Totally relate to not having any idea about dating because I was "succesful" at it. People keep asking wow, how did you find each other so early and you're still going strong. We just got lucky
It feels like there might be some generalizable dating advice in here somewhere, like "try to tweak your filters" or "watch out for the exact problems you've had with the last five people, whatever they are".
Also that Michelle Rodriguez thing really speaks to me.
I think along these lines every time that whole "should the man pay for the date, or should they split?" thing comes up (i.e. about four times a year, whenever your paper of choice has a slow news week).
Everyone tears each other's throats out in the comments, of course. Unkind words are said by both sides. And I think: "Some women find the man paying for the date a turn-on, others find it a turn-off. I am pretty sure I am more likely to be in tune with a woman who considers it a turn-off, in terms of overall mindset. Ergo, I shall err on the side of splitting if I'm not getting an obvious signal from her one way or another."
This is 100% reversible if you're a woman deciding whether to accept his offer to pay, in case that's not clear.
In high school in the 90s, the arrangement I negotiated was that I'd buy the movie tickets for both of us and they'd buy their own snacks if they wanted some. (Dunno if it was a turn-off or not, but at least we went to the movies togther even if we didn't end up as boyfriend and girlfriend.)
It might not be the most socially adept move, but the simplest way to handle things might be to ask her up front when arranging the date...
It is strange, because OKC supposed to be good in theory, and yet it is not practice. I answer approximately a million questions, based on them I find matches whose every word on the bio page is 100% how I am and then no answer. Really strange.
On the other hand, I do much better on sites that explicitly say they are not dating sites, such as FetLife. My basic advice would be to anyone struggling is that if you, say, like riding bikes, just join a local bike riding group on Facebook. As simple as that.
Ages ago, my brother got dates by cold messaging girls on Facebook. His opening line was a dad joke - "Why did the apple like the banana?" Enough people were curious enough about the punchline ("Because it had appeal!") to respond to a direct message from a stranger.
I recently had the realization that the reason confident, wealthy, attractive, talented, manosphere influencers often believe women have no empathy is that they only date conventionally attractive, feminine women that are used to people giving them exactly what they want just by asking. Most people learn empathy in order to persuade others or at least understand why people don’t do what they want. The women they tend to date never had to learn those skills.
Quite likely. The immense amount of objectification happening in the Manosphere, like saying only looks matter, or women over 35 are worthless and so on, will match them with some gold-diggers. Simply because that is how women objectify men in return.
Like they talk about that divorce for them was financial r*pe. Now I had a very friendly divorce when we agreed about what is the best for all. Were not trying to compete for our common resources or anything. I think it is clear how their marriage looked like. All they saw was tits. All she saw was a wallet.
To actually get to be a famous influencer you have to do a lot of telling your audience what they want to hear, and that audience is romantically unsuccessful young men who are naturally going to resent women. So claiming women lack empathy is a way to to play to the crowd, so to speak.
It’s less that and more that Pickup culture, the predecessor to red pill, grew out of LA clubs. Picking up young models in big city, especially LA, is going to give you very narcissistic women.
I don't think this is a common experience for conventionally attractive women fwiw. Many of them have colleagues, teachers, female friends, etc. It is simply not the case that they always get what they want, socially.
I'm also willing to bet that your theory would not hold up in the data. I'd guess that the correlation between social awareness and attractiveness in representative studies is either zero or slightly positive among both men and women.
I think literally every person is unrealistic, as is always being given what you want no matter what, but people are absolutely nicer to attractive women even if they are not personally into them. My fiancée, who is more physically attractive than almost anyone else I have met, is treated better by strangers (and frankly by people she knows) than just about anyone else I've ever known, and claims not to notice this.
When I see a woman posting something that sounds like a manosphere parody of what women would say, I often click on her profile and find she’s some conservative talking head. I don’t think this is a coincidence!
One guy making YouTube videos (who has a Hansonian view that, subconsciously, everyone views all of their relationships transactionally) claimed that one extremely attractive woman (like, Hollywood level beautiful) he had once dated told him that he was literally the first man that had ever said no to her about anything.
Your opinions on this subject, while backed by minimal hard data, possess charm and humor. I know that is not precisely a compliment in your circles, but...
Also, you at least admit the subject is complicated, which is better than 99% of people giving advice.
Every time I think I finally get a handle on how powerful social bubbles can be, I keep getting blindsided in new ways, discovering how powerfully filtered my friends, acquaintances, colleagues, neighbors all are. I pride myself in being open-minded about demographics and looking to constantly broaden my worldview, yet the social bubbles still happen and still filter the people in my life in very strong ways.
I have two crowds that I can say show me how insular our worlds can be to exposing us to a variety of people. I participated in social dancing for a long time. It was my main way of socializing and meeting people. As you can imagine, it was mostly nerdy people. It varied but nerds were highly overrepresented. You weren’t seeing blue collar workers there often.
Now, I’m active in a community of gym goers that are at a notorious location in nyc that is expensive. The cultures couldn’t be more disparate. They used to have more alignment when dancing wasn’t as nerdy (that was like 15 years ago but even then - still pretty nerdy!).
It’s become clear to me that neither of these would ever lead me to finding a romantic partner. But, as I assume many other men who are undesirable are struggling with, there’s no clear place to go. The normal advice would be to try apps since it does make a very wide bubble but if you’re undesirable - you’ll never get matched on apps either.
"Another woman who wants (say) a religiously serious family man with a good job might well find that men in her dating pool are indifferent to tattoos but care deeply about whether she likes reading science fiction and playing D&D. Presumably, she projects a shy, nerdy vibe—the kind of girl an Orson Scott Card fan wants to take home to Mom."
