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.
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?
Sorry but only a woman could have written this.
Why won't they eat cake?
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
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