This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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.
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?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link