This is a nice bit pointing up the asymmetry of presentation between the person and the rest of the world--what you're hoping to sell isn't necessarily what the rest of the world sees on offer. The gal in the example is probably trying to signal modesty in her evangelical/Catholic world, but in the larger world her presentation gets coded as 'nerd girl' and gets all the geeks after her. (The 'Orson Scott Card fan' rather than, say, China Mieville also implies it's more conservative geeks, so she's not totally off.)
"Men find it attractive when you're sad and they can help you. If you don't need them, they feel useless and might start directing their disagreeableness at you. Be sure to regularly ask them for things and then thank them.
Men love cuddles. You should hug men and pet their hair and let them put your head on their chest. The only thing men love more than cuddles is the cuddles being accompanied by facts about American foreign policy during the Cold War."
I really don't think these are the ironic counterintuitive findings you're making them out to be?
On the first: in my experience, people being sad and wanting your help is attractive (or, perhaps more accurately, increases your affection for someone you already view affectionately) because it's sweet (if they want a female character in a movie to be sympathetic, they pick an actress who looks "vulnerable", i.e. has big sad eyes) and also makes you feel good for helping
On the second: liking cuddles is just human nature. Other apes cuddle each other! Where one member of a relationship wishes they'd get more cuddles, I think that's just due to the two of them having different Cuddle Desire Levels, much like having different libidos or wanting to talk more or less in a given day.
The (likely intended) irony is that men usually *don't* like their partner dumping data on them (many, many men get uncomfortable if their partner is smarter than them), so Ozy's pointing out they're going for a very specific slice of the male population here. The 'men are passive and shy' is also contrary to the usual stereotype.
Yeah, I get all of that. It's a list of characteristics that are meant to be funny because you associate them with women, not men. And most make sense, including the ones you mentioned. That's why I pulled out the two I think actually don't make sense: the cuddles thing and the liking looking after your partner thing.
Many, many straight men are socially conditioned not to admit that they like (to say nothing of need) cuddles--precisely because, in their world, that sort of thing is regarded as unmanly. Such men, I suspect, often won't even admit it to themselves, which means it's vanishingly unlikely that they will reveal this preference to their social groups or to anybody they are casually dating.
Of course. But I think this is one of these cases where "many, many" people are still in a small minority within their demographic. It's a bit like saying many men are taller than 6'3".
I don't really enjoy helping or comforting sad friends or partners. Its at least somewhat annoying. If the problem is very serious its extremely annoying or distressing. I should note my partner of eleven years Titania is sickly and emotional. I love her and try to be sweet and supportive. But i dont really get anything emotionally out of taking care of her when she needs it. Maybe this reflects well on me, maybe not!
I also dislike cuddling. Its boring and uncomfortable.
Ozy publicly describes emself as "a queer, transgender person living with chronic illness, autism, borderline personality disorder, and depression" at https://ozybrennan.squarespace.com/about. (Ey takes whatever pronouns, so I am using Spivak-Elverson because I feel like it, not because these are the only appropriate pronouns.) A photo of em which is probably at least 6 years old is available at https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol4/iss25/38/.
Ozy, what's your take on the whole "nice guys don't do well in dating" stuff?
My take would be that "nice guys" are very often fake-nice. And I think women find that dangerous. The average woman would rather be with someone who is slightly bad, but has a firm code of honor and will never be more than just slightly bad. So a known quantity. Women abhor when they detect fake-good, because then they just have no way of know how much bad those guys really are.
Often, they do not know themselves, as this is not just deception but more like self-deception. When I used to be fake-nice, which means I turned cowardly conflict-avoidance into a sort of a moral virtue of goodness, because I could have a more positive self-image that way, I was also not really aware what would I exactly do if I would somehow find myself in a situation where bad behaviour does not have any consequences. I simply did not know. It was never tested. I was very used to bad behaviour having consequences, if I was an ass to boys, they would beat me up, if I was an ass to girls, they would cause a huge embarrassing scandal and humiliate me. Moral character is only tested in truly no-consequence situations. And that just did not happen.
Well, not entirely. The reality is people are often either stupid and do not think about consequences, or brave and then just really do not care. But when you combine cowardice with intelligence, you really avoid getting bad consequences. And this is just the textbook fake-nice guy.
One notices that the fake-nice guy and his complaints on the internet correlates with other subcultural elements, new atheism, sci-fi fandom, libertarianism and so on with a bit of autismo spice. Just textbook "nerd culture". This also correlates with intelligence, but I think also correlates with real-life conflict-avoidance or social anxiety or introvertedness or whatever one wants to call it, basically not talking with people much because doing so inevitably leads to some unpleasant situations.
Anyhow it was hard to see myself from the outside, but I tended to hang out with other fake-nice guys and it was very, very visible that they are not being themselves when talking with attractive women. The fake, the artificialness was very visible.
This then results in the "just be yourself" advice which the Manosphericals hate. I know what it means. My friend when he was talking with me, he was sarcastic, witty, and kind of wise. When talking with attractive women he adopted a "your humble servant knight" pose which was super fake. The problem is, he could not "just be himself" because he was not even aware of the change really.
Or if he was aware to some extent he was aware, it was simply impossible to be himself in that situation. Sure when I am trying to win an approval of a scary teacher or scary mom, I am not going to be sarcastic and witty, I will grovel like a humble servant? He and I think also me just found it obvious that winning the approval of an attractive woman cannot be different, I mean, she is obviously higher status than us, she is not chasing any boys at all, boys chase her.
There is something truly fucked up about the whole mindset that if you want something high-value from someone higher-value than yourself, you basically beg and grovel like a beaten puppy. Interactions with teachers and parents taught us that. That was the only way to wiggle out of a bad grade - to try to appeal to pity. I don't even know how the guys who did better with girls were doing it. Either they were not used to that sort of strategy. Or they just thought the girls are not that much higher-value than themselves.
I think you've got a good handle on it, but fake-niceness (more broadly an inability to be authentic) is also extremely uncomfortable to be around, even when it's not threatening.
