Dating Advice (from Random Rants 93)

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 just cannot know that? Most peoples will never take part in any study or poll about that topic.
It's shortsighted and normal for teens i guess, but surely most learn a thing or two about that and become wiser.
 
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:


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.

I already did google it and I found a few studies. One was a study that showed the gender difference in choosiness disappeared in a speed-dating study where the authors had men sit at the same tables and women rotate to different tables.

None of the evpsych studies I found even mentioned this phenomenon. All of them presume women's supposed choosiness is deeply rooted in biology and evolution.

Hence why I am dismissive of the evpsych explanations here.

I will push back against the idea that "women are choosier" because I genuinely do not believe it is true, but also because I do not see how it is a helpful piece of information for romance or dating.

We can see exactly where people who get too obsessed with biological explanations for romantic outcomes end up when it comes to dating: as incel virgins who build up so much resentment toward women (and toward the supposedly high-value men who supposedly get all the women effortlessly due to 'biology') that they're completely incapable of normal socialization and fail to realize that they are the biggest obstacle to their own romantic success.

(Incidentally, I do think it's true that people considered attractive get away with more, that is true regardless of gender and in non-romantic contexts).

Anyway, I submit to you that women are in fact *less* choosy, men have been conditioned by social norms to compete for a small percentage of (supposedly) high-value (conventionally-attractive) women while dismissing women outside that narrow range as prospects. Women are much more open-minded but appear choosy because they conclude correctly that most men are terribly socialized and objectively poor romantic prospects. QED
 
You just cannot know that? Most peoples will never take part in any study or poll about that topic.
It's shortsighted and normal for teens i guess, but surely most learn a thing or two about that and become wiser.
This falls under the “you can’t know anything” argument. But if we can be confident of anything in psychology, this broader phenomenon that we give differential treatment based on attractiveness (including promotions, attention to children) this is one of those things.
 
I already did google it and I found a few studies. One was a study that showed the gender difference in choosiness disappeared in a speed-dating study where the authors had men sit at the same tables and women rotate to different tables.

None of the evpsych studies I found even mentioned this phenomenon. All of them presume women's supposed choosiness is deeply rooted in biology and evolution.

Hence why I am dismissive of the evpsych explanations here.

I will push back against the idea that "women are choosier" because I genuinely do not believe it is true, but also because I do not see how it is a helpful piece of information for romance or dating.

We can see exactly where people who get too obsessed with biological explanations for romantic outcomes end up when it comes to dating: as incel virgins who build up so much resentment toward women (and toward the supposedly high-value men who supposedly get all the women effortlessly due to 'biology') that they're completely incapable of normal socialization and fail to realize that they are the biggest obstacle to their own romantic success.

(Incidentally, I do think it's true that people considered attractive get away with more, that is true regardless of gender and in non-romantic contexts).

Anyway, I submit to you that women are in fact *less* choosy, men have been conditioned by social norms to compete for a small percentage of (supposedly) high-value (conventionally-attractive) women while dismissing women outside that narrow range as prospects. Women are much more open-minded but appear choosy because they conclude correctly that most men are terribly socialized and objectively poor romantic prospects. QED
I don’t really care if women are or are not choosier, but I do care that good advice is dismissed based on packaging.

You are leading me back to really I think a crux of it which I bolded:

This is what you are reacting to, and it’s misplaced.

Narz wrote what he wrote because he’s advocating changing the self and winning, he’s advocating for the individual’s ability to romantic success, with that packaging that you are saying is the opposite. You actually said it more firmly in your previous post.

So you’re saying if gendered language then inceldom. Then why is Narz using it as motivation to be the opposite of an incel?

(and why did in that previous post you suggest the alternative to what Narz’s post is suggesting self improvement, when it’s obvious Narz is arguing self improvement?)

It’s obvious to me, because a bigger world of people than incels are people who think in a gendered way in a motivating, and ultimately romantically successful way. It’s an outsider’s superimposition to delete what Narz is saying with Narz is arguing and replace the contents for an imagined belief that it’s hopeless do to the “nature of women.”

Like I’ve never been an incel. But I was definitely my most frustrated and off putting to women in a period of my life I was my most party-line, saying everything you guys would approve of, copy pasta feminist. I’ve been my least frustrated being my chillest but not passive, most vulnerable (neither holding back nor dumping so much) you know, the good stuff.

