with the apps is that average female gets a shit ton of attention from low quality men, while average men gets very little attention unless he paid/put effort into good photos. Too many women who aren't looking for actual dates but just some ego boost or instagram followers.

And when I say low quality men, I mean typically absolutely horrible and rude. Nobody wants to deal with that shit. Just like nobody wants to deal with women who has no intention of meeting up. Especially Tinder was absolute garbage when I was still using it a couple years ago.

So desirable young women actually looking to date typically migrate to the new shiny app (typically with a feminist vibe as that gives women some confidence) every couple of years. The user count will be small but much higher quality and still sufficient in large cities. Until it gets discovered by common people as "the app". Then rinse and repeat.

So to answer your question, I think the early-adoption correlates with being a bit savvier and putting some more effort into getting good dates.

I second all of this, except for maybe part 10.

In my experience the conversion rate from “she wants to have sex” to “she wants something serious” is nearly 100%

This is highly variable from person to person. In my experience its only been 10-20% but I think I'm on the low end. I have a really nice body and a rather spotty career history.

Generally I'm paranoid about approaching women, because I feel like maybe they think I'm a creep and they're just too polite to say so. My biggest concern isn't that they dislike me per se; it's that maybe I've hurt the woman without realizing it. I'm very sensitive about that.

The only cure for this is practice. Many years ago I almost threw up with anxiety before my first dating-app date. Now, women are disposable playthings to me and I have absolutely no concern for their feelings at all beyond the instrumental requirements to get them to sleep with me. At a point you come to regard each one as an entertaining brain-teaser (how do I need to rotate this Rubix cube to get it into my bedroom?) rather than as a person to whom the Golden Rule applies. This makes dating totally stress-free because you just don't care if you go down in flames.

TL;DR: There's nothing to make your first forays into the pitiless jungle psychologically easier, but each foray makes the next one easier.

women are disposable playthings to me and I have absolutely no concern for their feelings at all beyond the instrumental requirements to get them to sleep with me.

That attitude is horrible, manipulative and sexist.

At a point you come to regard each one as an entertaining brain-teaser (how do I need to rotate this Rubix cube to get it into my bedroom?) rather than as a person to whom the Golden Rule applies.

It is a well-established fact that women are people. Treating people like objects is the essence of evil.

You've probably hurt a lot of women, and I think you're hurting yourself in the meantime. Stop.

It is a well-established fact that women are people. Treating people like objects is the essence of evil.

What's the greater evil: my psychopathy, or OP's incel-ism?

Overcoming social anxiety to be able to date is a good end. Does it really matter that one uses evil means when the evil means exist only in my subjective qualia, not in the objective outside world?

What's the greater evil: my psychopathy, or OP's incel-ism?

I am OP, and I'd rather suffer privately than cause a bunch of other innocent people to suffer for my sake. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Does it really matter that one uses evil means when the evil means exist only in my subjective qualia, not in the objective outside world?

The objective outside world includes a number of women whom you have personally treated as disposable playthings. People get hurt when they're treated that way.

What's the evidence that women are hurt by his nonchalantness?

They're fine enough to sleep with him at least.

Less anxiety in the world is better

What's the evidence that women are hurt by his nonchalantness?

"Nonchalantness" is selling it short. Butlerian describes his attitude as psychopathy. That's literally the word he used. He also used the word "evil" and the phrase "women are disposable playthings to me and I have absolutely no concern for their feelings at all beyond the instrumental requirements to get them to sleep with me"

I would have thought that the destructive nature of this approach would be self-evident.

If you'd like proof, though, here's a paper about psychopathy in romantic relationships: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306624X211049187

And here's a few personal testimonials:

https://old.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/zjuxja/im_tired_of_guys_who_just_want_me_for_sex_and_lie/

https://www.readunwritten.com/2017/01/26/im-tired-guys-wanting-not-wanting-date/

https://old.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1462bbn/guy_just_delivered_my_order_asked_for_my_and/

https://old.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1467tq1/the_goddamn_audacity_of_men/

Less anxiety in the world is better

Psychopathy often causes abundant anxiety in its victims.

What's the greater evil: my psychopathy, or OP's incel-ism?

Since the latter isn't an evil at all, whatever else it may be, your psychopathy, almost by default.

Between his post and yours my take away is that I'm now glad I can't date because going to a forest, finding a good sturdy tree branch and hanging oneself seems preferable to cultivating your romance instincts to be sociopathic so you can 'date' effectively.

I hated dating when I did it, I hated being rejected and having to reject, hated the awkwardness, hated that there was basically no one there relatable.

Honestly thanks for the post - I can brew some quality copium out of it.

Brother, human sexuality is nasty, and I honestly think St. Paul had the right idea there.

The elders had the right idea with their arranged marriages. None of this cock-caurosel bullshit that's destroying our replenishment rates.

I’d agree, unless there’s an assload of pressure keeping them together. That’s no good. There’s good arguments that patriarchy was a sheltered workshop for unattractive dudes, and that we’re just getting rid of ‘em now. That’s fine: it’s truly nothing personal, the awkward programmer making $100k/year who can’t get a date is basically just roadkill on the highway of progress.

At a point you come to regard each one as an entertaining brain-teaser (how do I need to rotate this Rubix cube to get it into my bedroom?) rather than as a person to whom the Golden Rule applies. This makes dating totally stress-free because you just don't care if you go down in flames.

A friend I know explained it as women being like a Contract Bridge deal. Each deal has its own contract that you need to make and there are an absolutely huge number of hand card permutations (every woman, like every bridge hand, is effectively unique). Your job is to play what you have been handed and make the contract.

Sometimes certain methods work on some deals while they don't on other deals (finesses etc.) and you can never really be sure until you try them out. Equally though there are general principles that are good to adhere to and will lead to better long term results if you follow them rather than not following them, even though on specific deals they can sometimes be counterproductive. And finally getting good with woman is a learnable skill that comes with practice, much like how getting good at bridge is a learnable skill.

Have you seen the @whatever show on YouTube?

https://youtube.com/@whatever

You may have seen clips of the guy asking modern girls dating questions and get absolutely ridiculous answers. The show is very clippable and the women are ridiculous, however he usually has 1-3 men and women that have a much more traditional view on dating and relationships. And I think they offer good advice.

It’s a fascinating show regardless. Give it a try.

If anyone is interested. I liked this episode. https://youtube.com/watch?v=GEERYEkhpeE

I think you might want to fix the link. This was an ad for a hotel.

Thanks

https://youtube.com/live/7jJMxXsaKNI?feature=share

People tell me that if I show interest in a girl early on then I'm "too easy" and there's no "intrigue", so the appropriate thing is to give little hints about my feelings so she can pursue me

Outside of work and places like that there's no issue expressing interest in a girl, in fact it's good to make it obvious by talking to her a lot and asking for her Instagram or telling her you want to take her out for a drink (after you've talked with her a while and noticed some chemistry). Best to set the tone early as it's hard to shift from the background of her mind to the foreground. Normal rules of confidence apply and you should talk to her directly, in fact talk to her friends and your friends and show that you can command people's attention for a while without shrinking away in fear. You mention being isolated, I think improving your normal conversational skills even with male friends will help a lot here. It's a good thing to pursue in general and I think much of dating despair is compounded by general social despair. Dating is just good conversation (which is a skill) + some well-timed moves that display your intentions for more.

As for being creepy.. while expressing interest is normal, there is an issue with prematurely expressing a desire for commitment with a girl, you should set constraints on this in your own mind and even explicitly (twice I have said let's just have one drink and if there's no chemistry we'll leave it there, those dates went well) and treat each date as something that's fun for its own sake with no harm done if it ends. Be ready to pursue a bit but if you're putting in all the effort just forget about her. Don't make the mistake of idealising her, it's fine to kick yourself for blowing your chance with that super hot girl for a bit or be excited about seeing her again but remind yourself that you barely know her. I will say the obvious and don't make any crude sexual comments either, I know some guys can make this work but you don't need to take that risk.

So about talking to girls, all the rules of normal good conversation apply and you can talk about history or whatever, the only difference is you're going to arrange for another meeting down the line (whether that's setting a date or you and her grabbing a drink right then and there). Dating advice which complicates things isn't usually useful in my opinion but keeping the simple roadmap in your head is helpful: set a date (you pick what, when and where or else it'll never happen), meet and talk, try get some physical chemistry going (can be as simple as sitting beside her rather than across from her), make some positive comments about her appearance (not crude but still direct, you show confidence by being direct about being attracted to her), then if she has responded positively to all of that take your shot and go in for the kiss. There will nearly always be some doubt about the right moment for the last bit but sometimes you'll get lucky and she'll say something like "when are you going to kiss me?".

On dating apps, don't spend too much time talking back and forth without setting a date. Unless the conversation is really enticing for both of you (which can happen, I've discussed books and sent excerpts before a successful date) it will fizzle out if you don't set a time and a place. If she cancels multiple times or doesn't respond she probably wasn't going to meet up with you in the first place.

If you are looking for someone with whom you are authentically drawn to/compatible with, why set up these hoops or create a culture of deception within the relationship?

On authenticity, I think there's reason for optimism here. I have honestly gotten my best success with dating when being authentic and specifically finding women I can talk to as an equal in conversation i.e. I don't have to dumb myself down and they surprise me with their wit. Authenticity is polarising, you'll narrow the set of people who you can attract but trade it for greatly deepening the attraction of those you do.

On hoops, there are hoops that you insert yourself (pointless in my opinion unless you suspect a red flag and want to test for it), and there are the hoops which are inherent to dating. The latter I think should just be accepted. Think of it like a dance, you might have a lot of wiggle room to do things your own way but the date isn't going anywhere unless you move on to the next step. The fact that there are traditional expectations on the male is something you should be grateful for as they line the complicated world of attraction with a few obvious signposts for what works.

