> it's not enough to have a high income if you don't use it to signal wealth or to provide luxury experiences to women Put another way, women aren’t attracted by men who earn a lot, but by men who spend a lot
It's not hard to find "Why is my boyfriend/husband so cheap?" as a recurring question in advice columns. There's definitely a sense among many women that men should be demonstrably spendy - even flamboyant. Presumably because it confers competitive status. I used to have a friend who used to do factory work. She said that whenever any of the women had a new boyfriend one of the first questions was always "What kind o…
There is no way I would ever want to date those women. Come on guys, there are a lot of fish in the sea! Find someone who shares your values.
> he has no desire to become desirable? Funny thing about that, it's women (for hetros) that are the determination of what is 'desirable'. As a man, I agree with a lot of those who are discouraged with dating and running through the unwinnable rat race.
In a hetero relationship context it makes perfect sense to me that women would determine what is desirable in men. How else would it work?
Society also determines what is desirable in men and women. In fact historically it was much more strict in determining what is desirable.
If most men had their way in what is truly "desirable", they would have mute sex dolls that cook their favorite meal every night.
If most women had their way, they would probably have something equivalently grotesque to fit their fantasies.
Many women on Twitter are looking for casual relationships. News at 11. It's not different with men. If you're looking for a long term relationship, you have to filter out the casuals. The article says that surveys show more women than men are looking for long term relationships, so if that's what you're looking for, you shouldn't have trouble finding it unless your standards are higher than what you can get vs. comp…
News flash, most people I know were surprised to find out a woman will accept a free trip in exchange for sex with someone they haven't met. The only saving grace of that tinder experiment is that obviously the match meets a looks threshold since she swiped right on him. Id still basically call it prostitution and the acceptance rate was like 30% flat out, and another 30% cautious but could have been talked into it.…
I’d guess most guys would be down for that too, if the roles were reversed. Humans gonna human.
This doesn't pass the eye test. If it's true that religious people will outbreed non-religious people, why is religiosity declining? The simple answer is that religion is not hereditary. Children of religious parents do not necessarily follow their parents' beliefs. My family is an example. Several children taught that evolution is fake, and none of us agree with our parents. Only one of us have any religious beliefs…
Religiosity isn’t declining (globally) and the book addresses the “defection” idea, noting that most people still have similar beliefs as their parents, and that birth rates still outcompete defections.
Every source I can find says that secularism/atheism is growing worldwide. Not sure what you're talking about.
Even if "most" people don't "defect", you have to make up the remainder by people going the other way, for which there doesn't seem to be any evidence.
It's insulting in the sense that the stoicism of many men is considered unintelligent, primitive, underdeveloped. You can frame it how you want. It can also be projected as a strength (emotional control). Or men simply being less interested in exchanging emotions intensely as it's just not that important to them.
> It's insulting in the sense that the stoicism of many men is considered unintelligent, primitive, underdeveloped. I've heard a lot about men needing to be more expressive and open about their inner emotional state, but I've never heard people mention stoicism in the same context or that stoicism necessarily leads to the opposite of that. Or that stoicism is associated with being unintelligent, primitive or underdev…
> never heard people mention stoicism in the same context
I’m not particularly familiar but I understand this “stoicism” is not really the Stoicism one might read about on wikipedia (maybe related but ultimately not congruent). In a practical sense, when people say “more expressive and open” they are necessarily talking about the opposite of this “stoicism”.
This “more expressive and open” is also often expressed as “more emotionally intelligent” and that’s insulting to the emotional intelligence of such “stoics”. It’s very literally “they don’t express themselves correctly” and I can’t imagine someone not being insulted by such a claim of their personality.
I read a book awhile ago called Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? , which basically argues that cultures which strongly promote traditional values, having children, etc. will evolutionarily outcompete groups that don’t. It made me think that there must be a kind of cycle in human societies, where certain social values (like the ones mentioned in the article) are able to become popular for a short period of time…
[flagged]
Luckily we as humans can choose to agree with certain aspects of an ideology while disagreeing with other aspects of it
Religiosity isn’t declining (globally) and the book addresses the “defection” idea, noting that most people still have similar beliefs as their parents, and that birth rates still outcompete defections.
Every source I can find says that secularism/atheism is growing worldwide. Not sure what you're talking about. Even if "most" people don't "defect", you have to make up the remainder by people going the other way, for which there doesn't seem to be any evidence.
The nonreligious are growing in raw numbers but decreasing in percentage terms.
You don’t need to make up the remainder by going the other way, as I mentioned above: religious population growth comes from birth rates, not conversions.
I'd love to see some data from Europe. The American education system is very limited and seems to reward obedience above all else. College graduation rates for graduates of all boys high schools would also be interesting to compare and contrast. 'Redshirt'ed boys is another demographic to look at.
part of the 'narrative' sold by society is that people fall in love while going through their casual dating 'phase'. nobody under the age of 30 (maybe 35) is going to be looking for a 'serious relationship'. if you explicitly state this in your profile or even on the first handful of dates nobody is going to respond well.
You state this as some casual observation, but it's wild. In my country, 80-90% people in their early 20s are in long term relationship and thus already off the market. They may not be in their final relationship, but they are of a somewhat serious nature and not a one-night stand. By the age of 30, should they be so lucky, many/most would buy their first home. And move in together. If you think that's early, my dad…
you misunderstand what i wrote. 30 is when people start admitting to themselves they're looking for serious relationships. before that they are pretending not to be.
> It's insulting in the sense that the stoicism of many men is considered unintelligent, primitive, underdeveloped. I've heard a lot about men needing to be more expressive and open about their inner emotional state, but I've never heard people mention stoicism in the same context or that stoicism necessarily leads to the opposite of that. Or that stoicism is associated with being unintelligent, primitive or underdev…
> never heard people mention stoicism in the same context I’m not particularly familiar but I understand this “stoicism” is not really the Stoicism one might read about on wikipedia (maybe related but ultimately not congruent). In a practical sense, when people say “more expressive and open” they are necessarily talking about the opposite of this “stoicism”. This “more expressive and open” is also often expressed as…
Emotional intelligence is about understanding what you are feeling and why, not about how you present your emotional state. It’s what allows someone to realize they’re getting angry because they had unspoken expectations that weren’t met, or because they were experiencing anxiety from unrelated triggers. This kind of understanding prevents someone from blowing up in the first place because they understand the root cause isn’t what our brain wants to jump on in the moment. A more “stoic” person may be that way because they are highly emotionally intelligent and avoid getting overwhelmed. Or, they may be bad at it, and are just bottling it up to explode randomly at inappropriate times. It’s related, but tangential.