The main thing it implies is that you don't think the person you're acting this way towards is a person you wanna connect with. You're interacting within the confines of a Role, and that is insanely frustrating.
Imagine if you had a friend who comes from some obscure place, that thinks that, as you happen to have a certain birthmark, you are the prophet and saviour of their nation, and they behave accordingly - constantly getting stuff for you, running errands for you, etc.
It's so uncomfortable because you are no longer dealing with each other as people or friends, but as some kind of, worshipper/prophet situation that no one picked.
And it's exhausting because you don't know what is and isn't allowed - suddenly your "friend" says you must not drink dark liquids like coffee or tea, for they are impure and will pollute your connection with their gods or something. Your friend will run interference to keep you from interacting with cats because he thinks cats will steal your power. You wanted to pet a cat? Too bad, you are the prophet of his nation and that's more important than your selfish desire to pet a cat!
Your "friend" is really shoving you into a bizarre role that you have no way of knowing how to play and they get genuinely upset when you break a rule you didn't know about. Most people dislike upsetting other people, and hence will avoid people who they infer may have a range of bizarre, non-negotiable triggers which set them off (often innocuous things like - idk, going out after dark, or having other male friends at all!).
I think often the reason people turn out like this is because they're raised in cultures which are very Role based, where they internalised that personhood isn't important, Roles are. And to an extent, we still utilise Roles in every day life - student and teacher, boss and employee, for example. But most people don't want their romantic or sexual partners to be Roles to them (and the people who don't mind the Roles thing generally want something material in return - money, stability, a visa/citizenship, a child, status, etc).
I don’t know whether it is role-based cultures. As I was typing that comment out, what really stuck in my mind is why was I in that mindset that if I want something, I must grovel and beg. Maybe my parents and teachers did not do something right.
I once failed a test of character pretty badly. :(
Ultimately, the takeaway ended up being "be way more careful in Magic tournaments so you won't end up in the position of being obligated to call a judge on yourself for accidentally breaking the rules in a way that your opponent would never find out about". :/
You asked for Ozy's opinion, but you've replied to Kitschy's, so I guess other people can answer too?
I think all of what you're saying is true, but there's also elements of self-confidence in there. You can take the evo-psych explanation or the 'people who don't like themselves treat others poorly' explanation...I lean towards the first but I'm not claiming to know everything. Anyway, self-confidence does tend to be considered an attractive trait, and bookishness is not. And women are calibrated to pick winners. To some extent it's cultural as you can see differences in East Asia (thus the common phenomenon of dorky guys with East Asian girlfriends).
I notice, for example, that I'm much more successful on dates if I'm not attracted to the person, because I have less invested in the outcome. I've pushed myself through and had a few relationships, but that whole 'magic' feeling where both people are really into each other and things proceed spontaneously is completely alien to me, like watching Superman fly or something. (I suspect it's occurred on the other side a few times as women have sometimes gotten really into me for no reason I can fathom--a few told me I smelled really good so there may be some pheromone thing going on.)
FWIW the 'game' blogs of the late 2000s did help me understand that the personality I had adopted to minimize the chance of a harassment accusation was exactly the opposite of what women were looking for, and I was able to modulate it somewhat. Thanks, (pre-Nazi) Roosh and Roissy! I still find the idea of flirting really bizarre, like poking a bear with a stick or something.
Nowadays there's also much more of a fear that you'll do something to make them feel uncomfortable and wind up on the internet and then be unemployable. More narcissistic and sociopathic men both (a) don't care about others and (b) have less anxiety in general so they tend to have this problem less. In a very unpleasant way, I was ahead of my time.
I am not all sure I agree but there can be the cultural elements. I am from Central Europe. I think we tend to see American culture and American-influenced culture (say Aussie) just too competitive. Like even supposed leftists talk like "levelling the playing field" as if life would be one big sports competition. They are obsessed about winners and winning and even the left only cares to make that game more fair, not ending the game. Our version of left is more like even not-winners should have nice lives and we do not care about winning, but more like do what others do and get what others get.
I think competition-oriented cultures create this huge thing about self-confidence. I think not being confident here can work, as long as it is honest. The problem is, not being confident implies thinking you are not good the way you are, so you end up taking up a fake posture, a role, and that is what does not work. So high self-confidence correlates with honesty because you are OK, and low self-confidence correlates with fake postures because you don't think you are OK.
Also, yes, women like winners because everybody likes winners in that sort of culture, it is not evo-psy but that kind of competitive culture. I find the super gendered views of the "game" people really annoying, all they need to ask is "are men often like that, too?" and the answer is usually yes. Men like a winner man too, especially in a competitive culture, just if they are hetero they like him in a non-sexual way.
The last time I felt that magic was when I was 19. I don't know. This must be something about hormones. That relationship was 90% magic and 10% sexual attraction. It was not a very sexual relationship. But maybe the magic was still sex-energy expressed differently, dunno.
I am not a big fan of "game" because if we just look at "professional sexy guys", like the music clips of Eros Ramazotti on YT or Clooney's Nescafe ads, we see something different: well-dressed, kind, friendly, warm, expresses emotions. That is what works. I also think they would never be accused of harassment or anything, simply because they emit very safe and reassuring vibes. It is precisely "game" types who try to be tough who could be.
No offense to you, but I think anyone who learns anything from "game" has some problem like not enough empathy or difficulties with emotions or something. The main difference is that maybe the "pre-game" "niceguy" is confused about the whole thing, while "game" in my mind is largely about consciously accepting that. That men don't need to be empathic, kind, sensitive and so on.