Outside of work and places like that there's no issue expressing interest in a girl

Even in those, there's no ethical issue. I even know several real life examples where a supervisor dated and married a supervisee, to the benefit of all concerned.

There are logistic and legal considerations, so I'd be a bit more cautious than the usual case. But (aside from the supervisor/supervisee situation) even that consideration isn't likely to blow up in your face, and even less likely to be career ending.

Over the course of the last 13-1 months (Recently found myself in a committed relationship), I essentially committed to grinding on dating apps & making myself more attractive.

I went on about 80 first dates during that period, and I'd say about twice that amount in total dates. I lost about 20KG over the period (and it was definitely a seachange from doing that), revitalized my style and took on a ton of 'practical experience'.

Honestly my biggest piece of advice for a guy trying to date in the modern sphere aren't super complicated. Firstly, Lose weight/Hit the gym, it'll massively expand your pool of potential matches. I'll admit I was an outsized beneficiary of doing this, as my baseline characteristics (6'4, White, blonde, muscular, ex-athlete, medium-autistic, symmetrical, 'good job') were all things I was somewhat wasting by being below the minimum level for consideration via obesity. It's way easier to operate in the space when matches & leads aren't scarce, especially as it means you can afford to experiment, build your skillset, and girls frankly like the aura that a guy isn't super desperate about them in particular to start off with.

The actual playing of games is a weird space. I met my partner on a dating app, but she's also in a very quantitative space (and you can draw whatever conclusions you want from that) and we prettymuch immediately clicked together into a space of communication and mutual desire. But I also spent months of my life learning and embodying a complicated normy socio-sexual world of response times, Instagram stories, flexing and jealousy bait.

Increasingly I feel like the whole space has just gotten way out ahead of people, especially as the social media/texting games get so convoluted and byzantine upon themselves and the nature of dating somebody you've met over an app, in which you've got very low potential of just kinda bumping into eachother and rekindling something by happenstance, has combined disastrously with Feminine sexuality being rather 'Ick-driven'. Then again chatting to female friends and having them downright weeping about how some guy who they've left on 'K', heart react and then read in 3 separate texting attempts has stopped talking to them also blows my mind a bit.

It’s supposed to by Byzantine. Part of the game is learning how to play the game, much like most other social networking games. The basic idea is weeding people out, making sure they aren’t tripping alarms about themselves and their suitability. Requiring that a person “figure out” that they’re supposed to be generally healthy tends to weed out those only doing so for dating purposes and who will generally be fit enough to be useful later in marriage. Requiring that a person figure out the cues of texting and other social interaction means that this person knows how to interact in polite society. Even stuff like hobbies having a status factor you need to figure out is kinda a hedge against faking— if I could give you a list of hobbies that you “should” have to win at dating, then everyone simply has those hobbies and doesn’t have the bad hobbies.

6'4, White, blonde, muscular

That does a lot for you. A foot shorter and autistic...and one of the better outcomes you could have would be someone three times your weight. Want someone thinner? Good luck with meth heads and crazy motherfuckers in and out of psych wards.

Very aware of my privilege in this regard, my heart bleeds for friends who don't have the same combination of attributes and I feel kind of bad for not developing my romantic skillset earlier

Yeah. Hopefully you can get them good lawyers and home health aides, if they need them.

Honestly my biggest piece of advice for a guy trying to date in the modern sphere aren't super complicated. Firstly, Lose weight/Hit the gym, it'll massively expand your pool of potential matches.

This can't be overstated. Men in Anglo countries are largely sold a bill of goods about how to attract women. Appearance is massively more important than is generally communicated. When you ask a woman what attracts them to a man, they don't answer the question honestly. What they tell you is what criteria they use to differentiate between men they are already attracted to. The good news is its really not a mystery. Height, physical fitness, being neurotypical, and being white are the biggest attractors in western countries. (female mate selection is the last bastion of full blown base racism and will never not be) Don't panic if you don't fit the immutable ones like height and race, we all do the best with what we have. Try not to dress like an idiot either; i categorize this one under 'neurotypical'. Once you've made yourself the most attractive version of you, learn to notice indications of interest from women. They are subtle, but when they are into you and you know what to look for its obvious.

Finally, looking for someone can't be your primary motive in life. The Sigma male people take this to an extreme but they are fundamentally correct. Worry about you first. Internalize the reality that you might not meet someone, and that's fine.

Scott, from the Fourth Meditation on Creepiness:

But if they deliberately make the mating dance super complicated and then freak out when anyone misses a step and call the guy a creep and a potential rapist and try to ruin his reputation, that's kind of, well, mean?

It is not mean. It IS A FEATURE, not a bug.

You've been, as the term is nowadays, RLHF'd.

"As an AI (Autistic Inchling), I cannot have decent relationships nor deserve to"

I mean. Be remarkable, or decide where you want the ambulances. It is that simple. This has always been the way of the world for unattractive people, men and women. The women are just the ambulance patients.

So too, creating real risk is also a feature not a bug. If one autistic manlet in a thousand did hard time or died for being presumptuous...well, that's a feature, not a bug. Remember that the most masculine thing a man can do is to go to war. Real attractive masculinity is made up of shit that makes the red pill look like a Sunday school.

You can probably be happy riding shotgun in ambulances with your partner as the patient. Beats being the patient.

But the purpose of that feature is mean.

How so? Unattractive people are expected to know their place. Men and women.

And any form of "_____ should know their place" is mean.

This is an application of a more general principle: "If you find yourself advocating things which would not seem incongruous coming from the villains in a young-adult dystopian novel, step back and take a long look in the mirror."

I mean. I consider myself unattractive, for what it is worth. Or, I once was. The thing the disability theorists call desexualization applies to an awful lot of things. I'm not even all that sure that it is a bad thing, although I will say that this idea is rather mean and that the process could be done in a much kinder way if we had celibate life paths. The reason I'm not that sure desexualization is all that bad is because I believe that there's a small but significant chunk of the population that does not make good partners. Much of this is no one's fault: the schizophrenic that can't hold down a job might have been a kind, caring Boy Scout before his first psychotic break freshman year at Ohio State. I will concede that the feature is mean, or at the very least kind of ugly - but I do not know if this is the least bad way to deal with this shit in a modern, Western society.

My advice - don't rush to dating necessarily though you may be enjoying it. Make sure you have another focus to your life and are creating your own freshness and also reduces the desparate. Two, among other things dating is a game, be prepared to learn it's rules but your question on authenticity is great. It's tricky, sometimes authenticity doesn't pay off but then maybe it's a good shortcut to finding out readiness, suitability. But key is not to look desparate, needy or to assume too much, too early. This requires a bit of strategy about how you're coming across. Also, try different things, you don't want to capitulate in a power sense but you don't want to think entirely in power paradigm and you'll have to take some risks in how to present yourself as a confident person.

But key is not to look desparate,

I've often been desperate in life, not just regarding dating but regarding life in general. I've suffered a lot of abuse. A lot has gone wrong.

It's a scenario where the "rich" get richer, I suppose. How awful.

That's tough, agreed that sort of thing can perpetuate. You didn't ask for advice outside the dating realm and I don't know your financial situation but you could consider something in the therapy line, counseling, or internal family systems. It certainly helped me, though it took a while to find the right person. If our family of origin has patterns and we were molded by them, it does become somewhat inevitable that we reflect these back onto our relationships in different ways. Relationships of different kinds (they don't have to be perfect) can help along the way but I've always thought that at the end of the day it's all down to me, what is it that holds me back with assertiveness, intimacy, resentment, self-doubt etc? It happened for me that being patient and focused and owning my own stuff ultimately put me in the position where the right person came along. I had a lot of failed dating attempts along the way, which were learnings, but I had enough confidence and self-momentum to understand this not as rejection but as poor fit. This self-sovereignty then gives you the allure needed because you're genuinely not desparate. While negative situations in your early life can have negative knockon consequences, it is also true that making positive changes to your own life will have positive knock-on changes. It may be you tend to meet more people on the way up as it were. While I'm in the advice mode, exercise is great and I also found meditation the start of an important journey for me- if you go this route consider learning it from sitting in with an actual tradition such as Buddhism ( you can ignore the fluff but it got me closer to the heart of the matter than going it alone with apps etc. Anyways apologies if I've overdone it.

you could consider something in the therapy line, counseling, or internal family systems

I've seen many therapists over the course of the last decade. I have Complex PTSD.

While negative situations in your early life can have negative knockon consequences, it is also true that making positive changes to your own life will have positive knock-on changes.

I've been through many negative events, both in my early life and in more recent years.

I'm trying to make positive changes, but it's a slow process.

Sounds tough, and makes my comment somewhat moot. Keep on, keeping on, sounds like you have plenty of insight already. I didn't come from a traumatic home but did suffer the early death of my father. Go well.

I'm sorry to hear about your father.

Thanks for your words of support.

This is classic victim mentality. We make up stories to ourselves about what we've been through. Reimagine the perceived injustices you've experienced as times when you've grown or learned to make them strengths rather than weaknesses. If you're here you're probably smart enough to twist anything you've been through into a bad experience, but you could just as easily shift your perception of these things into positive experiences. It may seem like it doesn't matter but you're always going to be happier if you shift your beliefs to a positive view of events rather than a negative one. And most of the time there is no objective truth to the matter so you might as well choose the more theoretically positive one for yourself.

I don't know if that makes sense, but basically stop painting yourself as a victim in your own mind and view your suffering as empowering rather than defeating and you'll be much happier and confident and effective as a person.

It may seem like it doesn't matter but you're always going to be happier if you shift your beliefs to a positive view of events rather than a negative one.

Not true. In cases where events are actually negative, an accurately negative view is far better than an inaccurate positive view.

For instance, if I wake up to discover that my house is on fire, I'm going to be much happier in the long run if I think "MY HOUSE IS ON FIRE!" and evacuate, as opposed to shifting my beliefs to a positive viewpoint where I tell myself everything's fine and then I go back to bed and I get third degree burns.

