i am young and still figuring this stuffs out but this explains a thing I've noticed. often when I meet a woman they seem completely disinterested in me so I kind of just let them be. but then a timer between 6 and 24 hrs starts running whenever i exist vaguely in their presence and when it hits zero a switch flips and they decide they like/are attracted to me. it was always kind of baffling to me bc I never had any clue what I did to flip the switch. but this explains a lot.
This makes so much sense to me. As a pretty average looking guy, this is how it usually works for me as well. Women aren't turning their heads when I walk by, that's just not the way in which I'm attractive. They become attracted when they spend time around me and get to know me a bit.
I'd also say this is a great sign, btw. Means you have qualities that go more than skin deep.
Sometimes it can also be skin deep, but in a way that takes more time to appear: the many ways in which you animate your body: from your laughter to your mannerisms, the way a jacket you’re comfortable in hangs on your back. It’s aesthetics in 5D, which each dimension as important as the other, whereas I think for men the dimensions or senses aren’t as proportional in terms of how they participate in constituting attraction. This is why you’ll hear women say things like “he’s charismatic” or “the way he rolls up his sleeves is so hot”.
this is a great point! also, I'm curious if you agree: the more you like a guy, the more his various mannerisms will seem hot to you? I feel like attraction can become a flywheel like that, sometimes.
I think it starts with the opposite, one or two hot physical attributes with a hot gesture is the catalyser or the spark, which leads to the romanticisation of other things or the erasing of the not so attractive traits/behaviours. This is also why for example hot gay men arent attractive to hetero women and why we can lose all attraction (Including physical) to a man all at once, it's not like men for whom hot is hot regardless. (these are generalisations/ attempts at describing tendencies only)
thank you! of course they won't apply to everyone but I do think the generalizations are directionally correct.
for men, a woman's behavior can also affect how attractive she is, but maybe not to the same extent. it's more like "dammit, but she's still hot though!"
however the cost of this moral blindness can cost men a lot, and its persistence in the collective male subconscious is probably due to another type of blindness, probably of their own vulnerability in a context where a woman they get in a relationship with/marry/etc has the ability to harm them more than what most representations of wives/gfs/sexual partners around them have shown them ? (i think it does happen at the individual scale for men, where overtime, they start giving more attention to character in the way they imagine what an attractive woman is). It might also very much be a 'sensible' blindness, that accurately reflects the fact that in reality, bad character hasn't caused enough harm as a whole, to enter the realm of traits that can impact the average man's attraction/taste/preferences
I wish this weren't necessary. Ideally, we'd all have older peers who can help us out with this. but since that's not the case, I'd say it's the same as coaching for anything: yes, it's worth it, but only if you manage to find a good coach. unfortunately, most coaches are bad at what they do.
Dating apps put both sides on the Buyer side of the table, when to date successfully as a man, you need to be on the Seller side. And Sellers don't look through catalogs for Buyers. They develop their product, develop their sales pitch, and most crucially in this context, they develop their funnel. Which really just means you need to *exist* as a person in front of many women so they can figure out your deal. Swiping does away with the funnel. No wonder 90% of men do poorly in this game.
I love how well formulated this is and I wish more people understood this!
I've issued many men what I call "the friend zone challenge": forget about dating and getting laid for a while and just befriend some women.
Doing this comes with myriad benefits, one of which is that ironically, you'll find that some of those women will want to date you or sleep with you...
apart from all the usual benefits that come with friendship (regardless of gender), making friends with women comes with very specific benefits that many men today are starving for. for example, it makes you comfortable around women. the more you understand women, the more you see them as fellow humans, the more you take them off the pedestal, the easier it is for you to relate to them.
and btw the pedestal can go both ways. many men treat women as a distant other. she's an angelic creature who we're trying to win over. or she's a screeching demon who's out to ruin men's lives. both of those are the same problem: you fail to realize that women are just people.
pedestalizing women is also a self reinforcing cycle, so befriending women is a way to break that cycle.
also, a benefit I've gotten personally is just an abundance of feminine energy in my life. even at times when I was single and really struggling with dating, I wasn't starving for feminine energy and care. I think having zero healthy femininity in your life is crazy making for a man (and also the inverse for women).
From your other replies, I assume you’re trolling, but I’ll answer semi-earnestly.
Women typically have other friends, usually female friends. While she probably won’t explicitly introduce you to all of them for the purpose of dating, by being friends with her, you presumably socialize with her and you’ll likely come into social contact with more women. This can be good because it not only gives you practice for talking with women without getting into your own head, but presumably some of those women will be interested in you romantically.
They won't want you unless you're extremely attractive anyway. There is no socialisation for you if you're not extremely physically attractive. They will only see you as a friend.
Plus asking women out can get you in serious trouble (imprisonment, beaten up or even death).
"Most women develop attraction to men via proximity and time."
Yup. Always say I don't think I would have ever picked my husband's profile out of an app. We were friends for two years before we started dating. He used to invite me over and make me dinner (sometimes alone and sometimes with a group of friends). At some point I was like, this guy is so nice to me (and also, knows how to cook!), so what the hell am I waiting for?
