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 -
Continuing on with The Motte's theme of the week, the Australian Federal Government has given the online dating industry a year to implement a 'voluntary' code of conduct in the face of 'online sexual violence' or presumably face regulation.
This ultimatum seems to be motivated by “An investigation by the Australian Institute of Criminology last year found three-quarters of online daters had been subject to some kind of online sexual violence in the past five years.”
Finding the referenced report 'Dating App Facilitated Sexual Violence' (their term, not mine) seems to include amongst other acts:
- Pressured the respondent to give them information about their location or their schedule
- Continued to contact the respondent even after they told them they were not interested in having a relationship with them
- Pressured the respondent verbally to perform unwanted sexual acts (eg making promises, lying, repeatedly asking or insisting etc)
- Sent the respondent an unwanted sexually explicit message
- Sent the respondent an unwanted sexually explicit photo or video of themselves
- Pressured the respondent to meet them in person when they did not want to
This would include dick pics or non-consensual sexually explicit language sent through a dating app, along with other mundane dating activity. The march to broaden the definition of sexual violence to include 'making women uncomfortable' continues.Australia, is usually a follower of countries like Canada and the UK when it comes to these sorts of policies, but it does occasionally become the first mover when there is the chance of getting a cheap political win (and to seem like it is doing something in the face of more serious issues such as the housing crisis).
The linked news article is kind of buried down the state news media's front page and references the federal government's
karensocial services minister who has previously worked on 'cyber safety' committees. There is a fair chance this is a complete nothing burger that will blow over and is just the govt making noises rather than actually intending to follow through, but time will tell.Well, if you followed the implied rules here, dating apps would be completely useless for men -- just that last point is enough; there's not much point in dating if you're not going to meet in person and there will 99% of the time be some reluctance expressed to take that step. But of course rules or not, Chad isn't going to follow them (and he'll usually get away with it) so nothing changes.
If someone doesn't want to meet in person, why not just move on?
Because women on OLD apps don't say they aren't interested. They say they'd love to meet up, but they can't this weekend. Or the day after. Or next weekend. But they'd love to see you and grab coffee. Then they just stop responding.
A well intentioned man might think this is a problem to be solved. Meanwhile they just did a harassment.
Unironically this is a male skill issue thinking that communication is only literal and verbal. Men who are confused about this need to get good, not only for dating but because this is an important generalizable life skill.
Women don’t “play hard to get” by failing to make or keep plans. An interested women, shy or forward, slutty or chaste, of any culture or nationality, will make an effort to meet with you. A woman “playing hard to get” will let you in on the game. It’s mutual flirting and it will feel like that.
If she cancels once and doesn’t take the initiative to make a new plan, she’s not interested. Move on, don’t be pathetic.
I do agree that an interested woman will make efforts to meet, but I also feel that dynamic is better expressed after an in-person meeting. Before an in-person meeting, if you're in any sort of metro online dating marketplace, you are one of a cast of 1000s in the inbox of anything female presenting.
The whole interaction really begins after/during the first in-person meeting
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, unironically agree.
But men need space to learn that. Not government regulation treating it as capital H, Harassment.
More options
Context Copy link
Of course when a guy like Andrew Tate says this and actively tries to teach males the skills to achieve these he gets hammered.
So I dunno where you expect them to learn the skills if the teaching of the skills is socially verboten, and the opposite message (believe women and take them at their word) is what saturates society.
From their fathers, maybe. But with an increase in the number of men growing up raised by single mothers, there really is no other place they can even see a role model demonstrate this for them.
Tate is...well. A less than savory role model. If you were being charitable to him he is LARPing as basically a villain. And that's a charitable interpretation of him.
More options
Context Copy link
I think probably the worst thing about the potential Australian law that kicked this convo off is that if implemented (and I sort of doubt it will be) it probably prevents a lot of necessary learning experiences to help you learn what is actual-mutual-flirting-everyone-is-having-a-good-coy-time and what is weird Andrew Tate rapey philosophy. But I don't think it's that hard. Women do obvious things like talk to you, make themselves available to spend time with you, touch you, kiss you, when they're interested. It's not a big mystery.
I've never seen any Tate stuff so I don't know what he says, but my data-less assumption is it's all tricks to get someone who is uninterested in you to fuck you, which is exactly the wrong, time-wasting approach.
Funny enough, Tate's approach is less about PUA and more about just maximizing your perceived value as a male (by doing things that produce value) so you don't have to trick someone. Now, his actions seem to contradict the message, but where else are men even going to hear that message.
Yeah, I do think that young men are stuck between a Scylla and Charybdis when navigating dating culture. On one side if they are completely passive and let women make all the moves and rarely ever pursue they will never learn how to build attraction, play 'the game,' and eventually lock down a woman, and will lose out to the 'assholes.' And this leads them to loneliness, depression, and possibly lashing out.
On the other, if they try to be too brash and aggressive and don't properly gauge the risk involved, they can get slammed for at least being a sex pest, or at worst grooming and/or sexual assault which can carry severe reputational damage even if they avoid criminal consequences.
I will assert that having a male role model to show them the way is the best possible method of getting them into the 'sweet spot' of being assertive and confident but not stepping on the landmines, but that requires there to be such role models.
It's better to be too forward than to be too passive, since atleast being too forward allows you to get feedback which allows for calibration of your approach for the next time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Considering he is facing multiple human trafficking, sex slavery and rape charges a magic eight ball would be a better source.
Good luck finding a 'better source' who is allowed to keep a platform with any reach.
They did it to Jordan Peterson, too.
Which is entirely the problem. "Positive" masculine role models are suppressed, so you end up with ONLY guys like Tate who are willing to keep speaking on the topic and fight through the backlash.
You want Andrew Tate to go away, give us someone who can say what he says without the boorish personality and background to with it.
Except why would they do that, when the entire point of "the backlash" is to ensure that nobody can "say what he says."? You spoke above about how "young men are stuck between a Scylla and Charybdis when navigating dating culture." Well, if the movers and shakers of our culture want to remove anyone who would teach how to navigate that gap even as they expand the "landmines," and perhaps even eliminate said gap entirely. If they want to make our society one in which young men face a stark binary choice between "completely passive and let women make all the moves" and likely celibacy, and potentially-criminal "sex pest," what's to stop them (in the short term, at least)?
I guess this is just another example of my go to response whenever someone makes a "they can't do that" sort of argument, which is "what can you do about it?"
More options
Context Copy link
What specifically is it that Tate says that you find value in?
I'lI give you two people that I have considered helpful positive sources of information on dating, sex, etc - one focused on heterosexual dating, the other LGBT (but often with universally useful advice). I recall former notorious cad and "fratire" author Tucker Max's "Mate: Become The Man Women Want" book and podcast having quite useful advice for self improvement, along with an emphasis on explcitly spelling out how different male behavior can be threatening to women, how to be conscious of and avoid such behavior, what to do instead, and knowing when one has consent. He hasn't been deplatformed for it. Dan Savage is another guy with good dating, sex and self improvement advice who's been running columns for decades. Both dated around a lot before being happily married, have kids, etc. Tucker is more right wing, Savage more left wing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A guy like Andrew Tate who pimped women? Gee I wonder why his spin on "mutual flirting" got him hammered.
Or Jordan Peterson.
Or Matt Walsh.
They even tried cancelling Joe Rogan.
Good luck finding a personality who takes a 'pro masculinity' approach who isn't vilified in the mainstream.
That is, in fact, the reason Tate is able to find an audience. There's NOWHERE ELSE for the audience to go.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this explanation excludes the reality that often women simply change their minds.
I've been in the exact situation you describe, I asked her out, she ignored my message. I then asked her out again a week later. She said yes, we ended up dating for several years.
Of course, that just makes it even harder for our would be suitor. Her saying she's busy means she's not interested, unless she's genuinely busy but still expects you to take the initiative to ask her out again. Or she's not sure if she's interested and can't be bothered to make a decision the first time you ask. Or she is interested but slightly more interested in another guy, and asking her out after he ignores her texts could go well for you.
God I don't miss the dating game at all.
Or just there's a bunch of occluding factors. If dating was a simple peer-to-peer two-player game a lot of this would be more intuitive, but there are so many factors going into success and failure.
Maybe she said no the first time since she was dating another guy, maybe she'd given up on online dating that day and rediscovered her resolve a week later since her best friend met a nice guy on Hinge, maybe she was in a bad mood, maybe you were one of 10,000 messages in her inbox and didn't pitch anything super interesting etc etc etc
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but I don’t believe a court would find the man to blame. If she states she’s interested, and he takes that at face value, I’d see that as an absolute defense.
Of course, this wouldn’t be happening in court, with silly things like burden of proof. It’d be a moderator decision in response to reports. In that case I suppose it’s much more likely that the man gets slapped down or kicked off the platform. But that’s all they can do: push an apparently clueless guy off their app and into the real world. I find it a lot harder to get worked up about that than about fines, jail, or the other things a real court can impose.
More options
Context Copy link
I completely agree, I think most women on apps use it for attention and have zero intention of ever meeting up with a man they meet on it. But that's exactly the reason to discard any interaction with someone who doesn't enthusiastically want to meet up in real life, surely?