I was raised in a culture of "pretend everything's fine". IT DID NOT GO WELL FOR ME.

Mmmm ok. If your house is on fire then get out of the house. Once you're safe, don't wallow in sadness and self pity and beat yourself up because your house burned down, even if it was because you left your oven on. Acknowledge that it was your fault but that you didn't mean to do it, forgive yourself and move on, believing that you won't make such a mistake in the future. My whole point is that even when bad things happen to you, you can choose to view the events in any light you want. You can empower yourself by making it a positive learning experience, or you can disempower yourself and wallow in misery by telling yourself you're a victim of terrible tragedies. This is your choice, the former leads to greater happiness and satisfaction and the latter leads to self pity and doubt.

Another bi guy here! One who does much better with the men than the ladies, but who's nevertheless ended up with a woman.

Some scattered thoughts:

(1) Contrary to @doglatine, I'd suggest that being attractive is more important than not being unattractive. Polarization is key, and given the choice between eliminating all unattractive traits (impossible anyway) or developing a single trait that's highly attractive to (some subset of) women, the latter is likely to get you better results. Which isn't to say that getting rid of unattractive traits isn't important; it's just that I'm working on the presumption that you've (particularly as a bi guy) already gotten the low hanging fruit there (shower and shave every day; wearing clothes that fit decently), and additional efforts are likely to have rapidly diminishing returns. You aren't going to un-unattractivate yourself into attractiveness. And if your attractive traits are attracting potential female partners, you've pretty much won; women (all people, really) are willing to overlook, almost to a fault, any unattractive trait in a man if they feel attraction to him.

The only thing that's not low-hanging fruit to put effort into is, basically, don't be fat; if you're fat, any advice you get here that's not "don't be fat" is entirely missing the forest for the trees.

(1a) So how to be attractive? This honestly requires a lot more information than we have here, and it's highly dependent on your current state. Broadly, I'd say become highly successful at something: career, some hobby, immaculate physique, high level of style. You are really the only one positioned to make any kind of useful plan on how best to navigate from your current state to a more attractive one.

(2) Dating is not the type of thing that responds well to putting lots of time into it. An hour a week on the dating apps should be sufficient to get a date per week. If you're getting a substantially worse effort/outcome ratio than this, you need to either focus on the real world, revamp your profile, or improve your attractiveness. Probably some combination of those.

(3) There are pretty much no rules around dating. You can date any adult you want, and you can approach any adult you want. So long as you don't pester them after being turned down, you've committed no moral offense. That doesn't mean that you should thoughtlessly make approaches or date, but remember those are just matters of tactics, not of ethics. If someone has a wild emotional breakdown because you went up to her in a cafe and said hi, that's on her, not you.

(3a) As far as lying goes, I'd recommend against actual lies, but anyone telling you to list all your negative traits upfront are looking out for their convenience over your well-being, and they certainly wouldn't do it for themselves or someone they care about. As point of example, my last three girlfriends (including my current fiance) all said that they wouldn't have matched with me if I had listed my height on my profile. Had I committed some unpardonable sin by not? Nope; more than that, not only me but they would have all been made worse off if I took the "always make your most unattractive traits the main takeaway of your first advertising pitch" advice to heart. There's also an algorithmic aspect here: most dating sites use something like Elo-scoring to determine who to display to users, but if you list a trait that generates a broadly negative response, even women who don't care about that trait aren't ever going to swipe right on you, because you won't ever even end up in their swipe queue.

(4) Dating is all about conforming to gender roles. That means that, as a man, you'll have to approach, and you should be "confident." Confidence here has pretty much nothing to do with self-esteem but is instead something like masculine performativity. Body language, voice timbre, and conversational style (don't hedge things you say, even if you know they need to be hedged) will get you far here.

(5) Persistence is overrated. You should initiate and make yourself available, but put no more effort into pursuing a particular relationship than you would a friendship. If a woman's into you, she'll reciprocate. If she's not, perhaps you'd be able to convince her to give you a shot because you'll always be willing to put in ten times as much effort as she ever will, but that's a pretty miserable existence.

An hour a week on the dating apps should be sufficient to get a date per week.

How many profiles would you expect a guy to contact within that hour?

I would say 5 minutes a day while you're sitting on the toilet. More than 100 contacts per week, less than 200?

Dating is all about conforming to gender roles. That means that, as a man, you'll have to approach, and you should be "confident."

Yeah. The most masculine thing a man can do is go to war. If you come back in one piece, and can hold down a job, you'll be more attractive. However, you will pay an incredibly hefty price for that. I recommend joining the Marines, if you're directionless.

An ex-marine who holds down a job afterwards will do very well in the dating market; all the ones I know do very well, even in cases where their base demographics are unattractive (short; Asian). It seems kind of overkill, though, and there are easier ways to do well enough without having to deal with the tradeoffs and shittiness of military life.

Yeah. Peacetime military service has made most of the guys that chose it better off for having done it. War is a different kettle of fish; I haven't spoken to a single combat veteran who says his experience has been an unalloyed good. It's anything from "mixed bag" to "drank himself to death at 43 because of the things he saw and did in Iraq". They were more attractive, though.

What do you think about the role of life-and-death danger in making men more attractive? I think that it is the combat, not simply having been in the military, that's doing the work here...a Marine that's never been to war doesn't get the benefit that the guy that's survived combat gets.

It helps reduce neuroticism; if you manage to learn grace under literal fire, most other things roll off your shoulders. You're not going to be terrified at the idea of buying a woman a drink or being turned down.

Though, even vets who never saw combat get significant benefits. There's a baseline level of physical fitness most have, and they also learn structure in their daily lives and the capability to deal with banal peacetime military shit. Many men never achieve even that, and so even those bare minimum things put you solidly in the "above average" category.

TRIAL by wager of WILDERNESS.

I have been thinking about something: in ages past, men went to war to prove themselves. They still do, today, and the survivors I have seen return more attractive, although they pay an immense price, and that is only counting those that return more or less in one piece. Now, war is more destructive than it once was, and we don't think highly of war in general, for good reason.

Therefore: I have been training for this for the past year or so. I plan to have myself dumped into the Alaskan wilderness in late February, 50 miles from the nearest road or civilization. I'll walk out, and if I make it out alive, I'll have been hardened by my experience. I'll have stared my own death in the goddamn face, braving temperatures of 40 below 0 just to walk out alive.

Do you think that this will make my ugly, autistic ass any more attractive? I've heard it said that you have never lived until you have almost died, and that tough, masculine men are attractive AF. This seems like something that would harden someone...either permanently, as a rock-solid corpse, or permanently, as a wilderness-hardened man.

TL;DR Is dumping myself in the middle of the woods in Alaska in winter gonna make me more attractive, if I survive?

I'm a 5'6" 165lb autistic ugly medical student, for what it's worth. 28, virgin, been on a couple of dates. I'd do better if I was OK with morbidly obese women.

Some people think that this is an idiotic idea. It probably is. People do not do this for a reason; I believe that the reason is because it is expensive; if a thousand unattractive autists tried this you'd have too many dead ones for this to make sense on a societal level. However, I do suspect that it is helpful for those that survive, and with less risk of being a fucked-up crippled guy. Either you walk out of the wilderness more or less whole, or not at all. And there would not be nearly as much of the moral-injury shit a lot of vets drink themselves to death over...there is a lot of very deep shame that a lot of veterans carry about the things they did and didn't do. I've seen them die (of alcohol-induced liver failure) and heard their stories.

TL;DR does life-and-death danger make dudes that survive it more attractive?

I think it's very hard to judge online advice, much of which is terrible, until you have some experience. There are all kinds of plausible sounding theories that get promulgated online, many of which will turn out to be true and many of which will turn out to be very wrong. Talking to people you know is better than talking to the highly selected group that you would find anywhere on the internet. But nothing beats experience.

Experience also builds confidence and skill. You can't eliminate all risk of being called a creep, but you can minimize it by gradually escalating and maintaining plausible deniability (e.g. you ask to hang out, then you get her alone, then you move in slowly for a kiss and if she responds positively with her body language, you kiss her). If you're like me and you are very nervous about making any kind of move or going on a date, practice really makes a huge difference.

Ease of success on dating sites varies wildly by person and by dating site, but I find I need to swipe on at least a few hundred profiles to get a date. I find Bumble and Hinge much easier to get dates on than Tinder. When I was single and seriously trying to date online, I probably spent a few minutes each day swiping, and maybe that much time talking to a promising match when I had one.

I've been looking for dating advice recently, but everything seems contradictory. You're supposed to treat all people equally regardless of gender (which is great!), but at the same time you're supposed to conform to gender stereotypes and you should expect that most women will do the same. People tell me it sucks and it's not fair, but I'm the man and that means I have to initiate contact and get rejected a lot. They also tell me to be persistent but in the same breath they tell me not to be too persistent and it's not clear where to draw the line.

Every woman is different, but I would say most like to be treated like a woman at least if you're on a date. Treating women the same as anyone else is probably bad advice. For example, I don't think you can go wrong with paying for your date, even if she says she doesn't like it when men do that.

I haven't figured out if being persistent is good or not. It has never worked for me, but I've seen it work for others.

They tell me to be authentic but they also tell me to "fake it till you make it" and act like I'm a cool guy who dates people all the time. They tell me to express my feelings but they also tell me that "women can smell fear" so I should act confident even if I don't feel confident.

I think you should try to be confident, but women can probably tell if you're faking it and they don't like dishonesty. Maybe focus on having things to be confident about. Of all the things I've tried to do to get women to like me, the things that seemed to work the most were things that had nothing to do with women but involved making me actually more desirable, like being talented at something. I've seen the way women change how they act towards me in real time as they saw that I could play the piano well or heard me talk expertly on some subject. So I would just focus on actually being impressive. Faking it probably won't work because even if they like you at first, that can change later when they get to know you better.

