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 -
Earlier this year, the Swedish publisher Natur och Kultur released a new book discussing the rise of male sexlessness by the name of “Man går sin egen väg: riktningar i sexlöshetens dimma.” The title is an untranslatable pun on the Swedish word “man” which means both man as in “a man” and “one” as in “one does not simply walk into Mordor.” Rough translation: "Going your own way: directions in fog of sexlessness." The topic is one in which I am both deeply interested and deeply invested (the same way one might be invested in curing a debilitating disease) in, so I thought I’d relay the content to the Motte. Here's a link to the book if you want to check it out: https://www.nok.se/titlar/laromedel-b2/man-gar-sin-egen-vag-92ad4e66/a2ada8af-b732-488d-8a0e-937d6558b675
First off, the book does a good job of giving a concise overview of the situation for young men and forces at play. If you’re at all familiar with the ideas contained within, e.g, The Selfish Gene, these thoughts will hardly be mind-blowing, but it’s refreshing to see someone approach them with frankness in popular science/sociology. (Though if you’re unfamiliar here’s a good link to an interesting study https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/12/health/young-americans-less-sex-intl-scli-wellness/index.html).
The author also commendably takes a refreshingly global view of the problem, and has a lot of interesting facts from Japan and India which shed light on the broader dynamics of the sexual marketplace. For example, many of you might know that Tinder in the West has a verification feature for your face: take a selfie and prove you’re really you, and you get a little checkmark! Apparently, a Japanese online dating has adopted a similar feature - but for salaries. That’s right, just send a picture of your payslip and you get a checkmark letting all the women know you’re not horsing around with your six figure income. I don’t know if I should applaud the Japanese for their honesty, or deride them as crass. Maybe both.
Beyond that the book doesn’t have much new data to offer. The exact extent of the problem is difficult to assess given it relies largely on self-reporting, and the causes are equally difficult to pin down (though in India and China the uneven gender ratio is an obvious culprit, and the broader trend is also clear). Internet porn, Metoo, men being outcompeted in academia, rising obesity and women gaining status and increasing independence are all suspects, but the exact extent of their involvement in the conspiracy remains unclear.
The author doesn’t dwell on this. The book is more interested in categorizing and understanding the male response to sexlessness than in explaining the root causes: and it actually does a pretty good job of creating a frame to discuss and understand the problem on an individual level. The idea is that men without sexual success have four different strategies at their disposal (or copes if you want to use incel lingo) when faced with want of sexual success, namely
Folding: what it sounds like. the core of this strategy is simply giving up on ever really wooing a woman to whom you’re attracted, and doing something else instead. There are many variants but at its center this strategy is about recognizing that “it’s over” and trying to scratch the sexual itch with other and perhaps more attainable pursuits.
Fraud: unsatisfied with simply surrendering, some men instead turn to various forms of deception in order to overcome their predicament. This similarly diverse group includes pick-up artists and various other fraudsters who rely primarily on manipulation. The common denominator for this strategy is insincerity: the whole point is to trick, nag or fool women into sleeping with you rather than convincing them by improving the package on offer. Nowadays I see few “red pill”-folk proclaiming that all you need to do is learn to neg women correctly in order to get laid. Probably this way of doing things didn’t work very well to begin with, and the realization has set in.
Resentment: you already know this one. This is the strategy of Elliot Rodger, the violent rebellion of Cain against an uncaring God. Though seldom taken to its logical conclusion, this response has gotten a disproportionate amount of media attention since it often involves violence and hatred towards women. The attention paid to the worst of the incels have clouded the fact that many feel negative emotions affter rejection.
Improvement: Lastly, we have the most intuitive strategy. If no one wants to buy what you're selling, improve your product! The author neatly exemplifies this strategy with the cult of JBP and “12 Rules for Life”, and I think the connection between sexlessness and the rise of anxious self-improvement is fairly natural. Keep in mind there are many different ways to improve the odds. Improvement can also involve throwing a wider net, and doing other activities to improve not yourself but the general chances of attracting a mate.