Not offended at all! I always assumed I was going to have to be someone else to do the romance thing; the question was who else I was going to be. Perhaps I chose... poorly, to quote an old movie. I went from always being friendzoned to being able to have some relationships, so it wasn't a total loss. I stopped looking needy, I started initiating touch, I planned the date, I moved in for the kiss at the end, and if rejected I walked away. I also didn't go into the more unethical things like dread-game or negging, figuring I wasn't skilled enough to pull it off and frankly not evil enough to carry it off without looking nervous. As with the old folklore about magic, the most powerful techniques are the most morally questionable...and always carry the most danger.
I think you are right about competition--it is a very American thing, and everyone loves a winner, as they say. Maybe in less competitive cultures women are less drawn to sociopaths? Who knows...
As for needing to be empathic, kind, and sensitive...well, I think those things are helpful for keeping a long-term relationship going and especially for providing a good environment for raising kids, but if you can't perform trad masculinity to at least some degree you're unlikely to get the chance to get the relationship started in the first place. (Many men are quite successful with women who are none of those things.) Ozy claims things are different with them; maybe they are. I wasn't going to bet on finding the one person who would take me for who I was. I tried being myself...didn't work. I tried being a little more alpha and purposely rejecting the feminist values I grew up with...kinda worked. Maybe if I'd gone all the way I would have found true love...maybe I would have wound up being raped in jail or had my career ruined by a false accusation. We'll likely never know.
I don't know about the professional sexy guy thing, though. Those guys are professional actors or musicians and therefore very charismatic and putting on a show--we don't know what the real Eros Ramazotti is like, but Clooney was apparently a huge player, having a large number of relationships. I'm sure you've seen the ad about HR calling harassment on the fat guy but not on the charming guy saying the same thing.
I agree that there's kind of a game going on, but I feel like my point about playing a type of "role" was lost.
This ties into what Ozy is saying about filtering. When you adopt a role to play a particular game, you will end up filtering for people who are playing the same game who are willing to play the corresponding role with you.
I think I also have to revise my model of what is going on. At first I thought women normally don't wanna play at a role to date someone, particularly the kind of role that the needy nice guy is implicitly asking them to play - but actually (many, never all) women are perfectly willing to play girlfriend/ partner roles as long as they know and are comfortable with the script.
There's also a reciprocal nature to playing at dating roles. Usually with social roles, with a couple of exceptions like teacher / student, many people expect a balance. Being too nice too soon sets off alarm bells because your counterparty isn't necessarily willing to reciprocate, and the tension between "what they owe" and what they're willing to pay creates awkwardness.
If someone is way too friendly and gives you a present, most people would feel really uncomfortable turning down their requests. We're generally socialised to trade whenever we can, not just give or just take.
On the flipside the assertive archetypes will demand or take first, which counterintuitively puts people at ease - they don't feel like they owe you anything, and conversely if they accept and give you something, they feel like they're probably owed something in return (and that might cause them to consider what they might want from you.... In a way that's probably good for you, relationship wise).
Potential partners feel they can leave at any time - theres no outstanding social debts, so to speak. (In this model it's crucial to ask before taking, of course - take liberties only with permission)
Not asking you to divulge sensitive things about your ex's identity, but was there a reason that was comprehensible to you that she might be tolerating really bad behavior from the people she was dating?
You know that thing where some people will walk past a dozen well-trained friendly dogs at the shelter and make a beeline straight for the sad three-legged puppy whose abusive previous owner left her with an expensive medical condition and a bad habit of biting people? And when you're like "why?" they're like "but this puppy *needs* me"?
Deliberately did this with my cat and it was a great decision in all ways except financially. For the low low price of constant expensive vet bills, I got the sweetest cat I've ever met. It's in my lap right now.
Which is by far the most common fantasy in women's romantic novels. For example fifty shades is not about kink, that is a total misunderstanding. It is a woman trying to "cure" a man out of dark evil desires.
The interesting thing is that the needing to be needed is an absolutely understandable thing, but in that case the best idea would be needed not by a partner but by a bio or adopted child. That maxes out the neededness in a good and healthy way.
A lot of times in stories with 'forbidden' desires they go away at the end, so the reader gets to enjoy the satisfaction but then the moral reinforcement of having stepped away and having a happy ending. There were a lot of early gay and lesbian romances where the protagonist winds up in a straight romance at the end.
"Sad three-legged puppy whose abusive previous owner left her with an expensive medical condition and a bad habit of biting people" is a disturbingly accurate description of my late wife, except that she's the one that made the first move in our relationship.
It was nice to feel needed and that I was genuinely making a positive difference in someone's life in a way that nobody else would have. (As a smartass once said, engineers like to solve problems, and if there are no problems readily at hand, they will create their own problems.) And, if nothing else, I felt secure that, if our relationship did end, it wouldn't be because she left me for someone better...
Totally relate to not having any idea about dating because I was "succesful" at it. People keep asking wow, how did you find each other so early and you're still going strong. We just got lucky
It feels like there might be some generalizable dating advice in here somewhere, like "try to tweak your filters" or "watch out for the exact problems you've had with the last five people, whatever they are".
Also that Michelle Rodriguez thing really speaks to me.
I think along these lines every time that whole "should the man pay for the date, or should they split?" thing comes up (i.e. about four times a year, whenever your paper of choice has a slow news week).
Everyone tears each other's throats out in the comments, of course. Unkind words are said by both sides. And I think: "Some women find the man paying for the date a turn-on, others find it a turn-off. I am pretty sure I am more likely to be in tune with a woman who considers it a turn-off, in terms of overall mindset. Ergo, I shall err on the side of splitting if I'm not getting an obvious signal from her one way or another."
This is 100% reversible if you're a woman deciding whether to accept his offer to pay, in case that's not clear.
In high school in the 90s, the arrangement I negotiated was that I'd buy the movie tickets for both of us and they'd buy their own snacks if they wanted some. (Dunno if it was a turn-off or not, but at least we went to the movies togther even if we didn't end up as boyfriend and girlfriend.)