People tell me that women like it when you express interest in them, but also they think it's creepy.

They like it when men they're interested in are interested in them. They don't like it when men they're not interested in are interested in them. I wouldn't worry about the latter group because you never had a chance anyway. Just show interest in women and see if they respond positively.

People tell me I must never express interest in a girl at her place of work, but the only relationship I had in the last 10 years began with that exact scenario, and the girl was flattered!

There is a trade-off. It's probably better for your career to not hit on women at work, but it's definitely not good for your love life. If you've only had one relationship in the last ten years, it's probably worth it to hit on women at work. Personally, I think that it's crazy to completely rule out the place where you spend most of your waking hours as a place to meet women. It used to be a very common way to meet members of the opposite sex. My parents and grandparents all met at work.

But if I'm very attracted and I act like I'm only mildly attracted, doesn't that create a culture of deception within the relationship??

Sort of, but most people know people act less interested than they really are (or sometimes the opposite). Is it deception to hold your cards close to your chest or is it just expected that you act in your best interest? Relationships aren't all about acting altruistically.

A general point I'll make is that most of these problems you've brought up are not easily solved and you should just go out and try things. There are a lot of trade-offs and you're never going to come up with a theory that lets you know what the right move to make is all the time. You'll probably make some dumb mistakes regardless.

Treating women the same as anyone else is probably bad advice. For example, I don't think you can go wrong with paying for your date, even if she says she doesn't like it when men do that.

If that's true, then we live in a strange culture. It's a culture where you can be punished for showing respect and doing the right thing.

I don't suppose I should be surprised by that, but on some level I am. I keep expecting the world to be more sensible than it actually is.

Long story short, I'm lost.

I think you are trying to do and understand too much. I do not believe it is generally productive to develop a theory on what "women" as a class do- or do-not like; the category is simply too large and too diverse. And even if some general trends can be discerned, they are not likely to be specific enough to be of more than marginal assistance in any given interaction with a random woman. Moreover, geographic and relational clustering effects (i.e., local, ideological, or subject-based sub-cultures or groups) can result in highly heterogenous pockets with unique and/or counterintuitive dynamics, separate and apart from the main trends.

Here is my advice to you:

  1. make yourself as interesting and capable a person as you can - whatever that means to you. Acquire skills. Get in good shape. Learn to dress and present yourself well. Ponder the mysteries of life until you have something interesting to say. Read great writers and prose stylists until you can command language well enough to express your thoughts clearly, concisely, and interestingly. Learn about (or, better, go experience) some interesting shit - not like "I went on holiday to Cambodia and man are the Phnom Penh temple complexes cool!", but instead put yourself in new circumstances that will test or surprise you. Push yourself to- and through- your limits. Get some interesting life stories, and then learn to tell them well. You should be doing this anyway, and if you are doing a good job it will have the happy side-effect of drawing other people to you. People like interesting, competent, attractive people.

  2. interact with women as individuals. Personally I've always found it much less daunting to talk to "Jessica, the receptionist who dotes on her baby brother, loves to go antiquing, and just came back from her cousin's wedding in Tennessee over the weekend" than it is to think about how to talk to Capital-W Women.

  3. put yourself in positions where you can meet individuals. Volunteer at a shelter, or take a pottery/stained glass/cooking class, or start going to church/synagogue/mosque/etc. Maybe join a professional networking association, or go to hobby conventions. Try to force yourself to be outgoing in other normal life situations - if someone is struggling to get a box off a high shelf at the store, ask if you can help. If you see someone at a cafe reading a book you're interested in (though this is a bit fraught with danger these days), ask if they'd recommend it. If you frequent a particular restaurant or store, notice whether or not you frequently get the same cashier or sales assistant - if so, greet them and maybe make some small talk as you order. This will make you more comfortable with other people and more outgoing, and with any luck at all will spring some friendships or casual acquaintanceships. Some of them might be women in your preferred demographic, but even the ones who aren't have relatives/friends/colleagues of their own. Build your social circle as wide as possible, to net as many contacts as possible.

  4. Be honest if you find someone attractive This one is pretty simple - if you find someone attractive, say so. Obviously not in an inappropriate way ("Hi, you have great tits, what's your name?" is unlikely to work outside of very particular circumstances). Knowing the object of your affection personally will help with this - thoughtful compliments that show that the giver is paying close attention are generally received better than generic ones.

  5. Be Prepared To Accept Rejection This is by far the hardest one - at least for me personally - but I swear to God that if you can somehow trick yourself into a zen-like belief that all the world is an illusion so rejection by a pretty woman is as meaningless and ephemeral as a wisp of smoke from a snuffed candle, you will have a fucking superpower when it comes to dating. Being able to keep your cool, accept "no" as an answer, and roll on, undaunted and unruffled, to the next thing not only makes it way easier to actually shoot your shot, but also makes you better at it because you're not stressing and pressing with the stink of desperation on you.

Alternately you can try the apps - others have left comments with good advice for those, but I retain faith in the old-fashioned way of doing things.

I certainly wish you luck.

I would recommend this, as a test:

Are you willing to endure and sacrifice, for any reason or no good reason, for years, even decades? Can you go years without making a single social blunder? Can you make a million a year...are you on track to do this by age 35? Can you get people to fight for you: would you make a good infantry officer? It's like a modern version of Rudyard Kipling's If.

I am not even slightly an expert on dating advice in general, but I have two insights that I think are valid:

1: Dating sites are garbage in so far as they are filled with 90% low effort posts by low effort people looking for quick hookups with highly attractive people. It would be nice if there were separate dating sites for people who want quick hookups and sites for people looking for long term relationships, but that's not really enforceable. But even if your success rate is 20 times worse online than it is in real life, I found that the explicit permission to engage makes it more than 20 times easier to engage. You're not creeping on people at work or at the gym. This is a place where people explicitly go to meet people romantically, you have permission to talk to them to an extent you're never going to get in person. I must have sent hundreds of messages over the several years I was on these, got maybe 40 matches/responses by real humans, 35 of whom were not even slightly my type and never went past a couple back and forth messages, 4 reasonable length conversations that seemed promising but didn't work out, and 1 that was perfect from the moment it started and we've been happily together for 4 years since then.

And that's the main secret, it only needs to work once. It's largely a numbers game, you need to encounter a bunch of people and it will be a disaster with most of them, and then once it won't. I found online dating way easier to get over the fear of rejection because it was faceless and impersonal. At any moment, they are free to ghost you and never speak to you again, and you can do the same, which means it hurts so much less. But I think this is true to some extent in person as well. If you can manage to encounter enough women that you can ask out without creating major drama, do. Most will say no, and some might say yes, and most of those won't work out long term. But in the end, if it truly works out, you only need one.

2: I find that "Be yourself" is not the best advice for maximizing your chances of getting someone interested in the first place, or getting laid, but it's a good filtering mechanism that saves effort in the long run. Be yourself so that people who don't like who you are will reject you immediately instead of waiting a few dates to find out who you are before rejecting you. I usually gave nerdy jokes and pickups lines in initial messages. And the vast majority of people never responded. And the few that did were heavily selected for the type of people who actually liked them and thought they were clever/cute/funny, so I wasted less time talking to people who dislike nerds.

Reposting my original advicepost from the Motte —

Since dating came up in last week's Culture Wars thread and seemed to trigger a bit of brief discussion, I thought some people in this sub might be interested in hearing a bit of dating advice geared towards contrarians. Back in Radicalizing the Romanceless, Scott says -

Male attractiveness seems to depend on things like a kind of social skills which is not necessarily the same kind of social skills people who want to teach you social skills will teach

I think I can give some useful pointers in this regard. Note that as sex and dating are fundamentally gendered experiences, most of my advice is geared towards straight men, and won't be applicable to straight women (though some surely will). I'd be interested to hear female perspectives as a result. I also imagine that a lot of people won't be interested in hearing advice on this topic, or will find some of what follows obvious and patronising. This is probably unavoidable, but apologies in advance.

As to why I feel arrogant enough to give any advice: I've had a fairly long, rich, and interesting dating life, with quite a few painful lessons learned along the way. I discovered the existence of sex and romance relatively late by some measures - in my late teens - when I lost a lot of weight and suddenly found women responding to me differently, so I think I have a bit more insight than someone for whom this stuff came wholly naturally. Additionally, I'm fascinated by sex and dating norms, both on a philosophical and practical level (in fact, I've taught undergraduate classics on the applied ethics of sex and romance), and despite now being happily married I still read a lot of dating and love advice out of raw curiosity. Still, as always, YMMV, and I'm happy to debate any of the below points.

(1) Don't be unattractive. Sorry to start out with this one, but it can't be overstated. This particular bit of advice is usually placed second to "be attractive", but I think being attractive is a lot harder than not being unattractive, so I'd recommend focusing on the latter. Worse still, I think trying to be attractive can lead people to try to be extravagant or unconventional in their personal style or behaviour (see 'peacocking') and this can backfire horribly. Instead, focus on minimising unattractiveness. This means obvious stuff like good personal grooming - don't underestimate the difference wearing cologne, having good dental hygiene, having a good haircut, and trimming your beard regularly can make.

It also means having a good solid wardrobe and sense of style. I'd suggest that for most men conservatism is the right strategy, at least to begin with - stuff like OCBDs, slim or straight leg jeans, smart sneakers or brogues, and fairly slim fitting cashmere or merino wool sweaters. As a rule of thumb, if you're interested in looks, buy clothes that are slightly tighter than is optimal for comfort (surprisingly, this also applies if you're overweight). Malefashionadvice has some good tips, but bear in mind it's a bit of a circle jerk. One of the key purposes of all of these efforts (in addition to looking and smelling better) is to show that you are sensitive to and aware of presentation norms in your peer group.

Of course, it can also help a lot if you have chiseled abs and arms like Henry Cavill, and everyone should figure out a good diet and exercise routine for their long-term health and mental well-being. But that's a huge topic I won't address here. I'd also flag that I think being 'ripped' or 'shredded' or even just in good physical shape are factors that can be overstated in dating - there are plenty of stylish, well-dressed, funny, confident but slightly pudgy men who are also real casanovas, and plenty of desperate depressed singletons over at /fit/. Above all, don't put off dating until the day you have a body like a Greek god: it will probably never come.

(2) Don't assume dates will come to you. Most men can go years without ever once being approached by a woman with explicit romantic interest. You will need to be proactive to find a romantic partner. In the modern age, this sadly means getting on dating sites and apps. The upside to this is that the costs of failure are typically pretty small: the people you meet are people you will never see again, and with whom you probably have no friends in common, so even if it's all horribly awkward it will have few negative consequences downstream. While I've been out of the dating pool long enough that I can't recommend the best current apps, a good rule of thumb is to be proactive about setting up as many dates as possible and to triple your rate of failure (though always remember the human... and for god's sake never, ever send dick pics to anyone you've known for less than six months).

Most dates will inevitably be crash-and-burn ventures, but as long as you learn from the experience and gain confidence, you'll still be benefiting. I would strongly suggest that you don't pay for your date's food and drinks on the first few dates. It increases the costs of a bad date and can lead to bitterness and unreasonable expectations. Besides, it's current year, as the meme goes. Note that each dating site and app has its own norms and strategies. Each has its own target demographics, and while some will skew towards detailed profiles and lengthy intro messages, others will be more of a numbers game (though they all are to some extent). When you join a new dating site, try to learn 'the meta', whether from reading blogs or asking the advice of friends. One big point worth emphasising: the pictures you put up really matter. That may seem shallow, but it's just how it is. Get the advice of friends, and maybe even get a professional photoshoot done. The difference between a bad set of profile photos and good ones is colossal.

(3) Don't treat dating like a purely cooperative venture. While dating is ultimately a non-zero sum game that should lead to happy relationships, early on, there's a definite element to it that requires a more strategic mindset. This is a delicate point, and I certainly wouldn't recommend being adversarial about it, but you should certainly be trying to manage your date's first impressions of you (see point 4 below). While you shouldn't think of a date like a job interview, it's not totally crazy to think of it as resembling a pitch to an investor: you want to accentuate your positives and avoid dwelling on the negatives. You need to be confident and genuinely believe that you have something valuable to offer the other party. Hopefully most of you believe you do have value to offer, whether it's your intellect, your common sense, your good finances, or your in-depth knowledge of the Punic Wars. If you don't think you have anything to offer, you're not ready to date. See a therapist or work on yourself until you've nurtured a bit of confidence. But otherwise, you should really reflect on your best qualities and ground your behaviour in the date on a strong sense of your own value. "I have a lot to offer as a romantic partner, and any woman who chooses to date me will be making a great choice," is a useful mantra, even if sometimes it takes a bit of effort to internalise it.

(4) Don't just be yourself. A huge amount of what we look for in a partner is good judgment, especially in social matters. There are a lot of people out there who are weird, awkward, and generally indifferent to the social cues of others, and a lot of early dating is about weeding these people out. If you're too up front, you can easily come across as someone who simply doesn't get it. There's nothing wrong, for example, with having wargaming, Magic The Gathering, and videogames as your main hobbies, but these are not high status activities, and if you lead with these you look like someone who simply doesn't notice what's high status and what's not. If you want to talk about hobbies, try to cultivate some that are high status: physical activities like climbing, running, and team sports are good, as are outdoor activities like scuba, skiing and even hiking. Travel, languages, and literature are solid, and food and cooking are easy and safe, if a bit pedestrian. Being able to talk about what's trendy in culture and your city is also helpful, e.g., "have you been watching Tiger King?" and "have you seen the fancy new restaurant that opened on main street?".

You don't need to invest too much time and effort into these interests and hobbies - just enough that you have something to say about them and can honestly report that they're something you're interested in. I'd also flag that talking about sex, kinks, and exes on a first date is generally a bad idea (unless you're meeting someone from Fetlife, of course). Again, it's about displaying good judgment and showing that you're not one of the creepy weirdos with no filter. A good general rule for most straight men is to follow women's lead on these issues, and to reveal personal information carefully and gradually. I imagine some people think this all sounds dismal: "I want a partner who accepts me for who I am, warts and all!" I think that's absolutely a realistic thing to aim for, but the process of opening up should be done gradually and in a way that's responsive to the growing intimacy between you and your partner.

(continued below)

The highest-status thing you can do is lead men in combat. I've seen former military officers fucked up from drugs and PTSD in hospital beds that had girlfriends. I've seen veterans literally goddamn near dead, bellies swollen with ascitic fluid, livers failing...with girlfriends.

You've proven that men trust you with their lives. There are few higher honors.

I would strongly suggest that you don't pay for your date's food and drinks on the first few dates. It increases the costs of a bad date and can lead to bitterness and unreasonable expectations.

I'd suggest just paying for the food & drinks, but making sure to only escalate the date locations if/when there's a click. Atleast make the offer so the girl can choose to go dutch or whatever if they'd like. I've heard plenty from my female friends about how they find it a strong red flag if a guy doesn't pay on a first date (despite otherwise being independent women of strength), and like generally in this era of online dating you shouldn't be making any crazy plans for a first date due to the chances of immediate clunk when meeting face-to-face being pretty damned high even eliminating catfishes etc.

There's nothing wrong, for example, with having wargaming, Magic The Gathering, and videogames as your main hobbies, but these are not high status activities, and if you lead with these you look like someone who simply doesn't notice what's high status and what's not.

I think you have some valid points in this paragraph, but I think one thing you are overlooking here is that many (myself included, though I'm happily married at this point) explicitly do not want someone who cares about status in the first place. Someone who rejects someone because their hobbies are "low status" is someone I want out of my pool ASAP, because I consider chasing status to be a serious character flaw. So depending on what you are looking for, this item you have listed as a negative is actually a potential positive.

Also I personally subscribe to the theory that you should get the most contentious things out of the way pretty quickly (not on the first date, but within the first few months or so). If something about you is a dealbreaker for someone, no amount of time is going to undo that - so you may as well get it over with and not waste time on a doomed-to-fail relationship. So in that sense I also think "be yourself" is very good advice, because it ensures you aren't faffing about dating someone who is never going to like you anyways.

many (myself included, though I'm happily married at this point) explicitly do not want someone who cares about status in the first place.

I mean...how bad do you want that? Would you rather be celibate for life than with someone who thinks Magic: The Gathering is for losers? Go ahead, then. Would you rather be with someone that's in and out of the local ER and rehabs for drug overdoses, or suicidal behavior related to bipolar disorder, or 500 pounds and a sprained ankle away from immobility...but is fine with Magic: The Gathering - or would you rather be with someone who can hold a job, maintain basic hygiene, and live independently, but thinks MTG is for losers?

Your call, boyo.

Dude, as many people have said (including me) you have a completely distorted view of relationships and what options exist out there. So while I don't expect you to believe it this time either, I'll reiterate that there do in fact exist women (good ones, not 500 lbs meth addicts) who don't actually judge people as harshly as you believe they do.

Meth heads are usually thin...

Can you roughly define "good woman"? Someone who isn't a danger to herself or others, not morbidly obese (BMI < 40), holds or can hold a job (any job)?

And again - to be perfectly clear - I see absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with this state of affairs. The only thing I ever questioned was why the hell people should be in relationships with 500lb opiate addicts.

If you're conventionally attractive or very charismatic or rich, yes, you can get away with a lot of shit. Such is life: it ain't just dating, if you were born on third base and jogged home 'cause the Almighty hit a homer when you were born, you can get away with some shit.

IME people who complain about their hobbies being "uncool" are actually just bad at talking about them and might just be bad conversationalists in general. I think there's a right way and a wrong way to introduce "low status" hobbies:

"So are you into board games or card games? You are? Nice, which games? Yeah, I like that one too. These days I mainly play MTG with friends, have you ever played? Oh really? We should play sometime, I could show you the ropes."

vs.

"Hobbies? Well, I'm really into Magic The Gathering. I was in a tournament last week. I usually play with control decks, usually blue/black, but I've been experimenting with some new deck types lately. I'm really excited for the March of the Machines. Do you like Magic?"

In the first example, the speaker gradually established that the other person was interested, while in the second example the speaker just sort of spaghetti'd all over the place with no concern for whether the other person was interested. Just this past week I got into a conversation with a normies female coworker about anime over drinks and I ended up talking about some really niche shows. The conversation was light-hearted and bidirectional, and she seemed to come away with an impression of me as "funny and quirky" rather than "creepy and nerdy."

It's all about how you steer the conversation and about whether you can laugh at yourself and handle little shit tests. For example if in the above MTG example, she were to say something like

"Magic? Ugh really? My dorky little brother plays that."

you could respond with

"I dunno, he sounds like a pretty cool guy to me. Maybe he'll let you borrow his deck so we can play. So what sort of games do you like?"

instead of getting flustered or embarrassed.

I’d agree to a point. But I think especially among nerds that it needs to be said that consumption is not a hobby. I include things like gaming, anime, sci-fi/fantasy series, collecting, and social media. Even in your example, you’re playing a multiplayer game with other people in the same room. But it’s different to sit in a room watching videos and playing games because it’s not creative or social. Drawing is a good hobby because it creates something. Playing D&D or Magic is social. Sitting around watching anime isn’t.

"So are you into board games or card games? You are? Nice, which games? Yeah, I like that one too. These days I mainly play MTG with friends, have you ever played? Oh really? We should play sometime, I could show you the ropes."

This sounds like a bot which has been beaten into submission RLHF'd into becoming so anodyne it's frustrating.

"Hobbies? Well, I'm really into Magic The Gathering. I was in a tournament last week. I usually play with control decks, usually blue/black, but I've been experimenting with some new deck types lately. I'm really excited for the March of the Machines. Do you like Magic?"