This is by far the most optimistic and pro-social strategy, and it’s the overwhelmingly most common reply when men complain of sexlessness. Just get stronger, wealthier, cooler and smoother, and you will start to see success. If you’re a semi-nerdy intellectual guy – and if I understand the demographics here correctly you probably are – you’ve heard this one many times, I’ll bet.
Nevertheless, it’s evident the author himself is skeptical. He spends a lengthy section of the book detailing how JBP himself collapsed into a highly dysfunctional and disorganized existence. If you don’t have Tinder and never go outside you’ve got some low-hanging fruit to pick, but what if you have Tinder and you go outside, but still fail? In the end the book seems to purport that, whatever it is that causes women to reject a certain man en masse, it is quite difficult to change.
Summary
All the categories above represent extremes, and inescapably simplify complex human behavior. The book is well-aware of this, and makes a big point of emphasizing that most men employ a decidedly mixed strategy when faced with female rejection. After a particularly long dry spell the average man is more likely to spend some more time with other pursuits (folding), edit his photos to make them more attractive (fraud), vent his frustration to friends over a beer (revenge) and slowly build wealth and status (improvement) rather than going all-in on any one extreme.
Another point the book makes, which I mentioned before, is that no strategy really seems to pay clear and great dividends (though one is clearly worse than all the others). The book never says it out loud, but the data and the narrative it presents appears to hint that the only correct move in this sordid game is to not become sexless to start with. I think this might be correct. Constantly getting rejected by all women you consider attractive is something most men consider very, very bad, and for good reason. In evolutionary terms that form of harsh sexlessness is a strong signal that something is going terribly awry, and we should expect most young men to react very strongly if they were told, right now, that they’d barely have sex in their life.
Last but not least, I have a few closing remarks regarding the different strategies, and on the broader problem with male sexlessness.
To start with, I think folding is by far the weakest approach to the problem. In another type of society ignoring your sexual desire and doing something else might be workable as a last resort, but in a modern welfare state it is for many reasons a humiliating and degrading proposal. It’s well-known that women (at least in Europe) receive far more money from the state through welfare, maternity care and health care than they pay in tax, and that means all tax-paying men inevitably support women with their hard work. This has far-reaching implications. To put it bluntly: if you spend your entire working life as a man giving desirable young women your money while other men fuck their brains out, what does that make you?
The simple fact of the matter is that most men have no way to cut women out of their life entirely. What opting out really means is accepting all the drawbacks of having a girlfriend without any of the benefits. That’s barely even a strategy: it is more of an unconditional surrender than an attempt to actually handle the situation. Maybe I need to look at more OkCupid statistics to really get how “over” it is for most men, but the profound despair hidden in this sort of response does not appeal to me. I’d rather rage against the dying of the light than quietly accept defeat.
Improvement is the other strategy which deserves a response; and my response is that I’m far from convinced. The few instances in which I’ve had success with women have had an almost random quality to them, and have been seemingly unrelated to any obvious self-improvement project. Lately I’ve greatly improved both my wealth and general status, and yet success has been sorely lacking.
Frankly, if you’re having trouble with women as a young man – and I speak as a young man who has had much trouble with women – the problem is likely to get worse with age. It seems likely that for every step you take forward in self-improvement you will take another two steps back through aging. Another weakness in this strategy is that if you’ve gone without sex for several years then, well, that’s several years without sex. You are not getting those back! Dwelling on the past is never good, but I am unsure if investing large resources in order to marry 30 year old woman who would have rejected you if she was 20 is a sound or sustainable way to move forward.
Last but not least, a question to open further discussion: what is the optimal strategy, both in general and in more detail (i.e. should you improve, and what aspect of yourself or your dating approach is most fruitful to improve?).
When did you start pursuing women?
I started basically as soon as puberty hit, when I was about 12. It was another 5 years before I had sex.
Having sex at 17 isn't so bad, certainly felt like forever at the time. It was another 5 years and two girlfriends later before I could reliably have sex with new women after just a few dates. It was about a year of me being a bit of a manwhore before I met my now wife and settled down.
It took me about ten years and usually 40+ hours a week of dedicated practice to get good at it. I broke 6 figures in pay at a job faster than I broke into chadhood (and a very mediocre chadhood too, I've had only 20-30 sexual partners, but I was always a little more interested in long term relationships than just sex).
Being able to have sex with willing women is the most difficult thing most men will accomplish in their lives. And I think most of them have only managed it by sheer dogged determination.
And this is fine. Because on the other side of this endeavor is women, and they have at steak the most difficult thing most women will ever do: raise a kid.
Yes birth control exists, but it hasn't sunk into our evolutionarily thickened skulls. And why should it? Raising a kid is still at stake in the modern world. A woman wasting three years dating a loser might mean some prime fertility years are lost.
Improvement is the only option. The progress won't be fast, and it probably won't even be slow. It will be glacial. Circumstances and luck will always play a role, and the best you will ever do is to tilt luck in your favor. At best you might raise a 1% chance to a 5% chance. So instead of striking out 99 times you only strike out 19.
I'm running out of good advice to give to young men, and coming back to the one thing that I think made me successful: I was relentlessly horny and wanted nothing more than willing sex with attractive women. It was only once I got there that my fog finally cleared from my mind. I realized i wanted more (and needed more) after i obtained the goal.
Wouldn’t 25 be in like the 90th percentile of partner count for heterosexuals, if not higher? Most men (and women) never come close, they have a few long term relationships, maybe a hookup or two, then get married. Often these are with friends or friends of friends, with classmates and coworkers and fellow students or with friends or siblings of all the above. Most men aren’t cold approaching women and never have.
I think if you set yourself a target like, persuade 25 very beautiful women to sleep with you as an average guy, that’s probably a hard goal, and might be the “hardest thing” a man accomplished in his lifetime (I mean I hope not, but it depends on what he’s working with, I guess). But that doesn’t really describe the lives of many men.
For a lot of American/West European PMC types, sex is the single meaningful area of "free play" in their lives. I think that's where the definition of "hardest" comes in. It's true for me for a certain portion of my life.
Getting into a T14 law school, graduating from it, and getting a job at a well ranked law firm were all "harder" than getting laid in the sense that fewer people can do them. Getting laid was harder in the sense that there were no guides, or only marginally useful ones.
I know a fair number of my classmates who fit this definition, who have achieved amazing things professionally but can't fuck their way out of a paper bag. The K-JD student, extraordinary in talent but on rails in life from helicopter parents to academically strenuous schools to SAT prep courses to selective colleges to LSAT prep to T14 law school to Vault-10 firm associate to partner-track or In-house-counsel at a Fortune 500. Every step of that path is INCREDIBLY hard in the sense that it requires a huge amount of intellectual ability and hardworking discipline, but incredibly easy in the sense that there are prescribed steps you take, guidance from mentors or parents or online forums, and if you complete those steps you get what you wanted.
Getting laid is the opposite. There are no steps. The mentors and online guides are mostly useless or hucksters. It is free play, unguided by society, the rules are made up as you go. You have to figure it out on your own, figure everything out on your own.
A lot of men I've known were very well adapted to following rules and steps, and very poorly adapted to improv. I know a shocking number of men making nice six figure salaries in NYC big law who are sexually and romantically frustrated. Because the things they are good at aren't romance.
Are they hot, though?
Eye of the beholder and I'm pretty heterosexual, but I'd say so? At least fuckable? I mean thinking of my law school roommate, right, he's taller than me and slimmer than me, dresses well, he makes more money than me, can perform intellectual tasks that I cannot, he has clear skin and good posture. ((I guess Korean is a downgrade for some people, but racism can't be that prevalent right? And I feel like I know white/black/hispanic examples but not to the same degree of certainty)) I never saw him succeed with a girl through all of law school, and after law school he's had only sporadic and difficult success with women. It's insane to me.
He succeeded in doing things that most people would find literally impossible, like passing the patent bar. Dating is the harder thing for him.
I guess East Asians have a reputation as being less attractive. Koreans are still seen as handsome, though, see Kpop obsessions and so on. I’ve found (some) Korean men attractive but I think if I met a straight-laced Korean biglaw lawyer set on partner track who seemed more trad (socially/culturally) I’d automatically write him off as probably only interested in Korean women. East Asian men who do well with white women often cultivate either a kind of artsy intellectual vibe or a tattooed vibe (male equivalent of ABG, say) I think because it’s kind of like saying “I’m not the stereotype”.
I think it’s interesting to think about the kind of people you’re attracted to. Something that seems true for both sexes is that while hotness is based on physical features, it also has a lot to do with vibe. I’ve seen women go from being largely invisible to men to doing better with them (not just sex but relationships, dating etc) without changing their physique just by changing the way they do their makeup, changing their fashion, acting differently and seeming less closed off to men.
If I look at Cjet’s profile picture he seems like a handsome guy and I know many people who would go for that kind of thing, but I’ve never been attracted to the default American male vibe, even if their facial features are great. I like tall, skinny, sometimes slightly androgynous white (sometimes jewish) guys with pale skin and long dark hair, at the top end maybe men who could be YSL runway models, I don’t know. This isn’t an uncommon preference among women I grew up with and know, although it’s not the norm. Men who could be described and who might even describe themselves as ‘beautiful’, or at least going for that vibe. In my experience, these men always do quite well with women, even if they’re only average looking, because they have a lot of women friends and are into things that women like like fashion, the arts, literature. So it’s possible I have an inflated (or deflated in this case, I guess) view of how hard it is for the average man to get laid, because in general the men in my life who seem to cultivate a vibe of some kind do well, while the plain, default American kind of guys, even if they have good features and height, might struggle.
I’m not going to universally recommend ‘move to Brooklyn, grow out your hair, cultivate an air of mystery’ to young men struggling with women, but it probably would work for a substantial number of them.
Taking up a vibe isn't as simple as you make it out to be though! You have to find a vibe that is solidly in line with what you're working with. As a (presuming from your writing) gorgeous and intelligent woman, you have more ability to take up whatever aesthetic you choose, and being attractive you will carry it off.
For men, it is just not that simple to pick up a new style. It's not as simple as reading a magazine guide, buying the stuff, learning the lingo, and going to it. There are a great many styles that, even if I put effort into it, just don't match with who I am. A big part of my growing up and becoming attractive to women was realizing that the vibe/aesthetic I should be going for was trad all-American boy. Blond, blue eyed, broad shouldered, sweet, well-read, good family; God help me I spent my teenage years trying to be punk and failing completely. When I started playing to my strengths, I grew into it fast.
But finding one's unique vibe isn't easy for many men, and it isn't the sort of thing that one does simply by following orders. Which is where my old roommate failed. He did his homework in high school, studied hard in undergrad, worked incredibly hard in law school. But in his personal life, no one can tell him what to do with any successful odds.
I agree with most of your post. But this...
Isn't really true. He's a tall, skinny, relatively handsome Korean guy in his late twenties (with money)? Kpop-maxx. Clean-shaven, get the cross earings, the Kpop star haircut, the rockstar clothes (but slightly lower-key). There are girls writing fanfic about a slightly modified version of this guy. In NYC? Some pretty white girl will go for it, probably many more than that. He's a rare niche in the middle of a huge cultural fetish. What do you say to a hot white guy who can't get laid in Southeast Asia? "Go outside"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link