Dating Advice (from Random Rants 93)
- Thread starter Caesar of Bread
- Start date
- Status
Fippy
Mycro Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 14,036
Isn't the same true for some men who date a model or so?
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Prove it
And
The lead in is obviously vastly secondary to the point, which I clarify with neutral language, that was then declared should be completely ignored.
Like if you think tone matters more than substance, then you aren’t here for dating advice (either end) you are here to police.
The substance is bad. The substance is one over the other. It has nothing to do with tone
If you're here to say "prove it" to one claim and not the other (i.e. Narz's), then you're also here to police
It's an advice thread. People should be allowed to disagree on what counts as good advice. Seems like that's pretty important, overall.
Lexicus
Deity
It's easy to prove. Every boy who complains about girls being choosier has at least one or two girls with a crush on him but won't even consider them as fellow human beings (let alone romantic prospects) because he doesn't find them attractive.
As I explained in a post you "liked" i am skeptical that dating advice in this thread can be all that useful in the first place. And i think pushing back against misogynistic nonsense disguised as dating advice is important.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
In part
“the substance is bad” and yet you didn’t respond to the substance replyThe substance is bad. The substance is one over the other. It has nothing to do with tone
If you're here to say "prove it" to one claim and not the other (i.e. Narz's), then you're also here to police
It's an advice thread. People should be allowed to disagree on what counts as good advice. Seems like that's pretty important, overall.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
That logic exercise goes against the literature, ever evolving but definitely landed on “women are choosier than men”… which doesn’t even matter because as actionable advice knowing that people are choosy regardless, and based on upstream attraction will change the their responses to equal downstream actions from different people is like 100000% important if you want to change your dating outcomes,
Step 1: be attractive
Step 0: figure out what that is for you
The reason I don’t think a dating thread is great in a forum that debates politics is that people want to superimpose their politics over dating advice. The average forum nerd here is way more likely to worry about stepping on someone’s toes IRL, and every post asking someone to overly imagine how much damage they can do is getting in the way of far more important things like learning to try with a little confidence.
No, I didn't respond to the faulty premise.
I get what you're trying to say. You agree with the claim and you're trying to find a way to say that in a way that makes it sound right (without actually needing to evidence it). You object to me because I object to the claim. But you're going about it all wrong.
Lexicus
Deity
Is this because "the literature" is dominated by evpsych weirdoes who don't bother to try to disentangle the effects of gender ideology from their results?
correct, which is exactly why we need to push back against misogynistic politics superimposed over dating advice. Rule 0: try for self-improvement instead of blaming external factors like feminism or "bIoLoGy"
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
“Without needing to evidence it” evidence what, that hot people can get away with things? That’s pretty foundational psych.
Given that you've changed "picky" (one word) to "hot" (another, very different word), I think that kinda makes my argument for me here. The fact that people (not just women) can be "hot" is just an added bonus.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
No, Lexicus, it’s because they studied the behavior.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Dance around it forever, Gorbles. Picky people are picking hot.
Lexicus
Deity
The amount of claims is just increasing, eh?
People are picky over a whole bunch of things. Teenagers are no exception. We push expectations on kids (the next generation, etc) of what "hot" is, culturally, and there's a whole lot of ick baked in there (with the misogyny that Lexi mentioned, and so on). To go all in on "girls are pickier than boys" by pivoting to "picky people pick hot" is to suggest girls pick hot more than boys pick hot, which is dumb on the face of it.
So yeah, maybe we need a new thread for guys who really want to argue that women are "pickier". Certainly ain't gonna be much help to a 13yo.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
What “let me google that for you”? That took 10 seconds:
Here’s a front page scholar search result, you can see my search terms in the URI:
scholar.google.com
You can check what cites it and see the focus in recent studies has shifted from gender but still acknowledges the same gender difference.
Other search terms will produce other studies like one I skimmed before you even asked me to produce any.
The funny thing is, I’m not even convinced it’s true that women are actually fundamentally choosier. But it doesn’t matter. It’s in the literature, and, believing it or not can lead to the same point Narz makes which is that if you’re overall attractive you are permitted or rewarded for more behaviors otherwise punished.
And it further doesn’t matter why it could it be true, it certainly doesn’t require an evopsych explanation. As simple as “a sexist society drives different behaviors” and “therefore dating advice means advice in navigating in a sexist society with sexes exhibiting different behavior averages”.
Here’s a personal difference between me and, well, almost everyone here. I genuinely entertain points of view and whole world views that contradict what I believe to be true, especially if they produce results “in spite of” themselves.
No, I mean actually. Not “I heard your argument” entertain but go way down rabbit holes, sometimes for years. Most of you are are too disinterested let alone stomach it. Where you train your pattern recognition to see things from that foreign point of view.
I’ve already done homework on subjects deemed too obvious to care about.
So when I chime in it’s like, god it’s like trying to explain racism to our enlightened centrists. How can we ever have vanguards if the vanguardians are dismissed on ideological grounds? Capitalism it is, boys. You do it yourselves.
Here’s a front page scholar search result, you can see my search terms in the URI:
Google Scholar
You can check what cites it and see the focus in recent studies has shifted from gender but still acknowledges the same gender difference.
Other search terms will produce other studies like one I skimmed before you even asked me to produce any.
The funny thing is, I’m not even convinced it’s true that women are actually fundamentally choosier. But it doesn’t matter. It’s in the literature, and, believing it or not can lead to the same point Narz makes which is that if you’re overall attractive you are permitted or rewarded for more behaviors otherwise punished.
And it further doesn’t matter why it could it be true, it certainly doesn’t require an evopsych explanation. As simple as “a sexist society drives different behaviors” and “therefore dating advice means advice in navigating in a sexist society with sexes exhibiting different behavior averages”.
Here’s a personal difference between me and, well, almost everyone here. I genuinely entertain points of view and whole world views that contradict what I believe to be true, especially if they produce results “in spite of” themselves.
No, I mean actually. Not “I heard your argument” entertain but go way down rabbit holes, sometimes for years. Most of you are are too disinterested let alone stomach it. Where you train your pattern recognition to see things from that foreign point of view.
I’ve already done homework on subjects deemed too obvious to care about.
So when I chime in it’s like, god it’s like trying to explain racism to our enlightened centrists. How can we ever have vanguards if the vanguardians are dismissed on ideological grounds? Capitalism it is, boys. You do it yourselves.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Twist and shout, twist and shoutThe amount of claims is just increasing, eh?
People are picky over a whole bunch of things. Teenagers are no exception. We push expectations on kids (the next generation, etc) of what "hot" is, culturally, and there's a whole lot of ick baked in there (with the misogyny that Lexi mentioned, and so on). To go all in on "girls are pickier than boys" by pivoting to "picky people pick hot" is to suggest girls pick hot more than boys pick hot, which is dumb on the face of it.
So yeah, maybe we need a new thread for guys who really want to argue that women are "pickier". Certainly ain't gonna be much help to a 13yo.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Hot is by definition what is the object of choosier and pickier. If I keep having to use different words to get back to the point maybe it’s because you’ve never answered the question which very obviously was Narz’s main point.
Like who cares if he dressed it in gendered language with bro tropes, the dating advice that you asked everyone to completely ignore is contained in the part that needn’t be gendered.
I don’t care if women are pickier. I do care that something good is being asked to be dismissed because that claim is what you care about, more than the part that is good and obviously the meat of the post.
So let’s go round again:
Meat of the post is that people accept behaviors in who they already deem attractive, and don’t in who they don’t.
You say “ignore this 100%” because front to back it’s dressed in “women are choosier” and trope of “women like dbags”
And I’m out here saying don’t get hung up on something that could even be true as the literature supports that claim and has been doing so for, according to one of the articles I didn’t link, 50+ years.
Like who cares if he dressed it in gendered language with bro tropes, the dating advice that you asked everyone to completely ignore is contained in the part that needn’t be gendered.
I don’t care if women are pickier. I do care that something good is being asked to be dismissed because that claim is what you care about, more than the part that is good and obviously the meat of the post.
So let’s go round again:
Meat of the post is that people accept behaviors in who they already deem attractive, and don’t in who they don’t.
You say “ignore this 100%” because front to back it’s dressed in “women are choosier” and trope of “women like dbags”
And I’m out here saying don’t get hung up on something that could even be true as the literature supports that claim and has been doing so for, according to one of the articles I didn’t link, 50+ years.
So either you don't get the point, or you don't care to the extent you have to comment on people making it (which indicates care).
That's alright (well, a different topic), but I'm not gonna get drawn on whatever it is you've decided you want to make this all about. I get it, you're smart and right, and we're all flawed ideologues. It's a familiar refrain
But again, not very useful for the OP. Much like Narz's comment I decided to comment on. Just, straight up, not very helpful. Sorry.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