The assumption here is that the opportunity cost of continuing to engage with a woman who is... proving difficult to schedule (you can insert whatever Russell conjugation you wish here) is significant enough that the time and effort could be better spent somewhere else. This assumption is wrong. The median man does not have "other conversations" he can switch over to which have a higher likelihood of success. The choice is not between talking to the woman who is playing hard-to-get or talking to the woman who is totally down to meet up. The choice is between trying one more bite at the apple (with full knowledge that it probably won't work) or just giving up and trying to forget that you're going to die alone.
I mean when I was in my Online Dating grind phase, it really was just a matter of 'get myself to a level of attractiveness to ensure a steady flow of new prospects and then don't pursue difficult prospects too hard since there's others on the burner'.
But as somebody who probably went from a 4/10 to a 8/10, mostly due to weightloss and poor presentation of my profile initially, I can sympathize that as a 4/10 the prospects are sporadic as hell and that there's an inherent scarcity mindset involved.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry but only a woman could have written this.
Why won't they eat cake?
This kind of ad hominem does not bring light to the conversation. Don't do this.
Apologies, @2rafa.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's the complaint here? I've gone on hundreds of fun, successful dates with the following formula:
For me (and I think for most guys) the real bottleneck is at (1) and (2). In my experience the journey from "decent convo" to "fucking" is extremely smooth sailing and if it's not then there's something broken (but likely fixable) in your approach, like trying to drag someone who isn't actually interested in you out on a date. Just because this woman is more interested in you than other women doesn't mean she's actually interested in you.
I should add that I have been off the market for a very long time and have hence no experience in online dating whatsoever (and I thank my lucky stars for that).
I have, perhaps unfairly, pattern-matched 2rafa's comment to a type of reaction that is extremely common among women and betrays that they cannot possibly fathom the male experience of seeking sex and failing.
For a lot of women (under ~40), it is part of their reality that they could arrange a sexual encounter with a reasonably okayish playmate within a few days or even within a day if they wanted to. Most don't, of course, but many could. For many men, it is part of their reality that they go on month- or even year-long dryspells. On top of that, men are usually hornier and lonelier than women which means that there really is a lot of difference between the experiences of the average guy and gal when it comes to chasing sex. Add to that that a lot of guys measure their self-esteem in terms of their ability to get laid, and you have a recipe for disaster.
I agree that the rational course of action is to not pursue potential partners who are less than enthusiastic. Good advice. For someone with options. From what I gather about how online dating works for men, that less-than-enthusiastic person might be the best chance a lonely guy on a month-long dryspell has. So he discards that good advice because he has to.
Of course, none of that could ever happen to us, handsome successful devils that we are. I am talking about all the other loser men out there. Of course.
I would suggest that you should consider the possibility that you are an outlier but I suspect you know that already. Well done, you are very desirable.
It's good advice for someone without options, too. It's not a job or a meal (hell, some jobs are worse than nothing unless you're literally going to be out on the street, and some meals are definitely worse than nothing). You won't die from not securing a date. I haven't, and a "month-long dry spell" sounds like a luxury to me.
On the other hand, when I try to talk to someone who isn't returning the effort I often wish I was dead. Small talk is already a chore for me as it is. Going on a date with them for a 95% chance of more of the same? No thanks, would rather have a free evening to myself.
It's less "why won't they eat cake" and more "why don't you drink a good whisky once a month rather than spin the drink gacha every weekend and end up with cheap swill most of the time, without enjoying either the taste or smooth inebriation yet getting a hangover just the same".
More options
Context Copy link
I think the right advice for people like this is to modify the strategy before they get to this point. For example, meet people some other way, make themselves more desirable for OLD, make their OLD profile better (people laugh at this but I've seen guys' profiles, they are often really bad but really improvable!), or just match with uglier women.
I think I'm desirable to the women I get to that stage with, because a lot of filtering goes on to get there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
4 is always where things fall apart for me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm a man with a successful online dating and hookups history prior to getting married and would agree with that poster that if someone doesn't enthusiastically want to meet up irl* you should just move on. If a woman actually wants to go out with you, they will not make it difficult.
*caveat being most people would prefer a short conversation to establish a little familiarity first before asking to meet irl rather than that being your first message out the gate.
Yes, that is the issue.
I do not understand your comment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are women who are merely playing hard to get and there are women who have profiles only to boost their ego with the attention given to them. If one takes the first "no" given, the former women and the man ceasing contact, are both worse off than if he tried harder.
More options
Context Copy link
Because a lot of men are naive enough to take a woman at her word the same way they would a man. She said she'd love to meet up. Surely this is just an honest scheduling conflict. Its the most attention the average schlub has gotten in the last 100 messages he sent.
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