But there were dark times. Times when a lot of variables had me feeling like a loser. You know who got me out? Back to vulnerable and nice and connecting and romance? What gave at any given time more women more options to choose from, to not feel lonely with, maybe to build a future with? Following recommended actions of people who use a lot of gendered myths.

What helped me return to the light from the darkness is stuff you think we should fight because you think it brings people from the light to the darkness. Those people were never in the light, and the way out is still in the darkness.
 
But I was definitely my most frustrated and off putting to women in a period of my life I was my most party-line, saying everything you guys would approve of, copy pasta feminist.
I would humbly submit that you basing your entire argument off of life lessons you've taken from parts of your history like this bit require a tad more self-interrogation than you're giving them. Instead you're using it to justify "women are picky", because to you, you were unsuccessful when you were "party line", instead of taking advice from "gendered myths" (which is a very polite and obscure way of saying the thing we all know you're actually saying, which is doubly funny because you're not affording lexi or I the same favouritism in phrasing).
 
This falls under the “you can’t know anything” argument. But if we can be confident of anything in psychology, this broader phenomenon that we give differential treatment based on attractiveness (including promotions, attention to children) this is one of those things.
So what about those with a helper instinct (a very common trait)?
This can (and does) go both ways. Obviously somebody who doesn't wash for 10 days, takes no care of themselves at all etc will feel different treatment..but i assume that's not what you mean.
 
Fine. We can be weird about psychology as a field here, I guess?

Conservatives(so social, not biological) are also more risk averse in general. They have the more to lose, socially, thus their risks are all the more to give. I would say that has physical reflections based on the role in the relationship, with typically higher physical risks/investments in one party than the other.

Nothing quite as positioned to be shallow as a liberal male, I guess?
 
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 :D

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.
Your judo is good but there’s a reason it’s a refrain. You’re right, maybe Narz’s comment is not useful to our Bread Caesar. Bread Caesar is doing just fine, all he needs to do is be brave, ask her out. If he wins, he wins big, if he loses, he will still be ahead of the curve! And will do better next time.

But what Narz said is general-audience very useful to everyone who’s stuck on “it’s not fair”. Narz says “women because of their nature (bio or not!)…” and you stop there and go “everything you said should be ignored”.

But if you get unstuck, the rest of what Narz is saying, and yes this is an extrapolation but it’s a safe one, is you don’t even need to worry about tricks and gimmicks, if you get good, you’ll be good. Make the grade. Lexicus is saying the same thing, I wish to see this acknowledged.

Like you could have jumped and been like “why women”? And I probably would like liked the post. Instead you said 100% bad! And I’m saying, well, the meat of it is really quite good. Get good, be attractive in all its forms you can (even as a bald, shaky small hand, tired nerdy oddball like me :D) and you will succeed. Don’t, and you will fight and struggle every step.

Lexicus says women are conditioned maybe even the opposite to be overly accepting. It’s not the literature and it’s not common sense but you know what I might even agree. I do think men are these days largely unattractive, more than women, and women are settling. Who knows.

Like we have OKCupids blog, remember this one? Women rated men usually a 1 or 2, long tail to 5. But then accepted, even aimed for, men below their 3 (still less than half, the ratings, dunno how far they plunged into their ugly options tho). Men rated women a bell curve, but only went for women on the right half of their ratings. This supports all conclusions!

I’m asking you to consider what you said in a way that reorders what Narz said into what is advice and what is packaging, I tried with my initial question, which has a yes or no answer, that you never answered, so no you’re not off the hook.
 
But what Narz said is general-audience very useful to everyone who’s stuck on “it’s not fair”. Narz says “women because of their nature (bio or not!)…” and you stop there and go “everything you said should be ignored”.
Because it should.
Like you could have jumped and been like “why women”? And I probably would like liked the post. Instead you said 100% bad!
So you admit you're just . . . policing me? You're the one who called the "police" thing out as bad, right?

It should be ignored because "why women?". If you get that, but you object to me saying it's bad, then there's nothing I've said that's wrong. You're just failing to reconcile the two because of reasons that I don't know and can't guess at.

His advice is bad, not because of "tone", or because of "optics", but because it fundamentally sets up the person taking that advice to make poor decisions. Because "why women?" :)
 
I would humbly submit that you basing your entire argument off of life lessons you've taken from parts of your history like this bit require a tad more self-interrogation than you're giving them. Instead you're using it to justify "women are picky", because to you, you were unsuccessful when you were "party line", instead of taking advice from "gendered myths" (which is a very polite and obscure way of saying the thing we all know you're actually saying, which is doubly funny because you're not affording lexi or I the same favouritism in phrasing).
Not only do you not know what I mean implicitly, but you are saying I said the opposite of what I said explicitly.

I bring up my own life as context to gendered myths as the filter many use to focus on non-gendered actions to self improve for romance. Narz obviously meant his gendered statement in that vein. Lexicus paved it over with “this is incel speak” when it’s literally the opposite. So I gave my own personal perspective as a reason that at least one of us knows that Narz did that.

But you’re out here claiming I used my life to justify women are picky.

No, that’s your hallucination.

Because it should.

So you admit you're just . . . policing me? You're the one who called the "police" thing out as bad, right?

It should be ignored because "why women?". If you get that, but you object to me saying it's bad, then there's nothing I've said that's wrong. You're just failing to reconcile the two because of reasons that I don't know and can't guess at.

His advice is bad, not because of "tone", or because of "optics", but because it fundamentally sets up the person taking that advice to make poor decisions. Because "why women?" :)
what you said was the whole post was bad and the whole post is calling for self improvement to join the dating pool so you are arguing against self improvement, or you are wrongly focused on one part.

I know it’s the latter since you are projecting it so much further that you twisted my personal anecdote to mean something I didn’t.

So what about those with a helper instinct (a very common trait)?
This can (and does) go both ways. Obviously somebody who doesn't wash for 10 days, takes no care of themselves at all etc will feel different treatment..but i assume that's not what you mean.
I’m not here to say averages = 100% of everything always.

Do you disagree that people give attractive people preferential treatment as a general trend?

So you admit you're just . . . policing me? You're the one who called the "police" thing out as bad, right?
Yea, so what 😁 but toecutters got toes to cut.

If you want more self-charity, I will content police your tone policing. But I’m pretty sure you think like Lexicus does (or, I hope, did), that gendered myths lead to less romance and more inceldom, one directional by any meaningful non-edge case. Which is why you think stopping on the gendered part is arguing all of the content.

It’s just objectively not. And you don’t even have to go far, Narz is arguing for getting good in order to date, if you’re having any trouble. This has to be acknowledged. Agreed it’s not really for our OP, but disagree that that’s not the takeaway from Narz’s must-be-rejected-completely post.

And from there we see the gendered stuff is the packaging, not the contents.
 
Isn't the same true for some men who date a model or so?
bias towards attractiveness/away from unattractiveness in terms of physical appearance extends way beyond the scope of relationships, and neither sex is immune or even kind-of-resistant to that bias, on average.

it is one factor among many in the "dating market", so to speak. though when it comes to valuation in that, men and women weight different things more strongly on average. women don't value appearance (in terms of physical body attraction, signaling is another matter) as much as men, but if you're looking like some of the worst hapsburgs or something, it's going to be harder.

attractiveness is inherently subjective, though there are some things that trend/are considered more attractive on average.
 
When at track practice, the two of us were doing hurdles. I accidentally hurt my leg when doing so, causing the coach to make me hop over a cone 10 times. That's a bad reprensentation.

Earlier that day I was talking to the person who was playing Aladdin (my friend and the dungeon master) when we came by the girl and two of her friends. I didn't say anything, but just blushed and continued talking.

In general I wouldn’t get too bogged down in the day-to-day minutiae of every interaction and what it might mean. It’s sort of like dreams. Dreams feel very profound and very meaningful to you, but they can sound utterly incoherent when you describe them to somebody else. This is because too much of the meaning and importance of various components of the dream are tied up in experiences and associations which only you have, and to get somebody else to understand them in the way you do would take them living your life and having your experiences.

In precisely the same way, only you are in your head. Only you hear your inner monologue, and only you experience 100% of what you are doing and thinking and feeling at all times. And the same applies to everybody else and their experience of the world. So when you mess up at the hurdles and get scolded by your coach, that may feel horrible, it may feel like everybody is watching you and thinking about what a doofus you are. But that’s usually not happening. People are not focusing on you that intently, and if they are, they aren’t necessarily thinking or feeling how you are in that moment.

So maybe it’s bad representation because you messed up and got punished, but maybe she was worried because you got hurt, or maybe she thought the coach was being too harsh, maybe she was admiring that you were trying really hard. But more likely - and this cannot be emphasized enough - she was probably worrying about her own performance, or thinking about the exercises the coach told her to do, or how long it’s going to take to finish the English homework tonight, or how the days are finally starting to get longer, or what’s going to happen on Dance Moms, or something her friend told her at lunch, or whether Caesar of Bread likes her, or literally anything else.

The important thing is not to get wrapped up in these mind games about what she might have seen and what that might mean for whether or not she likes you. Getting overly obsessive about that sort of thing can lead you to self-sabotage. What you need to do is relax, take things as they come, focus on presenting the kindest, friendliest, warmest version of yourself, and act quickly and deliberately once you have established that she’s single, looking for a relationship, and you vibe with her and want to be with her. I had no problem through high school, college, and all of my twenties making connections and entering relationships, and I am no great beauty, and was broke and near-homeless for large chunks of that time. I was simply funny, kind, and I didn’t waste time fudging around not making a move

Do not sit around being chummy too long without making your intentions clear. That’s how you put yourself in the friendzone

How got that trumped? My self-confidence in terms of relations has never been good, girls I was into did not like that and got frienzoned.
So, you can be the guy who makes them laugh, but for going-out-purpouse, they may be looking for other "features", or they may not.
My point is that each girl has one interests, and the rule "make them laugh", does not work for every human being.

You do not get put in the friendzone* because a woman didn’t like some thing or another. You put yourself in the friendzone by presenting yourself as a friend, and never contradicting that impression.

*I am defining friendzone here as an unstated mental category into which women sort potential suitors based on superficial judgments, which preclude said potential suitors from rising to the status of romantic partner.

The error in thinking, in my experience, is usually the belief that if one is simply kind and gracious to an object of their affections, that person will eventually reward them for their good behavior with a romantic or sexual relationship. That they’ll realize romcom style that the perfect man was right there all along. This is erroneous reasoning, for the simple reason that courtship does not generally work this way. “Relationship” is not the upgrade of friendship, and friendship is not the consolation prize for a failed attempt at a relationship. If you present yourself as a friend to someone with the ulterior motive of parlaying that into a relationship, what you are doing is lying, and so failing as both a friend and a potential romantic partner.

The object of affection has no reason to doubt what you tell them, and so when you at some point way down the line, confess your long-held feelings, or worse, whine about not being given a chance, what they are experiencing is betrayal, which is a good way to ensure you’ll never be seen as trustworthy (an essential component of any romantic relationship). And this goes doubly so if you make a move, are rejected, and insist that you are fine just being friends when that’s not the case.

Being able to make a woman (or anyone) laugh is actually very good advice. A good sense of humor is extremely attractive; it’s far more important to me than looks. I would take a schlubby man who is funny, confident, and up-front (e.g. Stavros Halkias), over a tall, ripped, rich humorless robot any day of the week (e.g. the current Bachelor). It’s just that the up-frontness is just as important as the humor. I can’t read your mind. You’re a big boy; use your words.
 
Last edited:
Can we move the studies and the people who don't read them to a politics thread or a new thread?
No, cuz I'm totes groovin on this poor little 13 year old kid wanting some dating advice and it prompting WWIII on CFCOT.

Two pages of earlier material on rape culture have already had to be culled from this thing. The preceding two pages will at some point also.

Every blessed one of us want the best for Caesar, but it brings out the worst in us! This is gold.

Whenever we next have a thread on "What Were Your Favorite Threads on OT?" this is gonna be mine.
 
I’m not here to say averages = 100% of everything always.

Do you disagree that people give attractive people preferential treatment as a general trend?
Yep i disagree. Because i don't think streaming channels, Hollywood, speed dating etc (where that's very common) are representative enuf for a general trend.
Looking at somebody and going "oh nice", and giving peoples better treatment cos of their looks compared to others in that situation (which ideally should never happen when it really matters) are 2 very different things.
 
Lexicus is saying the same thing, I wish to see this acknowledged.

If you squint hard enough maybe.
But I want to specifically note that I actually do think gendered myths, as you put it, in fact lead to worse romantic outcomes. The ways that a person can be a genuinely good partner do not generally depend on gender at all (e.g. the stuff schlaufuchs is saying).
 
If you squint hard enough maybe.
But I want to specifically note that I actually do think gendered myths, as you put it, in fact lead to worse romantic outcomes. The ways that a person can be a genuinely good partner do not generally depend on gender at all (e.g. the stuff schlaufuchs is saying).
Dumbo didn't fly better with a feather

But he jumped with one.
 
Moderator Action: This has gone way off the rails as an advisory to a 13 year old. Feel free to carry this "other" conversation on in a different thread. Thread closed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom