site banner

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
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?

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?