It might not be the most socially adept move, but the simplest way to handle things might be to ask her up front when arranging the date...
> Do people still use OKCupid?
Even though it's gotten so much worse, it's still the best dating site.
lies, Google Docs is the best dating site
It is strange, because OKC supposed to be good in theory, and yet it is not practice. I answer approximately a million questions, based on them I find matches whose every word on the bio page is 100% how I am and then no answer. Really strange.
On the other hand, I do much better on sites that explicitly say they are not dating sites, such as FetLife. My basic advice would be to anyone struggling is that if you, say, like riding bikes, just join a local bike riding group on Facebook. As simple as that.
I'm curious - what is the custom on Fetlife? Just find people with the same incredibly granular interest and treat it like Hinge ?
Ages ago, my brother got dates by cold messaging girls on Facebook. His opening line was a dad joke - "Why did the apple like the banana?" Enough people were curious enough about the punchline ("Because it had appeal!") to respond to a direct message from a stranger.
For nerds, which I assume is everyone reading this.
Yeah, you can still rate questions by importance and write a long profile. And they have all the poly and nonbinary gender options.
Huh, you saying that might prompt me to try it out in Europe…
Probably, yeah.
This post made me realise everyone I ever seriously dated was getting a Ph.D. or had one already. Which in retrospect is pretty weird actually?
Yeah same boat here. Would recommend, honestly.
I recently had the realization that the reason confident, wealthy, attractive, talented, manosphere influencers often believe women have no empathy is that they only date conventionally attractive, feminine women that are used to people giving them exactly what they want just by asking. Most people learn empathy in order to persuade others or at least understand why people don’t do what they want. The women they tend to date never had to learn those skills.
And because emotionally intelligent women avoid these guys
Quite likely. The immense amount of objectification happening in the Manosphere, like saying only looks matter, or women over 35 are worthless and so on, will match them with some gold-diggers. Simply because that is how women objectify men in return.
Like they talk about that divorce for them was financial r*pe. Now I had a very friendly divorce when we agreed about what is the best for all. Were not trying to compete for our common resources or anything. I think it is clear how their marriage looked like. All they saw was tits. All she saw was a wallet.
Their advice for men to not get married is good.
I wonder, though.
To actually get to be a famous influencer you have to do a lot of telling your audience what they want to hear, and that audience is romantically unsuccessful young men who are naturally going to resent women. So claiming women lack empathy is a way to to play to the crowd, so to speak.
Audience capture's definitely a thing.
This is why I strive to annoy you guys.
You have very different life experiences from me, I would expect you to have different opinions.
It’s less that and more that Pickup culture, the predecessor to red pill, grew out of LA clubs. Picking up young models in big city, especially LA, is going to give you very narcissistic women.
I don't think this is a common experience for conventionally attractive women fwiw. Many of them have colleagues, teachers, female friends, etc. It is simply not the case that they always get what they want, socially.
I'm also willing to bet that your theory would not hold up in the data. I'd guess that the correlation between social awareness and attractiveness in representative studies is either zero or slightly positive among both men and women.
I definitely don't think it's every person, but "every straight man" is not unrealistic if you're very attractive.
I think literally every person is unrealistic, as is always being given what you want no matter what, but people are absolutely nicer to attractive women even if they are not personally into them. My fiancée, who is more physically attractive than almost anyone else I have met, is treated better by strangers (and frankly by people she knows) than just about anyone else I've ever known, and claims not to notice this.
"confident, wealthy, attractive, talented, manosphere influencers" - they don't exist. Mostly I see losers trying to act tough.
When I see a woman posting something that sounds like a manosphere parody of what women would say, I often click on her profile and find she’s some conservative talking head. I don’t think this is a coincidence!
One guy making YouTube videos (who has a Hansonian view that, subconsciously, everyone views all of their relationships transactionally) claimed that one extremely attractive woman (like, Hollywood level beautiful) he had once dated told him that he was literally the first man that had ever said no to her about anything.
This post is similar to https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/02/different-worlds/. Which is really cool - some ideas are very worth applying to different areas or reiterating. Thanks, Ozy!
Yeah this is why I have too much self-respect to wade into this discourse with anything that's not backed by hard data.
That is extremely virtuous of you but unfortunately I'm addicted to it ;_;
Your opinions on this subject, while backed by minimal hard data, possess charm and humor. I know that is not precisely a compliment in your circles, but...
Also, you at least admit the subject is complicated, which is better than 99% of people giving advice.
Every time I think I finally get a handle on how powerful social bubbles can be, I keep getting blindsided in new ways, discovering how powerfully filtered my friends, acquaintances, colleagues, neighbors all are. I pride myself in being open-minded about demographics and looking to constantly broaden my worldview, yet the social bubbles still happen and still filter the people in my life in very strong ways.
How much more strongly this must apply to dating!
I have two crowds that I can say show me how insular our worlds can be to exposing us to a variety of people. I participated in social dancing for a long time. It was my main way of socializing and meeting people. As you can imagine, it was mostly nerdy people. It varied but nerds were highly overrepresented. You weren’t seeing blue collar workers there often.
Now, I’m active in a community of gym goers that are at a notorious location in nyc that is expensive. The cultures couldn’t be more disparate. They used to have more alignment when dancing wasn’t as nerdy (that was like 15 years ago but even then - still pretty nerdy!).
It’s become clear to me that neither of these would ever lead me to finding a romantic partner. But, as I assume many other men who are undesirable are struggling with, there’s no clear place to go. The normal advice would be to try apps since it does make a very wide bubble but if you’re undesirable - you’ll never get matched on apps either.
"Another woman who wants (say) a religiously serious family man with a good job might well find that men in her dating pool are indifferent to tattoos but care deeply about whether she likes reading science fiction and playing D&D. Presumably, she projects a shy, nerdy vibe—the kind of girl an Orson Scott Card fan wants to take home to Mom."
This is a nice bit pointing up the asymmetry of presentation between the person and the rest of the world--what you're hoping to sell isn't necessarily what the rest of the world sees on offer. The gal in the example is probably trying to signal modesty in her evangelical/Catholic world, but in the larger world her presentation gets coded as 'nerd girl' and gets all the geeks after her. (The 'Orson Scott Card fan' rather than, say, China Mieville also implies it's more conservative geeks, so she's not totally off.)
All the serious Christians I know personally are huge geeks. (Surely there is no selection effect here whatsoever...)
"Serious" Christian does a lot of work there. The hardcore religion fandoms can get very intense.
"Men find it attractive when you're sad and they can help you. If you don't need them, they feel useless and might start directing their disagreeableness at you. Be sure to regularly ask them for things and then thank them.
Men love cuddles. You should hug men and pet their hair and let them put your head on their chest. The only thing men love more than cuddles is the cuddles being accompanied by facts about American foreign policy during the Cold War."
I really don't think these are the ironic counterintuitive findings you're making them out to be?
On the first: in my experience, people being sad and wanting your help is attractive (or, perhaps more accurately, increases your affection for someone you already view affectionately) because it's sweet (if they want a female character in a movie to be sympathetic, they pick an actress who looks "vulnerable", i.e. has big sad eyes) and also makes you feel good for helping
On the second: liking cuddles is just human nature. Other apes cuddle each other! Where one member of a relationship wishes they'd get more cuddles, I think that's just due to the two of them having different Cuddle Desire Levels, much like having different libidos or wanting to talk more or less in a given day.
The (likely intended) irony is that men usually *don't* like their partner dumping data on them (many, many men get uncomfortable if their partner is smarter than them), so Ozy's pointing out they're going for a very specific slice of the male population here. The 'men are passive and shy' is also contrary to the usual stereotype.
Yeah, I get all of that. It's a list of characteristics that are meant to be funny because you associate them with women, not men. And most make sense, including the ones you mentioned. That's why I pulled out the two I think actually don't make sense: the cuddles thing and the liking looking after your partner thing.
Many, many straight men are socially conditioned not to admit that they like (to say nothing of need) cuddles--precisely because, in their world, that sort of thing is regarded as unmanly. Such men, I suspect, often won't even admit it to themselves, which means it's vanishingly unlikely that they will reveal this preference to their social groups or to anybody they are casually dating.
Of course. But I think this is one of these cases where "many, many" people are still in a small minority within their demographic. It's a bit like saying many men are taller than 6'3".
I very much doubt that the men I an describing are a small minority.
I don't really enjoy helping or comforting sad friends or partners. Its at least somewhat annoying. If the problem is very serious its extremely annoying or distressing. I should note my partner of eleven years Titania is sickly and emotional. I love her and try to be sweet and supportive. But i dont really get anything emotionally out of taking care of her when she needs it. Maybe this reflects well on me, maybe not!
I also dislike cuddling. Its boring and uncomfortable.
Think of her as a puppy. Treats, toys, hugs.
Respectfully, just for context, what is the author's demographic?
I'm bi and I mostly live as a man but as you can see from the post I occasionally date straight male Michelle Rodriguez fans.
For what it's worth, I've still got the same hopeless Internet crush on you that I had before you started living as a man. ::blush::
I try very hard to avoid those.
I do get them, but I don't take them very seriously. ;)
Does the character Kaylee from Firefly fit the same archetype?
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLadette
Ozy publicly describes emself as "a queer, transgender person living with chronic illness, autism, borderline personality disorder, and depression" at https://ozybrennan.squarespace.com/about. (Ey takes whatever pronouns, so I am using Spivak-Elverson because I feel like it, not because these are the only appropriate pronouns.) A photo of em which is probably at least 6 years old is available at https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol4/iss25/38/.
Ozy, what's your take on the whole "nice guys don't do well in dating" stuff?
My take would be that "nice guys" are very often fake-nice. And I think women find that dangerous. The average woman would rather be with someone who is slightly bad, but has a firm code of honor and will never be more than just slightly bad. So a known quantity. Women abhor when they detect fake-good, because then they just have no way of know how much bad those guys really are.
Often, they do not know themselves, as this is not just deception but more like self-deception. When I used to be fake-nice, which means I turned cowardly conflict-avoidance into a sort of a moral virtue of goodness, because I could have a more positive self-image that way, I was also not really aware what would I exactly do if I would somehow find myself in a situation where bad behaviour does not have any consequences. I simply did not know. It was never tested. I was very used to bad behaviour having consequences, if I was an ass to boys, they would beat me up, if I was an ass to girls, they would cause a huge embarrassing scandal and humiliate me. Moral character is only tested in truly no-consequence situations. And that just did not happen.
Well, not entirely. The reality is people are often either stupid and do not think about consequences, or brave and then just really do not care. But when you combine cowardice with intelligence, you really avoid getting bad consequences. And this is just the textbook fake-nice guy.
One notices that the fake-nice guy and his complaints on the internet correlates with other subcultural elements, new atheism, sci-fi fandom, libertarianism and so on with a bit of autismo spice. Just textbook "nerd culture". This also correlates with intelligence, but I think also correlates with real-life conflict-avoidance or social anxiety or introvertedness or whatever one wants to call it, basically not talking with people much because doing so inevitably leads to some unpleasant situations.
Anyhow it was hard to see myself from the outside, but I tended to hang out with other fake-nice guys and it was very, very visible that they are not being themselves when talking with attractive women. The fake, the artificialness was very visible.
This then results in the "just be yourself" advice which the Manosphericals hate. I know what it means. My friend when he was talking with me, he was sarcastic, witty, and kind of wise. When talking with attractive women he adopted a "your humble servant knight" pose which was super fake. The problem is, he could not "just be himself" because he was not even aware of the change really.
Or if he was aware to some extent he was aware, it was simply impossible to be himself in that situation. Sure when I am trying to win an approval of a scary teacher or scary mom, I am not going to be sarcastic and witty, I will grovel like a humble servant? He and I think also me just found it obvious that winning the approval of an attractive woman cannot be different, I mean, she is obviously higher status than us, she is not chasing any boys at all, boys chase her.
There is something truly fucked up about the whole mindset that if you want something high-value from someone higher-value than yourself, you basically beg and grovel like a beaten puppy. Interactions with teachers and parents taught us that. That was the only way to wiggle out of a bad grade - to try to appeal to pity. I don't even know how the guys who did better with girls were doing it. Either they were not used to that sort of strategy. Or they just thought the girls are not that much higher-value than themselves.
I think you've got a good handle on it, but fake-niceness (more broadly an inability to be authentic) is also extremely uncomfortable to be around, even when it's not threatening.
The main thing it implies is that you don't think the person you're acting this way towards is a person you wanna connect with. You're interacting within the confines of a Role, and that is insanely frustrating.
Imagine if you had a friend who comes from some obscure place, that thinks that, as you happen to have a certain birthmark, you are the prophet and saviour of their nation, and they behave accordingly - constantly getting stuff for you, running errands for you, etc.
It's so uncomfortable because you are no longer dealing with each other as people or friends, but as some kind of, worshipper/prophet situation that no one picked.
And it's exhausting because you don't know what is and isn't allowed - suddenly your "friend" says you must not drink dark liquids like coffee or tea, for they are impure and will pollute your connection with their gods or something. Your friend will run interference to keep you from interacting with cats because he thinks cats will steal your power. You wanted to pet a cat? Too bad, you are the prophet of his nation and that's more important than your selfish desire to pet a cat!
Your "friend" is really shoving you into a bizarre role that you have no way of knowing how to play and they get genuinely upset when you break a rule you didn't know about. Most people dislike upsetting other people, and hence will avoid people who they infer may have a range of bizarre, non-negotiable triggers which set them off (often innocuous things like - idk, going out after dark, or having other male friends at all!).
I think often the reason people turn out like this is because they're raised in cultures which are very Role based, where they internalised that personhood isn't important, Roles are. And to an extent, we still utilise Roles in every day life - student and teacher, boss and employee, for example. But most people don't want their romantic or sexual partners to be Roles to them (and the people who don't mind the Roles thing generally want something material in return - money, stability, a visa/citizenship, a child, status, etc).
I don’t know whether it is role-based cultures. As I was typing that comment out, what really stuck in my mind is why was I in that mindset that if I want something, I must grovel and beg. Maybe my parents and teachers did not do something right.
I once failed a test of character pretty badly. :(
Ultimately, the takeaway ended up being "be way more careful in Magic tournaments so you won't end up in the position of being obligated to call a judge on yourself for accidentally breaking the rules in a way that your opponent would never find out about". :/
You monster! Magic tournaments should never require input from a judge!
(In Magic tournaments, the referees are called judges.)
You asked for Ozy's opinion, but you've replied to Kitschy's, so I guess other people can answer too?
I think all of what you're saying is true, but there's also elements of self-confidence in there. You can take the evo-psych explanation or the 'people who don't like themselves treat others poorly' explanation...I lean towards the first but I'm not claiming to know everything. Anyway, self-confidence does tend to be considered an attractive trait, and bookishness is not. And women are calibrated to pick winners. To some extent it's cultural as you can see differences in East Asia (thus the common phenomenon of dorky guys with East Asian girlfriends).
I notice, for example, that I'm much more successful on dates if I'm not attracted to the person, because I have less invested in the outcome. I've pushed myself through and had a few relationships, but that whole 'magic' feeling where both people are really into each other and things proceed spontaneously is completely alien to me, like watching Superman fly or something. (I suspect it's occurred on the other side a few times as women have sometimes gotten really into me for no reason I can fathom--a few told me I smelled really good so there may be some pheromone thing going on.)
FWIW the 'game' blogs of the late 2000s did help me understand that the personality I had adopted to minimize the chance of a harassment accusation was exactly the opposite of what women were looking for, and I was able to modulate it somewhat. Thanks, (pre-Nazi) Roosh and Roissy! I still find the idea of flirting really bizarre, like poking a bear with a stick or something.
Nowadays there's also much more of a fear that you'll do something to make them feel uncomfortable and wind up on the internet and then be unemployable. More narcissistic and sociopathic men both (a) don't care about others and (b) have less anxiety in general so they tend to have this problem less. In a very unpleasant way, I was ahead of my time.
I am not all sure I agree but there can be the cultural elements. I am from Central Europe. I think we tend to see American culture and American-influenced culture (say Aussie) just too competitive. Like even supposed leftists talk like "levelling the playing field" as if life would be one big sports competition. They are obsessed about winners and winning and even the left only cares to make that game more fair, not ending the game. Our version of left is more like even not-winners should have nice lives and we do not care about winning, but more like do what others do and get what others get.
I think competition-oriented cultures create this huge thing about self-confidence. I think not being confident here can work, as long as it is honest. The problem is, not being confident implies thinking you are not good the way you are, so you end up taking up a fake posture, a role, and that is what does not work. So high self-confidence correlates with honesty because you are OK, and low self-confidence correlates with fake postures because you don't think you are OK.
Also, yes, women like winners because everybody likes winners in that sort of culture, it is not evo-psy but that kind of competitive culture. I find the super gendered views of the "game" people really annoying, all they need to ask is "are men often like that, too?" and the answer is usually yes. Men like a winner man too, especially in a competitive culture, just if they are hetero they like him in a non-sexual way.
The last time I felt that magic was when I was 19. I don't know. This must be something about hormones. That relationship was 90% magic and 10% sexual attraction. It was not a very sexual relationship. But maybe the magic was still sex-energy expressed differently, dunno.
I am not a big fan of "game" because if we just look at "professional sexy guys", like the music clips of Eros Ramazotti on YT or Clooney's Nescafe ads, we see something different: well-dressed, kind, friendly, warm, expresses emotions. That is what works. I also think they would never be accused of harassment or anything, simply because they emit very safe and reassuring vibes. It is precisely "game" types who try to be tough who could be.
No offense to you, but I think anyone who learns anything from "game" has some problem like not enough empathy or difficulties with emotions or something. The main difference is that maybe the "pre-game" "niceguy" is confused about the whole thing, while "game" in my mind is largely about consciously accepting that. That men don't need to be empathic, kind, sensitive and so on.
Not offended at all! I always assumed I was going to have to be someone else to do the romance thing; the question was who else I was going to be. Perhaps I chose... poorly, to quote an old movie. I went from always being friendzoned to being able to have some relationships, so it wasn't a total loss. I stopped looking needy, I started initiating touch, I planned the date, I moved in for the kiss at the end, and if rejected I walked away. I also didn't go into the more unethical things like dread-game or negging, figuring I wasn't skilled enough to pull it off and frankly not evil enough to carry it off without looking nervous. As with the old folklore about magic, the most powerful techniques are the most morally questionable...and always carry the most danger.
I think you are right about competition--it is a very American thing, and everyone loves a winner, as they say. Maybe in less competitive cultures women are less drawn to sociopaths? Who knows...
As for needing to be empathic, kind, and sensitive...well, I think those things are helpful for keeping a long-term relationship going and especially for providing a good environment for raising kids, but if you can't perform trad masculinity to at least some degree you're unlikely to get the chance to get the relationship started in the first place. (Many men are quite successful with women who are none of those things.) Ozy claims things are different with them; maybe they are. I wasn't going to bet on finding the one person who would take me for who I was. I tried being myself...didn't work. I tried being a little more alpha and purposely rejecting the feminist values I grew up with...kinda worked. Maybe if I'd gone all the way I would have found true love...maybe I would have wound up being raped in jail or had my career ruined by a false accusation. We'll likely never know.
I don't know about the professional sexy guy thing, though. Those guys are professional actors or musicians and therefore very charismatic and putting on a show--we don't know what the real Eros Ramazotti is like, but Clooney was apparently a huge player, having a large number of relationships. I'm sure you've seen the ad about HR calling harassment on the fat guy but not on the charming guy saying the same thing.
I agree that there's kind of a game going on, but I feel like my point about playing a type of "role" was lost.
This ties into what Ozy is saying about filtering. When you adopt a role to play a particular game, you will end up filtering for people who are playing the same game who are willing to play the corresponding role with you.
I think I also have to revise my model of what is going on. At first I thought women normally don't wanna play at a role to date someone, particularly the kind of role that the needy nice guy is implicitly asking them to play - but actually (many, never all) women are perfectly willing to play girlfriend/ partner roles as long as they know and are comfortable with the script.
There's also a reciprocal nature to playing at dating roles. Usually with social roles, with a couple of exceptions like teacher / student, many people expect a balance. Being too nice too soon sets off alarm bells because your counterparty isn't necessarily willing to reciprocate, and the tension between "what they owe" and what they're willing to pay creates awkwardness.
If someone is way too friendly and gives you a present, most people would feel really uncomfortable turning down their requests. We're generally socialised to trade whenever we can, not just give or just take.
On the flipside the assertive archetypes will demand or take first, which counterintuitively puts people at ease - they don't feel like they owe you anything, and conversely if they accept and give you something, they feel like they're probably owed something in return (and that might cause them to consider what they might want from you.... In a way that's probably good for you, relationship wise).
Potential partners feel they can leave at any time - theres no outstanding social debts, so to speak. (In this model it's crucial to ask before taking, of course - take liberties only with permission)
Im skeptical
Not asking you to divulge sensitive things about your ex's identity, but was there a reason that was comprehensible to you that she might be tolerating really bad behavior from the people she was dating?
You know that thing where some people will walk past a dozen well-trained friendly dogs at the shelter and make a beeline straight for the sad three-legged puppy whose abusive previous owner left her with an expensive medical condition and a bad habit of biting people? And when you're like "why?" they're like "but this puppy *needs* me"?
Yeah. That.
Deliberately did this with my cat and it was a great decision in all ways except financially. For the low low price of constant expensive vet bills, I got the sweetest cat I've ever met. It's in my lap right now.
Which is by far the most common fantasy in women's romantic novels. For example fifty shades is not about kink, that is a total misunderstanding. It is a woman trying to "cure" a man out of dark evil desires.
The interesting thing is that the needing to be needed is an absolutely understandable thing, but in that case the best idea would be needed not by a partner but by a bio or adopted child. That maxes out the neededness in a good and healthy way.
I don't know if it's a *total* misunderstanding.
A lot of times in stories with 'forbidden' desires they go away at the end, so the reader gets to enjoy the satisfaction but then the moral reinforcement of having stepped away and having a happy ending. There were a lot of early gay and lesbian romances where the protagonist winds up in a straight romance at the end.
"Sad three-legged puppy whose abusive previous owner left her with an expensive medical condition and a bad habit of biting people" is a disturbingly accurate description of my late wife, except that she's the one that made the first move in our relationship.
It was nice to feel needed and that I was genuinely making a positive difference in someone's life in a way that nobody else would have. (As a smartass once said, engineers like to solve problems, and if there are no problems readily at hand, they will create their own problems.) And, if nothing else, I felt secure that, if our relationship did end, it wouldn't be because she left me for someone better...
“Men find it very attractive when you monologue at them for twenty minutes about American foreign policy during the Cold War.”
I have never felt so seen as a man.