This sounds like an actual human being with a brain (yes, playing control decks specifically is a sign your brain works at a middling level at least).

As a fellow male, I agree. But most girls aren't interested in hearing your nerd flexes, they're trying to figure out whether you have basic social skills and whether or not you're a weirdo/loser.

Not that many males are either, if they don't share that specific interest. Or at least that's my experience, of being on both sides of conversations like that.

While I mostly agree with you (there are a couple of exclusions, like trains, or owning more than two cats) I think you're misjudging in that last example. She doesn't like mtg because she associates it with her brother, who she thinks less of. You would have more luck imo redeeming her image of her brother through mtg than the other way around. I'd go the hate the player not the game angle -

"Oh yeah, there are some... (move in closer conspiratorially) odd... people in the community, but the game itself is a lot of fun. I was lucky I suppose, in my small town all the dweebs joined the boy scouts, so it was just me and my friends playing mtg and we had a blast."

In the second example, I don't think she actually really has any particular strong feelings about MTG. She's just jabbing you a bit to see what you'll do. The correct response is to make a little joke and move on.

Your response IMO comes across as trying a bit too hard to convey "I'm totally not a dweeb!!" You're responding to directly to her little jab and "entering her frame," as they say. Plus you're calling her brother odd and she might think you're a dick for that (she's feels she's allowed to do that but you, a stranger, are not).

Ah, I read the scenario very differently. I assumed when she says "Magic? Ugh really? My dorky little brother plays that." she is visibly displeased. In my imagination that ugh is accompanied by her rearing back a bit, and curling her lip - not a full on disgust reaction, just the discomfort of someone taken aback by a marker of low status. So your response calling her brother cool sounds like either almost spilling your spaghetti or negging her, and a lot of women have hair triggers about negging these days.

And if you think my response would be trying too hard, then I assume you read my response as something like getting startled, my eyes going wide while I blurt out a stuttery "NAMTGPALT! Boy scouts are the real dweebs!" But I was aiming for jokey nonchalance too. That's why I went with odd - it's too benign to trigger that kind of reflexive defensiveness, and by playing at conspiratorial behaviour over such a benign criticism you make a joke of it. It also has the benefit of being critical and true without selling your hobby down the river, demonstrating both self awareness and self confidence.

I can see where you're coming from given that my text example above doesn't specify any of the body language or other nonverbal cues. I'd still lean towards my original response though, even if she was visibly disgusted. The comment about the brother should be said with some irony so that it's a little ambiguous whether you're serious or not. Being able to confidently ride the knife's edge between sincerity and irony demonstrates social savviness. The key is still to shrug off the insult with confidence.

a lot of women have hair triggers about negging these days

N=1, but when I stopped caring about whether a girl would get upset by what I said, relationships with the opposite sex became so much simpler. Some probably thought I came across as a bit overconfident and arrogant, but so what? A lot of women actually enjoy being gently teased. My wife would tell you she doesn't like it if asked directly, but literal everything else she does says otherwise. There are definitely women who will respond to this with "How dare you/You're an asshole!" but tbh I always wanted them to identify themselves ASAP so I could keep my distance. They're real buzzkills, both romantically and platonically.

The upside to this is that the costs of failure are typically pretty small: the people you meet are people you will never see again

I actually ran into two people I matched and talked to on dating apps after being on them for less than a year and I don't go out much.

Part two:

Simple example: I dated a woman who revealed - after we'd been together for several months - that she had serious financial problems and that they were a major source of anxiety for her. If she'd told me this on our first or second date, it would have been a huge red flag for me. As it was, by the time she revealed this to me she'd already demonstrated many really impressive virtues, as well as displaying good sense in realising this was quite a personal piece of information, so it was no longer a deal breaker.

(5) Don't be (too) spontaneous. Romantic comedies play up spontaneity and we associate it with romance. That's why it's important to be able to fake it. Glib one-liners aside, you should try to be prepared for different eventualities so you can embrace spontaneity when it comes. This means simple stuff like ensuring your apartment/house is clean and presentable and doesn't look like the abode of a serial killer (seriously, have some decorative objects/stuff on the walls). It means having a trashcan with a lid in the bathroom (if it's not obvious why this is something you should have if you're expecting female company, think about it). It also involves having options to cover various contingencies. If you meet your date for happy hour drinks and tells you she's getting hungry, you should know a few good restaurants nearby. If the initial bar you picked to meet is crowded and noisy, have some decent alternatives in walking distance. The rule against spontaneity also extends to responding to messages. While the whole 'three day rule' is bullshit, I think it's a good idea not to respond to a date's messages too quickly. It can be super awkward when you write someone a message saying "hey that was fun last night, HMU next week if you want to do it again" and they respond immediately, basically forcing a conversation you weren't prepared for. Give yourself some time to think about your response and don't pressure communication.

(6) Don't be too open with your feelings too quickly. Again, Hollywood has a lot to answer for here. We rarely see romantic leads downplaying their affections, but it can be really important early on in a relationship not to come over too strong. Two simple reasons for this. Firstly, it can again show a lack of judgment. There are lots of emotionally unstable people out there (men and women) who express their undying love for someone after a couple of dates, and most people are aware (if only implicitly) that this kind of behaviour typically bespeaks someone with a cluster of personality disorders. Displaying good judgment means showing that you're a smart cautious person who doesn't rush into things or make themselves vulnerable unless they've had clear indicators of interest from their partner. Second, there is a balance of power issue here. I don't want to overstate this, but thinking back to the investor metaphor, if you're too eager, too soon, it can make you look like a dodgy salesman trying to offload an inferior product as quickly as possible. By being sensibly restrained and responsive to what your new romantic partner says and does, you show that you recognise your own value: you have something important to bring to the table, and you're not going to risk giving it away too quickly to an unsuitable partner. In special conditions - an intense and rapid holiday romance for example - the above advice may be temporarily waived, but again, pay attention to cues and respond appropriately.

(7) Don't expect instant results (and don't get bitter). Finding a lifelong romantic partner is one of the most important and challenging things people do. While some people get lucky and stumble on a suitable partner early on, it's increasingly common for people to have to go on a lot of dates before they find someone they can happily date for a few months, let alone the rest of their life. I suggest leaning into the experience and learning to enjoy the process of dating itself rather than just focusing on outcomes. Dating offers an unparalleled way to hone social skills in an emotionally complex environment, as well as a unique opportunity to meet people from varied backgrounds and learn about them and their lives. This is true even if they don't go home with you at the end of the night. Indeed, you should absolutely expect to be rejected repeatedly. Rejection burns, but it's a little less intense each time, and if you've been on the dating market for a while then it'll probably become incrementally less painful. If you are rejected, try to be gracious and smooth about it, and I'd generally recommend not asking the person why they ended things (or didn't want them to start). While you might get lucky and hear some useful advice, you're far more likely to get a delicate platitude about things just not working out.

In fact, most people have lots of implicit criteria for romantic partners that they may not even be fully aware of themselves. Maybe you weren't tall enough, maybe they didn't like your accent, maybe you reminded them too much of a bad ex. Closure is something we do for ourselves, and if you rely on other people to provide it for you then nine times out of ten you'll be left hanging. Moreover, just because a date doesn't result in romance doesn't mean it's pointless. In addition to providing good life experience, it can provide other opportunities. Two of my best friends today are women I went on dates with where there didn't turn out to be much chemistry. Both of these women subsequently set me up with friends of theirs, complete with a letter of recommendation stating that I was a good and decent guy. Above all, for god's sake don't get bitter and starting coming up with theories about how women are stupid, silly, or evil. Dating is a nightmare for women too, and while the problems they face are often different from those experienced by men, almost no-one has it easy. And on a more practical note, bitterness will not help make your more attractive or enhance your dating prospects - in fact, quite the opposite.

(8) Don't think you're above following the rules. "This is all bullshit. Two of my best friends got together on a first date where they bonded over their love of anime and MT:G and they were immediately open about their kinks and are now married with ten children." There are absolutely people who find love via pathways quite different from those discussed here, and I don't pretend any of the suggestions I'm giving are absolute. However, they represent my considered advice as to how to make dating more productive and less mysterious for straight men, and if you're feeling frustrated or despondent, I think they're a solid starting point. But the internet is full of people giving romantic advice, some of which is quite different from my own, and I don't take myself to be some inspired oracle dispensing eternal truths. Nonetheless, if what you're doing isn't working, or is making you unhappy, you should try something else.

I didn't start dating until 26. I'm now 33 so I have some experience and have learned a lot, much of it the hard way. I find it's hard to recognize good advice when in the position of needing it, so I just want to say that this is all excellent advice, and one of the things that makes it good is it offers explanations and reasons to trust it over competing ideas that are out there (e.g. Holywood).

I grew up a bit sheltered and rarely talked about dating with the few friends I had. Starting around 23, I sought advice online and while some of it is good, most of it I now know is terrible.

I wonder: do those that do not date (because they're asexual) have worse social skills?

How old are you? How old are the women you're interested in? What are they like? What path do you want the relationship to follow? Do you mostly want a girlfriend, or a wife? Would you consider having children in the next 5 years or so?

I mostly know more socially conservative women who want marriage or breakup within maybe a year of dating, and sex is not on the table until some commitment threshold has been crossed, much farther along the relationship than the first or second date. They are not on dating apps -- dating apps have a reputation of leading to pressure for sex sooner than they prefer, and difficulty establishing commitment. They meet potential husbands through hobby or religious in-person activities.

Sample size of 1: I (a woman) personally dislike branded clothing, including t-shirts with shows or hobbies or words of any kind, unless they're about half an inch high. But who knows, maybe you'll bond over your favorite band or something, this is not general advice.

If you have trouble with intense dates where you're just eating and staring at each other, consider some more active dates. I enjoyed walks in nature (interesting nature, with waterfalls), visiting places of historical interest, and moderate effort bar hopping, following happy hours around. It's creepy to be too intense about expressing interest, but it's fun to be invited to do something interesting with the message that the man wants to do it with you, in particular.

I enjoyed walks in nature (interesting nature, with waterfalls), visiting places of historical interest, and moderate effort bar hopping, following happy hours around.

So does literally everyone that I've ever met that's worth hanging around. I think this is just good advice in general. Dinner is great with close friends, but nature hikes and some light drinking is better for new friends, romantic or not.

Here's a question: How much time per week does the average single straight guy spend on dating sites etc., assuming he's actively looking for a date?)

Can't put a time figure to it, but back when I was single I took the shotgun approach. Men are at a huge disadvantage as far as reply rates go so volume is key Have a template for messages that contains one or two interesting tidbits about yourself to copy paste and send to every profile that even slightly interests you. Add in a few personalized questions/comments to show that you actually glanced over their profile (this lets them know that you've looked at more than just how they look) and leave the questions open-ended because women like to talk. Suppose she mentions that she plays violin. Add a question like "I noticed that you play violin, what got you into that? What do you like most about it?" Avoid yes or no questions because all you'll get are yes or no answers.

In any case, my wife actually messaged me first, so I can't say for certain that my strategy works. But it did get me a healthyish number of first dates prior to meeting my wife (about one to three a month) and a few second and third dates.

Edit: Also go to church related stuff to meet girls, if you're an actual believer. If you aren't then please don't hurt the good and faithful women who do

I identify with the difficulties in Scott's classic posts "Untitled" and "Radicalizing the Romanceless". Generally I'm paranoid about approaching women, because I feel like maybe they think I'm a creep and they're just too polite to say so. My biggest concern isn't that they dislike me per se; it's that maybe I've hurt the woman without realizing it. I'm very sensitive about that.

Yeah, no, you are gonna have to fix that if you wanna get anywhere. Try The Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi, followed by The Red Pill Handbook anthology.

BTW, if you liked "Untitled" and "Radicalizing the Romanceless", you will probably enjoy Scott's old ten-post sequence on gender, sex, etc. from his LiveJournal.

Try The Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi, followed by The Red Pill Handbook anthology.

I've heard that "Red Pill" men are men who don't care about women's feelings or rights. I've heard that "Red Pill" men view women as objects to be manipulated for the benefit of men, at least when it comes to sex/romance/dating.

Have I heard correctly? Is this what the Red Pill Handbook says? If not, could you summarize the book for me?

It's hard to summarize books with hundreds of pages, especially when those books are, themselves, the collected summaries of thousands of blog posts and comments. But if I had to give you the elevator pitch...

Most of what you think you know about sex/romance/dating is a feminist lie, fed to you through a combination of the education system and the media, or people repeating falsehoods they themselves learned from school and movies and TV shows. These lies are useful to women and society, but harmful to you. The Red Pill metaphor comes from the famous scene where Neo chooses to wake up from the Matrix.

Once you learn accurate truths about women, men, dating, and sex, you will almost certainly choose to change your behavior. Both your new beliefs and your new behaviors will be extremely at odds with feminist dogma, and most people, being in thrall to that ideology, will indeed boil it down to you viewing women as objects to be manipulated for the benefit of men. But that is obviously not how a practitioner of the Red Pill would frame it; unlike fictional villains, real people don't usually think of themselves as evil.

A quick sample of Red Pill beliefs:

  1. Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, men are the gatekeepers of commitment. Men are the expendable gender.

  2. As a consequence, men are attracted to the majority of fertile-age women. Women are only attracted to a small minority of men.

  3. Therefore, fertile-age women are able to easily have casual sex with men who are completely out of their league relationship-wise (rock stars, Olympic athletes, etc.) and often become deluded about their actual Sexual Market Value.

  4. Women and men are attracted to different things. Men are primarily attracted to youth, beauty, fertility, purity, and nurturing. Women are primarily attracted to height, status, power, money, violence, sexual experience, and dark triad traits.

  5. This explains why men age like wine, while women age like milk. Youth, beauty, fertility and purity are things that can only ever go down with age, while status, power, money, and sexual experience tend to increase with age.

  6. Ipso facto, any dating advice which assumes men and women are the same is nonsense. Few do this explicitly, but many do it implicitly by failing to give out different dating advice to different demographics, e.g. "be yourself".

  7. A surprisingly common mistake is projecting the desires of your gender into the other gender. For example, a woman in her 30s complaining about the lack of attention from high-quality men despite the fact that she spent her youth getting a fancy degree, a good paying job, a nice house, an expensive car, cool hobbies, etc. Not understanding that men don't give a fuck about any of that and would rather date a broke but cute 18-year-old waitress.

  8. Women become infertile much faster than men. By 35, usually too late to have children. If plan to have 2-3 children, should be married by 30 at the absolute latest. In our culture, where you are expected to date and cohabit for a few years before marriage, means a surprisingly short window between the time a woman becomes legal at 18 and the time it is too late for her to find a husband. Goes double for middle-class and upper-class women, who are expected to finish a degree at 22 before even thinking about marriage.

  9. Women often follow a dual-mating strategy of sleeping with high-value men in their sexual prime, then settling down with a reliable provider in their later years. This is called Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks. You want to be the Alpha Fucks, or at least avoid being the Beta Bucks.

  10. Some implications of this information to your own life; self-improve, lift weights, never commit to a woman over 25, never commit to a woman with children, pretend you have more sexual experience than you do, project confidence, never appear needy or desperate, etc.

men are attracted to the majority of fertile-age women. Women are only attracted to a small minority of men.

Is there evidence for this? I read an article that says men and women face similar disparities in the top X% of your gender getting a disproportionate amount of attention: https://qz.com/1051462/these-statistics-show-why-its-so-hard-to-be-an-average-man-on-dating-apps . For instance the top 1% of men get 16.4% of the likes from women, while the top 1% of women get 11.2% of the likes from men. So it's worse for men, but not a huge difference really

Men are primarily attracted to youth, beauty, fertility, purity, and nurturing. Women are primarily attracted to height, status, power, money, violence, sexual experience, and dark triad traits.

Is there evidence for this? Some sort of survey or something? (Also, how do we separate nature from nurture?)

Women often follow a dual-mating strategy of sleeping with high-value men in their sexual prime, then settling down with a reliable provider in their later years.

How is "high-value" measured in this case? You said earlier that women are primarily attracted to "height, status, power, money, violence, sexual experience, and dark triad traits." Are you saying that women value these traits in their sexual prime, but cease valuing these traits when they get older?

This is called Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks. You want to be the Alpha Fucks, or at least avoid being the Beta Bucks.

What's wrong with settling down with a reliable partner?

never commit to a woman over 25, never commit to a woman with children

Why not? What would happen if I did that?

pretend you have more sexual experience than you do, project confidence, never appear needy or desperate, etc.

Has it occurred to you that lying might have negative consequences? If I'm actually feeling needy or desperate for whatever reason, isn't it better to seek out people (romantically or otherwise) who can deal with the emotions I actually have, instead of wearing a mask all my life?

Personally I have a long history of being smothered by masks.

For the first 2 questions regarding evidence: I am sure there is a lot of peer-reviewed evidence out of there of all sorts of quality. But the real proof lies in the fact that anyone (man or woman) in modern Western World can state these sentences in a small trusted friend group, in appropriate wording, and they will be taken as self-evident truths. Indeed, this is usually very good way of smoking out "hidden truths" of a society.

Are you saying that women value these traits in their sexual prime, but cease valuing these traits when they get older?

This is a correct understanding. Many women choose more reliable types of guys later in life if they are still on the dating market.

Why not? What would happen if I did that?

I am not totally sure but I believe the OP's thinking is that women will age and lose beauty/fertility very fast after this age. There might be some "purity" considerations at play here as well. Dating and hooking up with many people inevitably makes one much more cynical after a while and you have to stunt your powers of emotional connection a bit to deal with a series of breakups without going mad. The child thing sounds like an off-shoot of this.

Has it occurred to you that lying might have negative consequences? If I'm actually feeling needy or desperate for whatever reason, isn't it better to seek out people (romantically or otherwise) who can deal with the emotions I actually have, instead of wearing a mask all my life?

I believe the idea is that after a couple of times you won't be lying anymore! A lot of red pill stuff is best thought off as a for-dummies guide and not a life-long strategy. The target demographics is people who are absolutely clueless, and the ideal case is to change their perspective and give them some practical tips so they understand the rules of the "game", get a feel for it, and then do their own thing.

You may feel like she's better off alone than with you. You might be wrong about it (and hopefully you're in the process of becoming wrong on that count by improving yourself and becoming more self-sufficient+attractive).

If you act like she's better off alone, you'll likely convince her. Don't have to give women excuses to reject you, they manage fine by themselves.

Solid overview.

However, some of those points might be better characterised as black-pilled nowadays. Also—soft, euphemistic blue-pill language is somehow leaking through: e.g., “sleeping with”.

Taking the chatGPT "overfit on bland inoffensiveness" approach and overfitting on TRP guru books doesn't make a good style guide.

However, some of those points might be better characterised as black-pilled nowadays. Also—soft, euphemistic blue-pill language is somehow leaking through: e.g., “sleeping with”.

Are there pills of many different colors? Can someone give me a glossary?

Quick overview:

  • red pill: explained above

  • blue pill: the antithesis to the red pill, accepting social norms around sex

  • black pill: a grim and hopeless take on the red pill view

  • purple pill: the theoretic best of both words of red pill and blue pill

  • iron pill: disregard women, obtain lifts

Also, men getting ostracized or some shit for being "creepy" is a feature, not a bug; they failed to know their place and are paying for it.

You want to be a man, face life-and-death danger, preferably combat if you feel up to it and are OK with the guys you're fighting for.

Reminds me of the Mussolini quote 'War is to man what maternity is to a woman'.

Yes. Although modern war is incredibly destructive, and starting a low-grade WWI just so men can 'be men' sounds like an idiotic and craven waste of blood and treasure. Also badass brave motherfuckers get blown up while cowards and those that aren't strong enough for frontline combat survive.

Agreed. Volunteer militaries are especially bad since they target the most patriotic, energetic, disciplined men.

I'm not a misogynistic incel, but whenever I talk about my dating woes a good portion of people feel the need to tell me "Don't be an incel!" when I haven't said or done anything remotely misogynistic. I figure the Motte is probably a good place to find people who understand my perspective.

Incel outside its original context essentially means shorthand for "whiny downer whining about no bitches." So, you were probably ruining the vibes and the other party wanted a fast way to shut it down with zero effort and no oppurtunity to argue it.

Incel in its original context was a “queer” academic woman describing the dating hardships her other weird queer academic friends were having.

The thing you have to understand about dating is that it is inherently adversarial in general, even though it is at its heart collaborative in any specific instance. It is biologically designed for there not to be “one weird trick” that just works. No one wants their kids to be stuck with loser genes if they can avoid it. This happens on both the conscious and unconscious level. Any dating norm which lets losers match up with non-losers is a bad norm from the perspective of the non-losers. This doesn’t make it any less frustrating, but it does make it less confusing in the sense of “I did all the things I was supposed to do. Why didn’t it work?” It didn’t work because there are no hard and fast rules except win. Everything else is inductive conjecture based on past observation at best (and intentional misinformation at worst).

I know this is not particularly encouraging. I’m sorry. There is no law of the universe that says things have to work out or be nice.

Yes. "Radicalizing the Romancelessness" is a feature, not a bug. It is a feature that some men are thrown out of college on sexual-assault allegations that are shaky; it is a feature that some men (and fewer women) are considered creepy simply because they think that Scarlett Johansson or Timothee Chalamet is attractive. Unattractive people are expected to know their place. End of story.

Is it a "feature" that "Henry" has no trouble getting laid?

Maybe you can bite the bullet and argue that many nerds have the tendency to turn Henry when things get rough, and at least Henry's charismatic and all. Maybe he protects his wives from other dudes or something. It's a difficult (but not impossible) argument to make that Henry's partners would be genuinely better off with him than with our awkward nerds. I'd like to see the argument made, to be honest.

This is not minimizing domestic violence. It's saying "Maybe being with an awkward nerd is actually worse than being with a shitbag domestic abuser like Henry, for reasons that aren't immediately obvious". What I think is that Henry is basically a con man selling a product that is literal toxic garbage, and the nerd's product is better, but his salesmanship is shit.

Henry isn't a con man. The Henrys of the world aren't fooling the women; the women know who exactly they are.

OK.

Is Henry actually a better choice than an awkward nerd?

That's what I was asking you.

You're right that there are so many conflicting opinions about dating out there. I think it's because lots of people want different things and have different experiences with dating so what works in one situation doesn't work in another. I have been single forever so have lots of experience dating and I can tell you that the most important thing is to be honest, be realistic with yourself about what you want. If you aren't really into someone, don't string them along, and don't pursue someone you think is really out of your league either because you won't be confident and secure enough in the relationship to make it work. Really think about what you want out of a relationship, no matter what that is, and then pursue people who can give you that, because then you'll be acting in accordance with what you really want. For example I used to spend a lot of time with men that I was attracted to in theory and enjoyed being with them but they weren't really what I was looking for in a partner so the relationships never went anywhere. Don't be afraid to pursue the people you actually want, I used to avoid this because I didn't want them to reject me, but more often than not now I'm not rejected by the guys I like and if they reject me then I can simply move on and look for someone else I who fits what I'm looking for.

Also working on self improvement and increasing self esteem is huge, dating was the worst when I hated myself because I also hated anyone who liked me, so do everything you can to fix your issues and treat yourself kindly and remember that you don't have to be perfect, just kind to your partner and yourself

I've been out of the dating pool for a while, given that I went from a 5 year relationship straight into another, but I do consider myself above average when it comes to flirtation.

The following are low hanging fruit, and even if clichéd advice, it's cliché for a reason:

  1. Workout, you don't need to be massive, just above average and with some definition. It does wonders.

  2. Dress well. No need to chase fashion, a lot of the men obsessed with menswear look good despite their terrible yet fashionable fits. Get clothes that fit, and ideally flatter the body you made through working out.

Nothing that follows is nearly as universal:

Women do like it when you're confident, and if doesn't come naturally, fake it. I'm nerdy and slightly introverted, but unless you're in repeated contact with someone who likes those qualities, you're better off projecting confidence and then hoping they come to accept you the way you are after it wears off.

I've had eagerness pay off, especially when combined with charm. No tips on how to be the latter, but the truth of the matter is that you need to put yourself forward because only the 99th percentile of guys can relax and let women chase them. The rest of us have to work for it.

Don't be afraid of dating in the workplace, unless yours is particularly anal about it. It's easy to say not to shit where you eat, but when half or more of your waking time is spent in a place, it's difficult to find the time or energy to look elsewhere.

Another great help is having platonic female friends, especially the ones in a committed relationship. I've noticed that women love playing matchmaker, so make it easy for them.

As for persistence, it varies from girl to girl. But in general, you're better off erring on the side of it than not. If she's still distant or unresponsive after plenty of effort, cut your losses.

CHA is an ability score, some people have CHA 0 and some CHA 25. The smooth talking charming playboys may not have been as smooth-talking when they were junior Chads in high school... but they were better than all the other students, by a lot. They were quite recognizable. And they have more potential to improve.

I've noticed that women love playing matchmaker, so make it easy for them.

Depends. Hasn't been my experience - I have lots of female friends; they have either expressed sadness that a partner isn't happening for me or felt that I should never have one/that I was fucking up or being a presumptuous jackass by even asking.

Don't be afraid of dating in the workplace, unless yours is particularly anal about it. It's easy to say not to shit where you eat, but when half or more of your waking time is spent is a place, it's difficult to find the time or energy to look elsewhere.

Yeah, I hate the advice not to date in the workplace. I get it in certain circumstances, but I met my wife at work and met previous girlfriends there as well. I was still working in science for all of these and I just plain like scientist women. If you work at FacelessGlobocorpX, OK, go ahead and pass on dating people there unless you meet someone truly excellent, but if you're working in a field where it's actually part of your personality, you're apt to have jumped a number of hurdles already with the people you meet there.

If you're in a niche field with limited employers, it feels like you're more likely to be nuked from orbit professionally if you make an unwise advance, no? Not that I don't think your wisdom holds, but generally holding back from workplace dating is more about avoiding the consequences than the specific benefits.

Sure. Life's full of tradeoffs though, and I saw a lot more happily married couples that met in labs than people whose lives were destroyed by malicious actions on the part of their former partners.

Yes but said married couples are more likely to have completed their courtship in earlier eras + I've got a lot more marital lifelines than I do career ones.

Seconding hydro.

Reading advice or, God forbid, theory is a distant second to actual experience. Go join some club or church group or casual sport and talk to people. Talk to everyone there, not just the hot ones, and talk to them about normal stuff. Worst case scenario you get more comfortable. Best case, you get strong signals or get confident enough to make a move.

The problem you are running into is that a lot of being attractive is kind of slotting into a comfortable middle zone. That middle zone exists on a spectrum, so people will warn you away from both ends of the spectrum, but it will sound contradictory.

"Don't seem too obsessed and attracted to them." vs "Don't ignore them and be indifferent to them."

"Don't be arrogant and over-confident" vs "Don't be shy and lacking in confidence"

Dating is going to be hard cuz it is partly a social dance. You have to demonstrate some level of social skills. And one way to measure social skills is to have a bunch of changing and complex rules for dating that aren't easily legible.

I personally found the primal aspects of dating helpful to think about. To me they seemed fundamental, and no amount of social games were going to fully erase them:

  1. Demonstrate an ability to provide resources (kids need resources).

  2. Demonstrate social skills by having friends, playing the dating game, and making them laugh (social skills need so you don't let other people in the tribe steal resources for your kids).

  3. Demonstrate an ability to cultivate long-term loyalty (show that you continue to support them and their kids with resources once the fun of sex has worn off).

I think male attractiveness is just what features of males correlated with good resource gathering many years ago. So being healthy and physically fit. But women seem fully capable of being attracted to resource producers that are not healthy or physically fit. But you need at least one of these things. Be fit and attractive, or be rich. Hopefully both.

The apps just seem designed to get people to have sex. If you want to use an app or website, try and find one that is based on trying to create relationships. Hopefully it has some barriers to entry.

This might've been better posted in the Sunday thread, but this will probably devolve into CW anyway so you're probably good.

Anyway.

The only actual rule is to be attractive. The more attractive you are, the more you can get away with. The less attractive you are, the more everything you do will be considered creepy and weird. That's it. That's the whole game. Every behaviour you're told to do, or not to do, is conditional on this. Women welcome attention from attractive men, and despise anything that reminds them that unattractive men have sexual desires at all, let alone towards them.

The less attractive you are, the more everything you do will be considered creepy and weird.

This. Unattractive humans, especially men, are transgressive for being anything other than celibate monks.

You're not exactly wrong but I would sort of add that being "attractive" also involves projecting "confidence" and "power." You can be super hot but if you look like you hate yourself it won't matter, and if you look powerless you also won't be attractive. Lots of confidence can more than make up for lack of physical attractiveness.

I’m short on advice but as a rule of thumb both feminists and redpillers are giving advice on the basis of promoting their idea of gender politics, not actually helping anyone, and you should basically ignore everything they say. Your dad’s dated advice is 100x better.

Go to a young adult Bible study or social dance lessons or some other place where normal women hang out and practice talking to women.

both feminists and redpillers are giving advice on the basis of promoting their idea of gender politics

Interesting point.

This is one case where you should listen to boomers.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats