511–520 of 588 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because most people feel something does not make it a fact.
Saying that is just like telling a happy person that he is not really happy, that he only feels happy. It's meaningless.
Sex is not the be all and end all of living an awesome life. Just because blind nature created you rife with the instinctual passion of desire does not mean you have to live as a slave to it. Channel that desire into hobbies that are actually interesting to you, and enjoy life. Sex, intimacy, relationships, marriage and the like do not automatically guarantee you happiness, as perfectly illustrated by this masterpiec…
Sexual intimacy is one of the "pillars" on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It also seems to me that if a sizeable chunk of young men end up feeling undesirable, unwanted, and frustrated, the consequences won't be pretty, we all lose. Those young men need to stop basing their self image on their own ego and sense of sexual entitlement. What we're seeing here, in my humble and uneducated opinion, is the end of a period in societal history where women served the role of sexual currency in a m…
> What bothers me about this conversation is that disastrous, society-shattering consequences are always mentioned if women keep choosing not to have sex with more men, but no one seems willing to suggest that men need to change the way they view sex, relationships and themselves. I may have missed part of this conversation but I don't think there's a suggestion that women are doing something /wrong/ or that they nee…
Isn't it a good thing that men who feel they are not attractive to females quit for good the dating scene?
Isn't part of the problem the narative that females have been fed -- that they can just have fun in their 20s and then settle down with a nice guy in their 30s?
If females knew they won't have the backup option in their 30s, maybe they'd be more willing to choose the monoganous option earlier in life?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, many men are still wedded, as it were, to the old model whereby their social status is accounted for by the number of women they have had sex with, and whether or not they are in a sexual relationship at the moment. It certainly is not an "old" model since most of society still ascribe to it. Men with many partners are still seen as more desirable due to network effects.
"outdated" then, perhaps, because it depends on a power hierarchy between the sexes which is losing relevance in modern societies. Yes, the model is still prevalent, but I'm arguing that's exactly the problem. Basing status and self-worth on sexual conquest makes no more sense than basing it on the number of slaves in one's retinue or the size of the pile of gold in one's treasury. It's a ridiculous and archaic way o…
If I managed to convince 10 hot chicks to have sex with a virgin nerdy guy(say by paying them), he won't be able to get the 11th by himself.
On the otherhand if a virgin rockstar decided to lose his virginity, there will be dozens of women lined up to have sex with him.
Sex is not the be all and end all of living an awesome life. Just because blind nature created you rife with the instinctual passion of desire does not mean you have to live as a slave to it. Channel that desire into hobbies that are actually interesting to you, and enjoy life. Sex, intimacy, relationships, marriage and the like do not automatically guarantee you happiness, as perfectly illustrated by this masterpiec…
Having money isn't everything. Not having money, is. Same with food and sex.
Apparently what this pithy aphorism means, for those like me that have never heard before, is that[1] when you have money it is easy to say that there is more life than just being wealthy, and that when you have no money your financial situation negatively affects your entire life.
> Same with food
If you have no food to eat it will not be a matter of it affecting your life, as there won't be one to live in the first place (beyond the number of days of living off body fat). This is what the word "need" refers to.
> and sex.
If you are saying that not engaging in sexual intercourse with one's fellow human beings negatively affects one's entire life (as if it is a fact, and not one's own feeling), and as sex is not a need like food, it can be safely said that your pithy aphorisms are of no use whatsoever to anyone looking to critically ascertain the facts of the matter instead of blindly following whatever is the latest belief being promulgated by the masses.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/9og6vu/havi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That’s exactly the theory developed by circles like the red pill. In the sea of disgusting theories and toxicity that is the red pill there is one thing that they got right: Men should approach and try to "pick up" as many women as possible. The guy that's 1/10 as desirable as another guy will get more dates if they attempt to "pick up" 20 times as many women. Of course, it's a bit like the Red Queen running as fast…
Just how is this a good advice if it's a bad thing if most men do it? A better advice would be for men to understand this tendency of women, what it means to be attractive to women and make an informed decision if they want to play the game of becoming more attractive to women. They can also learn to reverse the game in their thirties and only date women 4-5 years younger, thus penalizing women who wait until their l…
Because if you don't your outcome is worse than it otherwise would be. It's like weight cutting in boxing. Ultimately it serves no purpose. Both fighters do it so neither gets an advantage. Neither fighter can stop doing it, however, since it would give an advantage to the other fighter.
>A better advice would be for men to understand this tendency of women, what it means to be attractive to women and make an informed decision if they want to play the game of becoming more attractive to women.
These aren't mutually exclusive options. Making yourself more attractive will, of course, increase your chances for success.
>They can also learn to reverse the game in their thirties and only date women 4-5 years younger, thus penalizing women who wait until their last fertile minute to settle down.
Excluding a group isn't going to increase your chance of success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similar experience here. No one prepared me for the roller-coaster effect of subjective male attractiveness. (I'm a Man) I've always felt that you could break it up pretty well by relative status. Here's how it went for me. - 6th grade - extraordinarily unattractive to the opposite sex. - 8th grade - not outwardly reviled. - 9th grade - outwardly reviled again. - 12th grade - actually dating, with a bit of interest h…
Sorry to break it to you, but women chose you not because you're suddenly more attractive than your friend, but because they've had 15 years or so to learn that your friend won't settle down and their biological clock is ringing real hard in their 30s. It's quite cynical, I know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Historically, not all men (or women, for that matter) procreated and I think that's OK, given the current state of overpopulation. Many men also died young at war, before being able to procreate. I think we can all agree that less wars is a universally good thing. Even in western cultures where monogamy was pretty strictly enforced by the church and society, I doubt that more than 80% of men procreated (wish I could…
You have significantly over-estimated the procreational success rate of men. Consider this research[1] - in the ancient past, the rate of long-term descendants was seventeen women to one man. Note that this is about long-term, multi-generational success, so the rate was higher in each single generation. [1] https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
If you read my post carefully, you'll see I only estimated the percentage for societies where monogamy is enforced (either through peer pressure, religion, or both)
I also did not cite the source you did, because I consider it of enough poor quality to be unreliable in debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are the non-monogamous societies today that can rival the monogamous societies in their developmental state?
Yes: western society is notoriously becoming non-monogamous, and it is indeed unrivaled.
>it is indeed unrivaled.
Its unrivaled status is fading fast, a product of its vanishing legacy and traditions.
>becoming non-monogamous
And now it is becoming unraveled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dispute the word "everyone": I think it's a fraction of adults, probably less than a quarter, who fit into that system (I was maybe being extreme by saying "there is no market", but I don't think there's _much_ of one). And I think that people who _do_ "play the dating game" don't realize how many don't. Among people going on dates every week, perhaps there is an economy. Among people who don't go on dates because…
Just because some people choose to exclude themselves from the dating market doesn't mean that the market doesn't exist. Everyone has standards of exclusivity when dating, even if they are only excluding the people who are very very physically unattractive, mentally unattractive, least capable, unintelligent, boring, etc. Not everyone uses the same exact standard to judge everyone else's attractiveness. For example,…