It will never been too passé to remind people that men are attracted to almost entirely physical qualities and women are almost entirely attracted to non-physical qualities because there will always be a new generation of young people who have yet to figure this out.
This is a long disproven rumor. Women are FAR more picky and looks oriented than men are in all reality. It's just that you can SOMEWHAT balance this out via close knit communities.
No it's also disproven via general attraction statistics. Women find the vast majority of men to be ugly/unattractive and this is only mitigated via close knit communities to somewhat balance out those initial thoughts
The issue is that being able to start a family with your looksmatch in her prime who is also a virgin and obedient without any things like colored hair, tattoos, and piercings is just about impossible. This has VERY bad implications for the genepool. dating is fundamentally systematically rigged against males.
1. There are two sets of qualities involved - status and intimacy. Status qualities can be summarised as qualities in the other person that contribute to my perception of my value. Intimacy qualities are about our shared connection
2. Most people are more attracted to intimacy than status, or at least to both. But intimacy takes time. You can get clues in a flash - for a man on a dating app, “travel” and “ambition” are words that speak volumes - but genuinely getting to know someone requires seeing them over time in different contexts. Status is much easier to signal
3. Status indeed has a greater physical component for men vs women
Oh no I'm very well aware of that. But that's a specific subset of women that are in a higher frequency on dating apps. Furthermore, a lot of women won't sleep on the first date not because of some reason of chastity or virtue or whatever, but due to some weird gynocentric view that their pussy is made out of gold and that even if you're a guy who's better than her in nearly every way you will still have to impress her to get in between her legs. The women who don't sleep around period tend to be more so women who are forward thinking enough to realize that men who would make for good fathers most likely find promiscuity disgusting, but they're a small minority of the female population.
Ah yes it is “gynocentric” for women to say no to sex. …Do you believe women have a moral obligation to sleep with people? Why would it matter if the man were “better than” the woman- does that somehow trump the woman’s right to make choices about her own body?
No I'm saying their reasoning for doing so is gynocentric. It oftentimes barely has anything to do with some logical understanding of how promiscuity affects her value in the eyes of self respecting males, and it rarely has anything to do with maintaining her virginity for marriage as she seeks to uphold God's word. It has more so to do with women believing they're special princesses who even when they have a guy who is better in every way and she brings nothing to the table in return, that he still has to go through a bunch of hoops and circles to be "worthy" of her when all she is is just some woman, and that's really not saying much. It originates from a lack of humility, not a humility towards something higher such as God or an understanding for the value of chastity in how it helps foster a better culture for family formation.
I agree that many women say no to sex on a date because (drumroll please) they don’t want to have sex with that person at that time. As you say, it’s not always because they believe it’s their duty and/or in their strategic interest to be virgins. They just don’t want to have sex with everyone they meet on a first date.
I doubt you’d want to have sex with every woman you met, either. Even if she were “better than” you by her own estimation.
“ largely because these extremely male-centric UI decisions lure vastly more male users than women; what economist could have predicted this problem with a heterosexual dating app”.
I thought that this was the intended business model. Women aren’t going to pay for dating apps, only men will in enough numbers to support a company. So the only way to make a viable dating app is to hook male users willing to pay, unless you get some donors to fund a non-profit dating app that has different aims than making money.
I think we're afraid of saying just how bad porn has been for sex. Men, women, we won't say it because it might mean the Other Side had a point 30 years ago.
I'm happily married and we have wonderful sex. Not an incel. But here's some uncomfortable truths. From someone looking in as an outsider. Porn....
1. Is good enough. (I don't use porn) Women, for many men sex with you is simply not worth the effort modern women demand in a relationship.
2. Even if it's technically "better" it's a numbers game. A 100 % chance at 50 dollars is a better better bet than a one in a million chance at 10,000 dollars.
3. Separates sex from womanhood. The whole social contract was if you want sexual feelings and arousal from a woman, you had to take the whole person. Reducing the value of sex via porn, well reduced it's value. Your not offering anything I haven't seen a million times already.
4.The mind, is the biggest sex organ, for men and women. So a quick dopamine release from fantasizing about a women they don't have to interact with...yeah it's good enough. Even better, swipe 10000 times to find a real woman who just wants to fuck? Perfect.
These aren't my values. I left the game described here. I don't masturbate or look at porn. This draws me out of myself and makes me attentive to my wife and her needs as a whold person. She, for her part, makes every effort to be physically and employed available.
That’s true, of course, but I’m curious what people think about what pornography does to people’s sense of the erotic. For example, I’m beginning to suspect that all these cool “poly” New Yorkers are not so much into hotwifing, or whatever, but that they really don’t know how to cultivate the erotic dimension of life, so they use the only model they have. It seems like porn kills the imagination generally.
This is where I will boast of my sins so that truth might prevail. I was in a dark place once and fantasized about those exact things. It is very literally the addictive nature of porn to escalate and kill imagination and reduce capacity to become aroused by the erotic. Porn induced erectile dysfunction is a real thing, precisely because real life can't compete with a virtual haram or what ever the kink of the day is. Now, after much sobriety, and meditation, seeing her lean over and pluck a strawberry from the garden...back to feeling like I did when I was much younger. Completely compelled. It's a holy erotic. And, to extend the thought, it's only after a pornified vision of life, does an erotic desire for the divine sound perverse.
I agree with your analysis of how dating apps like Tinder are tuned to the specific way most men experience attraction, but I think it's missing the part that explores why is it that women still engage with these apps. If those apps were wholly unattractive and unpleasant and incompatible with women's cognitive toolkit, they simply wouldn't use them - and Tinder would meet the same fate as a dance club with a reputation for sexual assault.
I'm sure that there already exists a term for this phenomenon - but I haven't seen it yet - so I'll call it "attempt aversion": that tendency to avoid social and mental repercussions for failure by never really trying at all, thus self-sabotaging the chances to actually succeed. If a woman (or man, attempt aversion is not exclusive to any gender) makes a Tinder account, actively and assertively filters her matches for a suitable partner, and then doesn't succeed - that's likely to contradict some personal narratives she has about herself and her attractiveness.
The way to avoid that is to make a very light attempt at reaching the desired outcome (install app), but without committing to it much at all (actively filter). If it fails - well, "I wasn't trying anyway". If it succeeds - "I can do so little, but still do so well! "
She already has specific photos of herself she really likes, achieved after countless hours of grooming her reflection, so she can easily upload these to the profile.
A text bio presents the problem of effort - typing up an abstract description of yourself is not a common activity, so would require a bit more time to structure and type it out. Realistically, this is not a big commitment - she will spend tens of hours on the app, so 15 minutes thinking of a good bio is nothing. Regardless of that, most bios won't even contain the obvious detail "what kind of arrangement am I looking for" - this would constitute making an attempt.
When a match is made, there already is a script that allows her to not make any attempt at effort - the men are supposed to pursue the women! Unless she caught the golden goose, no energy need be expended, and the failure need not hurt.
Humans are not innately strategic. A lot of the time will default to social games played with an imaginary audience. Tinder lets women (and men!) play these games much easier than the more text-based competitors, so it will keep winning.
So what, specifically, would a dating app built for women look like? I think there's a lot of money in this, because if you can get majority-women on your app, lots of men will want to join too. Google tells me even Bumble is 67% male. [Edit: This fact would appear to disprove your thesis, since Bumble was designed by a woman...] And the feminists on reddit are telling us that flirting with women IRL in pretty much any context is essentially verboten. That just leaves the apps, and the apps suck.
Heck, nowadays with AI you might even be able to build that dating app yourself. If you're so smart, why aren't you rich? If you know so much about what women want out of dating, why aren't you already running a thriving majority-female straight dating service? ;-)
Women really liked okcupid back in the day. It prioritized users that spent time filling out profiles, sharing actual information about their personality and values and beliefs, and it incentivized more long-form messaging and conversations. You can still find older people all over the internet talking about how they met their spouse of many years on okcupid after just a few months on the dating website. Apparently that wasn’t profitable enough though because now it’s a tinder clone like the rest.
I think the marketing aspect, where OKC tried to spin itself as "not just a meat market" by including the compatibility scores and so forth, might have been helpful even if compatibility scores were basically bunk.
>Apparently that wasn’t profitable enough though because now it’s a tinder clone like the rest.
I think the shift to mobile devices also played a big role.
Feminists on Reddit are an even smaller minority than women on dating apps. I promise you that if you small talk with a woman in public and ask her out at the end, you will have a much higher hit rate than dating apps, and the rejections will be mostly “I’m flattered but no thank you” or “I have a boyfriend”
But yeah I agree reddit feminists are nuts and I try not to pay too much attention to them.
>I promise you that if you small talk with a woman in public and ask her out at the end, you will have a much higher hit rate than dating apps, and the rejections will be mostly “I’m flattered but no thank you” or “I have a boyfriend”
I've tried this. I find that usually I have a friendly convo, maybe even make out, she gives me her number, then just doesn't text back in reply, or stops replying after a few texts. I don't think it's any sort of magic bullet.
You’re not getting arrested or beaten for asking a woman out in public. You live in a cruel world of your own creation. The real world is much more forgiving than you assume. I’m going to stop interacting with you and hope you can heal from some of this pain. I promise you are lovable and there are tons of women out there who would love you if you didn’t self sabotage by believing in this stuff.
If you actually had some experience and good advice I'd be more willing to take you seriously. The fact that you advocate for men to approach women and ask them out in person shows how harmful your advice is.
Yes, you can. It also boosts her ego and gives her validation. It's creepy to do it.
You have no evidence for any of your claims. Plenty of men are unattractive to all women in the world.
I also have probably had far more success than you've had, ironically. I've never had to do desperate things like asking women out in public or approaching then. All that does is show how unattractive and desperate you are.
Because women yearn for a romcom plot. They don’t want some pedestrian way of meeting people. They want the meeting to have magic and beauty and spark and a flash when you see someone across a room and love them immediately or at least are attracted to them.
So it simply can’t be converted into a mass product. Unless you start making romcoms - which I fully approve of.
Maybe part of what's going on is a downward spiral, where the bleak dating app experience leaves men thinking of dating as a grind to be optimized, which is the opposite of the romance mindset which attracts women.
I'd argue that's actually a different genre--back when they had romcoms they still had Harlequin romances. Women have love stories and porn too. they're just both textual.
Oh authors absolutely, I just had the impression they weren't making romcom *movies* anymore. Romance probably has the widest range of any genre, you can get a chaste Amish romance or an MFM BDSM story if you want one.
Romcom movies used to be made by men because they wanted to know what women want. They loved women.
For example the director of When Harry Met Sally had wanted a sad ending with both of them ending up alone, even though Nora Ephron argued against it, but then he met the love of his life and decided that yes, Harry and Sally would get married and stay happy together!
Men must counter their inherent romantic cynicism by doing romance as a job and it will be good.
Please stop with the “the feminists on Reddit” crap. The internet is not real life and happily the overwhelming majority of actually human women are blissfully unaware of the opinions you ascribe to that crowd.
Dating apps have the same exact pathologies as lottery: they do not sell results, they sell a very small chance of something very good, thus they sell daydreaming and hope. Same exact business model.
You have a lot of really good points. Yes, an awful lot of men want casual sex and yes, it usually doesn't work out that well. And yes, Tinder was as far as I know a heterosexual version of Grindr. And yes, sometimes women do get more attracted to you after they get to know you more.
But...
1. Largely due to the aftereffects of recent social movements, I also think a lot of men are simply too intimidated to try talking to women in person anymore. In many cases it's not socially acceptable to approach a woman in public, and entering a social circle with the ultimate goal of finding a romantic partner is considered 'sleazy'. There was a bit on Tiktok where the lady was talking about the recent Rachel Drucker article in the NYT about how men don't talk to her anymore and how it confirmed her experiences, and the comments were full of men saying things like "You told us not to approach you. We listened."
2. There actually were apps that included longer form profiles and compatibility questions--most famously OKCupid with its questions ranging from 'do you like the taste of beer?' to 'if you had the chance to eat human meat any way you want, would you try it?'. They were bought by Match along with lots of other dating sites and rapidly declined. A big problem is that the incentives for the company and users don't align (as OKCupid actually said in a blog post they took down after getting bought)--they want you to keep swiping (and paying), you want to get paired off--and leave the site.
3. There's also an argument that this is an intrinsic failure mode of dating sites with a practically-infinite supply, because they run a prisoner's dilemma with a very large number of participants. It's actually an effective strategy (if nobody else does it) for a man to constantly swipe right, as you get to see everyone who swiped right on you, so eventually more and more men do it, and the few guys who don't never get looked at because, well, the women are deluged with likes so they're just going to swipe right on the cute guys. (I experienced this myself on OKCupid in the late teens--I would carefully craft responses showing I had read all parts of the lady's profile, and eventually my response rate dwindled to the point I just had to swipe right on everyone and then do that on mutual matches.)
I'm married happily with kids and a good sex life. I say that because "incel" is the insult of the day when women hear opinions they don't like from men.
"but pornography in its current form is undeniably a replacement of the best version of the real thing (sex with a real live woman that you think is hot who thinks you are hot) with something that is good enough but worse (watching someone else have sex with a woman who probably looks like she’s having more fun than any woman you’ve ever banged). "
This is a good claim...but for many men, actually, sex with yall isn't worth the effort modern women require to stick around. You flirted with an uncomfortable reality. Good enough, is , well, good enough. Once AI porn hits and men can watch themselves have sex with any women doing literally physically impossible feats...good luck. Enjoy the liberation I guess.
Most women are really delusional about what they are « worth », that’s for sure. They fail to realize that after enough experience a men realize that fucking is just a necessity for tension release and not a goal in itself. It doesn’t have that much of a difference from women to women and porn is a good enough approximation indeed.
I think this is why they are working on banning porn in some parts of the EU, women have realized that they don’t hold the cards (despite what they like to pretend) and as with everything they complained and got what they wanted.
Definitely. I'm married and honestly it's Definitely more of a loving thing for me too rather than purly physical But you're 100% right...women psyop-ed themselves into believing they didn't have the cards...and now porn has absolutely lowered their negotiating value collectively. The milks free now. These aren't my morals, but the milks free. The cows....
Also I'm not a fan of most hobbies or groups of people that I have access to, and I feel very weird when I try to start an hobby or join a group with *ulterior motives*
>> young people seem to do so little socializing that no one complains about the friend zone anymore
Delightfully mean. I love you. 🥰
i am young and still figuring this stuffs out but this explains a thing I've noticed. often when I meet a woman they seem completely disinterested in me so I kind of just let them be. but then a timer between 6 and 24 hrs starts running whenever i exist vaguely in their presence and when it hits zero a switch flips and they decide they like/are attracted to me. it was always kind of baffling to me bc I never had any clue what I did to flip the switch. but this explains a lot.
This makes so much sense to me. As a pretty average looking guy, this is how it usually works for me as well. Women aren't turning their heads when I walk by, that's just not the way in which I'm attractive. They become attracted when they spend time around me and get to know me a bit.
I'd also say this is a great sign, btw. Means you have qualities that go more than skin deep.
Sometimes it can also be skin deep, but in a way that takes more time to appear: the many ways in which you animate your body: from your laughter to your mannerisms, the way a jacket you’re comfortable in hangs on your back. It’s aesthetics in 5D, which each dimension as important as the other, whereas I think for men the dimensions or senses aren’t as proportional in terms of how they participate in constituting attraction. This is why you’ll hear women say things like “he’s charismatic” or “the way he rolls up his sleeves is so hot”.
this is a great point! also, I'm curious if you agree: the more you like a guy, the more his various mannerisms will seem hot to you? I feel like attraction can become a flywheel like that, sometimes.
I think it starts with the opposite, one or two hot physical attributes with a hot gesture is the catalyser or the spark, which leads to the romanticisation of other things or the erasing of the not so attractive traits/behaviours. This is also why for example hot gay men arent attractive to hetero women and why we can lose all attraction (Including physical) to a man all at once, it's not like men for whom hot is hot regardless. (these are generalisations/ attempts at describing tendencies only)
thank you! of course they won't apply to everyone but I do think the generalizations are directionally correct.
for men, a woman's behavior can also affect how attractive she is, but maybe not to the same extent. it's more like "dammit, but she's still hot though!"
however the cost of this moral blindness can cost men a lot, and its persistence in the collective male subconscious is probably due to another type of blindness, probably of their own vulnerability in a context where a woman they get in a relationship with/marry/etc has the ability to harm them more than what most representations of wives/gfs/sexual partners around them have shown them ? (i think it does happen at the individual scale for men, where overtime, they start giving more attention to character in the way they imagine what an attractive woman is). It might also very much be a 'sensible' blindness, that accurately reflects the fact that in reality, bad character hasn't caused enough harm as a whole, to enter the realm of traits that can impact the average man's attraction/taste/preferences
Do you think men should invest money into dating coaches and learning "rizz"?
I wish this weren't necessary. Ideally, we'd all have older peers who can help us out with this. but since that's not the case, I'd say it's the same as coaching for anything: yes, it's worth it, but only if you manage to find a good coach. unfortunately, most coaches are bad at what they do.
Jesus Christ. If you need to go to a dating coach, you've lost.
Not in 2025. More people than ever are struggling.
Hypergamy. You don't need to go to a scammer. They're all frauds.
lost what?
At life. Dating.
You're clearly unattractive if you need that nonsense.
Dating apps put both sides on the Buyer side of the table, when to date successfully as a man, you need to be on the Seller side. And Sellers don't look through catalogs for Buyers. They develop their product, develop their sales pitch, and most crucially in this context, they develop their funnel. Which really just means you need to *exist* as a person in front of many women so they can figure out your deal. Swiping does away with the funnel. No wonder 90% of men do poorly in this game.
I love how well formulated this is and I wish more people understood this!
I've issued many men what I call "the friend zone challenge": forget about dating and getting laid for a while and just befriend some women.
Doing this comes with myriad benefits, one of which is that ironically, you'll find that some of those women will want to date you or sleep with you...
What are the overall benefits?
apart from all the usual benefits that come with friendship (regardless of gender), making friends with women comes with very specific benefits that many men today are starving for. for example, it makes you comfortable around women. the more you understand women, the more you see them as fellow humans, the more you take them off the pedestal, the easier it is for you to relate to them.
and btw the pedestal can go both ways. many men treat women as a distant other. she's an angelic creature who we're trying to win over. or she's a screeching demon who's out to ruin men's lives. both of those are the same problem: you fail to realize that women are just people.
pedestalizing women is also a self reinforcing cycle, so befriending women is a way to break that cycle.
also, a benefit I've gotten personally is just an abundance of feminine energy in my life. even at times when I was single and really struggling with dating, I wasn't starving for feminine energy and care. I think having zero healthy femininity in your life is crazy making for a man (and also the inverse for women).
None of that will make you attractive to women.
It is. No socializing for your face.
From your other replies, I assume you’re trolling, but I’ll answer semi-earnestly.
Women typically have other friends, usually female friends. While she probably won’t explicitly introduce you to all of them for the purpose of dating, by being friends with her, you presumably socialize with her and you’ll likely come into social contact with more women. This can be good because it not only gives you practice for talking with women without getting into your own head, but presumably some of those women will be interested in you romantically.
They won't want you unless you're extremely attractive anyway. There is no socialisation for you if you're not extremely physically attractive. They will only see you as a friend.
Plus asking women out can get you in serious trouble (imprisonment, beaten up or even death).
😂
You know I'm right.
Friendship, I would imagine, and practice at the skill of making friends and connecting with people generally.
Friends with women who see you as genetic trash?
Is it your theory that if a woman doesn’t beg you to cum in her within three seconds of making eye contact with you, she views you as “genetic trash”?
Why else would she be friends with you?
Because she likes you? That’s why people are friends with other people, typically.
"Most women develop attraction to men via proximity and time."
Yup. Always say I don't think I would have ever picked my husband's profile out of an app. We were friends for two years before we started dating. He used to invite me over and make me dinner (sometimes alone and sometimes with a group of friends). At some point I was like, this guy is so nice to me (and also, knows how to cook!), so what the hell am I waiting for?
Poor guy. Proof of the blackpill.
??
It will never been too passé to remind people that men are attracted to almost entirely physical qualities and women are almost entirely attracted to non-physical qualities because there will always be a new generation of young people who have yet to figure this out.
This is a long disproven rumor. Women are FAR more picky and looks oriented than men are in all reality. It's just that you can SOMEWHAT balance this out via close knit communities.
It’s only disproven through dating app statistics, which is exactly the point of the piece
No it's also disproven via general attraction statistics. Women find the vast majority of men to be ugly/unattractive and this is only mitigated via close knit communities to somewhat balance out those initial thoughts
Go outside and count the first 20 women you see. How many do you find attractive? If the answer is fewer then 10 then what’s the issue
The issue is that being able to start a family with your looksmatch in her prime who is also a virgin and obedient without any things like colored hair, tattoos, and piercings is just about impossible. This has VERY bad implications for the genepool. dating is fundamentally systematically rigged against males.
Looking for an “obedient virgin” is going to make it much harder for you to find a partner, yes. Women, like other people, like autonomy and respect.
No women meeting your preferences is not a social issue. Most of us are fine with tattoos and women who have had sex before
It's proven through all stats.
😂😂
You know I'm right.
Thats true for matches on apps, not for actual dating
It's true for both. Women have very high standards for men's looks.
I’d put it very differently
1. There are two sets of qualities involved - status and intimacy. Status qualities can be summarised as qualities in the other person that contribute to my perception of my value. Intimacy qualities are about our shared connection
2. Most people are more attracted to intimacy than status, or at least to both. But intimacy takes time. You can get clues in a flash - for a man on a dating app, “travel” and “ambition” are words that speak volumes - but genuinely getting to know someone requires seeing them over time in different contexts. Status is much easier to signal
3. Status indeed has a greater physical component for men vs women
Oh no I'm very well aware of that. But that's a specific subset of women that are in a higher frequency on dating apps. Furthermore, a lot of women won't sleep on the first date not because of some reason of chastity or virtue or whatever, but due to some weird gynocentric view that their pussy is made out of gold and that even if you're a guy who's better than her in nearly every way you will still have to impress her to get in between her legs. The women who don't sleep around period tend to be more so women who are forward thinking enough to realize that men who would make for good fathers most likely find promiscuity disgusting, but they're a small minority of the female population.
Ah yes it is “gynocentric” for women to say no to sex. …Do you believe women have a moral obligation to sleep with people? Why would it matter if the man were “better than” the woman- does that somehow trump the woman’s right to make choices about her own body?
No I'm saying their reasoning for doing so is gynocentric. It oftentimes barely has anything to do with some logical understanding of how promiscuity affects her value in the eyes of self respecting males, and it rarely has anything to do with maintaining her virginity for marriage as she seeks to uphold God's word. It has more so to do with women believing they're special princesses who even when they have a guy who is better in every way and she brings nothing to the table in return, that he still has to go through a bunch of hoops and circles to be "worthy" of her when all she is is just some woman, and that's really not saying much. It originates from a lack of humility, not a humility towards something higher such as God or an understanding for the value of chastity in how it helps foster a better culture for family formation.
I agree that many women say no to sex on a date because (drumroll please) they don’t want to have sex with that person at that time. As you say, it’s not always because they believe it’s their duty and/or in their strategic interest to be virgins. They just don’t want to have sex with everyone they meet on a first date.
I doubt you’d want to have sex with every woman you met, either. Even if she were “better than” you by her own estimation.
Please extend some empathy and reciprocity.
“ largely because these extremely male-centric UI decisions lure vastly more male users than women; what economist could have predicted this problem with a heterosexual dating app”.
I thought that this was the intended business model. Women aren’t going to pay for dating apps, only men will in enough numbers to support a company. So the only way to make a viable dating app is to hook male users willing to pay, unless you get some donors to fund a non-profit dating app that has different aims than making money.
You say you can’t be bothered to speak about pornography but could you anyway?🙏
I think we're afraid of saying just how bad porn has been for sex. Men, women, we won't say it because it might mean the Other Side had a point 30 years ago.
I'm happily married and we have wonderful sex. Not an incel. But here's some uncomfortable truths. From someone looking in as an outsider. Porn....
1. Is good enough. (I don't use porn) Women, for many men sex with you is simply not worth the effort modern women demand in a relationship.
2. Even if it's technically "better" it's a numbers game. A 100 % chance at 50 dollars is a better better bet than a one in a million chance at 10,000 dollars.
3. Separates sex from womanhood. The whole social contract was if you want sexual feelings and arousal from a woman, you had to take the whole person. Reducing the value of sex via porn, well reduced it's value. Your not offering anything I haven't seen a million times already.
4.The mind, is the biggest sex organ, for men and women. So a quick dopamine release from fantasizing about a women they don't have to interact with...yeah it's good enough. Even better, swipe 10000 times to find a real woman who just wants to fuck? Perfect.
These aren't my values. I left the game described here. I don't masturbate or look at porn. This draws me out of myself and makes me attentive to my wife and her needs as a whold person. She, for her part, makes every effort to be physically and employed available.
That’s true, of course, but I’m curious what people think about what pornography does to people’s sense of the erotic. For example, I’m beginning to suspect that all these cool “poly” New Yorkers are not so much into hotwifing, or whatever, but that they really don’t know how to cultivate the erotic dimension of life, so they use the only model they have. It seems like porn kills the imagination generally.
This is where I will boast of my sins so that truth might prevail. I was in a dark place once and fantasized about those exact things. It is very literally the addictive nature of porn to escalate and kill imagination and reduce capacity to become aroused by the erotic. Porn induced erectile dysfunction is a real thing, precisely because real life can't compete with a virtual haram or what ever the kink of the day is. Now, after much sobriety, and meditation, seeing her lean over and pluck a strawberry from the garden...back to feeling like I did when I was much younger. Completely compelled. It's a holy erotic. And, to extend the thought, it's only after a pornified vision of life, does an erotic desire for the divine sound perverse.
This post’s cover image is sooo on point, almost too much so.
I agree with your analysis of how dating apps like Tinder are tuned to the specific way most men experience attraction, but I think it's missing the part that explores why is it that women still engage with these apps. If those apps were wholly unattractive and unpleasant and incompatible with women's cognitive toolkit, they simply wouldn't use them - and Tinder would meet the same fate as a dance club with a reputation for sexual assault.
I'm sure that there already exists a term for this phenomenon - but I haven't seen it yet - so I'll call it "attempt aversion": that tendency to avoid social and mental repercussions for failure by never really trying at all, thus self-sabotaging the chances to actually succeed. If a woman (or man, attempt aversion is not exclusive to any gender) makes a Tinder account, actively and assertively filters her matches for a suitable partner, and then doesn't succeed - that's likely to contradict some personal narratives she has about herself and her attractiveness.
The way to avoid that is to make a very light attempt at reaching the desired outcome (install app), but without committing to it much at all (actively filter). If it fails - well, "I wasn't trying anyway". If it succeeds - "I can do so little, but still do so well! "
She already has specific photos of herself she really likes, achieved after countless hours of grooming her reflection, so she can easily upload these to the profile.
A text bio presents the problem of effort - typing up an abstract description of yourself is not a common activity, so would require a bit more time to structure and type it out. Realistically, this is not a big commitment - she will spend tens of hours on the app, so 15 minutes thinking of a good bio is nothing. Regardless of that, most bios won't even contain the obvious detail "what kind of arrangement am I looking for" - this would constitute making an attempt.
When a match is made, there already is a script that allows her to not make any attempt at effort - the men are supposed to pursue the women! Unless she caught the golden goose, no energy need be expended, and the failure need not hurt.
Humans are not innately strategic. A lot of the time will default to social games played with an imaginary audience. Tinder lets women (and men!) play these games much easier than the more text-based competitors, so it will keep winning.
Love the advice in that last paragraph. Unlike dating apps, you might still have fun even if you don't end up banging any of them!
So what, specifically, would a dating app built for women look like? I think there's a lot of money in this, because if you can get majority-women on your app, lots of men will want to join too. Google tells me even Bumble is 67% male. [Edit: This fact would appear to disprove your thesis, since Bumble was designed by a woman...] And the feminists on reddit are telling us that flirting with women IRL in pretty much any context is essentially verboten. That just leaves the apps, and the apps suck.
Heck, nowadays with AI you might even be able to build that dating app yourself. If you're so smart, why aren't you rich? If you know so much about what women want out of dating, why aren't you already running a thriving majority-female straight dating service? ;-)
Women really liked okcupid back in the day. It prioritized users that spent time filling out profiles, sharing actual information about their personality and values and beliefs, and it incentivized more long-form messaging and conversations. You can still find older people all over the internet talking about how they met their spouse of many years on okcupid after just a few months on the dating website. Apparently that wasn’t profitable enough though because now it’s a tinder clone like the rest.
OKCupid did some experiments which strongly suggest that the profile text basically doesn't matter: https://qz.com/241479/okcupid-experimented-on-users-and-proved-everyone-just-looks-at-the-pictures
I think the marketing aspect, where OKC tried to spin itself as "not just a meat market" by including the compatibility scores and so forth, might have been helpful even if compatibility scores were basically bunk.
>Apparently that wasn’t profitable enough though because now it’s a tinder clone like the rest.
I think the shift to mobile devices also played a big role.
Feminists on Reddit are an even smaller minority than women on dating apps. I promise you that if you small talk with a woman in public and ask her out at the end, you will have a much higher hit rate than dating apps, and the rejections will be mostly “I’m flattered but no thank you” or “I have a boyfriend”
>Feminists on Reddit are an even smaller minority than women on dating apps.
reddit has almost as many users as X: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_at_least_100_million_active_users
But yeah I agree reddit feminists are nuts and I try not to pay too much attention to them.
>I promise you that if you small talk with a woman in public and ask her out at the end, you will have a much higher hit rate than dating apps, and the rejections will be mostly “I’m flattered but no thank you” or “I have a boyfriend”
I've tried this. I find that usually I have a friendly convo, maybe even make out, she gives me her number, then just doesn't text back in reply, or stops replying after a few texts. I don't think it's any sort of magic bullet.
All you'll be doing is boosting her ego. Men shouldn't approach women. High effort, no reward.
Asking someone out in public is very low effort with very low risk.
Except getting arrested, beaten up or worse.
It's high effort, no reward.
You’re not getting arrested or beaten for asking a woman out in public. You live in a cruel world of your own creation. The real world is much more forgiving than you assume. I’m going to stop interacting with you and hope you can heal from some of this pain. I promise you are lovable and there are tons of women out there who would love you if you didn’t self sabotage by believing in this stuff.
If you actually had some experience and good advice I'd be more willing to take you seriously. The fact that you advocate for men to approach women and ask them out in person shows how harmful your advice is.
Yes, you can. It also boosts her ego and gives her validation. It's creepy to do it.
You have no evidence for any of your claims. Plenty of men are unattractive to all women in the world.
I also have probably had far more success than you've had, ironically. I've never had to do desperate things like asking women out in public or approaching then. All that does is show how unattractive and desperate you are.
Who’s arresting people for asking someone out??
Modern society. Women will call the police.
😂😂😂
Because women yearn for a romcom plot. They don’t want some pedestrian way of meeting people. They want the meeting to have magic and beauty and spark and a flash when you see someone across a room and love them immediately or at least are attracted to them.
So it simply can’t be converted into a mass product. Unless you start making romcoms - which I fully approve of.
They're not politically correct anymore and you know it.
All the new attempts fail because they won't make the heteronormative story a majority of women want to see.
Maybe part of what's going on is a downward spiral, where the bleak dating app experience leaves men thinking of dating as a grind to be optimized, which is the opposite of the romance mindset which attracts women.
Aka they're delusional.
The closest mass produced replacement is booktok smut
I'd argue that's actually a different genre--back when they had romcoms they still had Harlequin romances. Women have love stories and porn too. they're just both textual.
Yes there are still romcoms by authors like Lindsey Kelk, Emily Henry, Mhairi mcfarlane and many other romcom authors.
Oh authors absolutely, I just had the impression they weren't making romcom *movies* anymore. Romance probably has the widest range of any genre, you can get a chaste Amish romance or an MFM BDSM story if you want one.
Romcom movies used to be made by men because they wanted to know what women want. They loved women.
For example the director of When Harry Met Sally had wanted a sad ending with both of them ending up alone, even though Nora Ephron argued against it, but then he met the love of his life and decided that yes, Harry and Sally would get married and stay happy together!
Men must counter their inherent romantic cynicism by doing romance as a job and it will be good.
And now, well :)
Please stop with the “the feminists on Reddit” crap. The internet is not real life and happily the overwhelming majority of actually human women are blissfully unaware of the opinions you ascribe to that crowd.
If you believe feminists on reddit have bad opinions, why are you attacking me instead of them?
Just simply
What
Dating apps have the same exact pathologies as lottery: they do not sell results, they sell a very small chance of something very good, thus they sell daydreaming and hope. Same exact business model.
Aren’t something like 30%-40% of relationships now arising from meeting online? “Lottery” seems pretty qualitatively different.
You have a lot of really good points. Yes, an awful lot of men want casual sex and yes, it usually doesn't work out that well. And yes, Tinder was as far as I know a heterosexual version of Grindr. And yes, sometimes women do get more attracted to you after they get to know you more.
But...
1. Largely due to the aftereffects of recent social movements, I also think a lot of men are simply too intimidated to try talking to women in person anymore. In many cases it's not socially acceptable to approach a woman in public, and entering a social circle with the ultimate goal of finding a romantic partner is considered 'sleazy'. There was a bit on Tiktok where the lady was talking about the recent Rachel Drucker article in the NYT about how men don't talk to her anymore and how it confirmed her experiences, and the comments were full of men saying things like "You told us not to approach you. We listened."
2. There actually were apps that included longer form profiles and compatibility questions--most famously OKCupid with its questions ranging from 'do you like the taste of beer?' to 'if you had the chance to eat human meat any way you want, would you try it?'. They were bought by Match along with lots of other dating sites and rapidly declined. A big problem is that the incentives for the company and users don't align (as OKCupid actually said in a blog post they took down after getting bought)--they want you to keep swiping (and paying), you want to get paired off--and leave the site.
3. There's also an argument that this is an intrinsic failure mode of dating sites with a practically-infinite supply, because they run a prisoner's dilemma with a very large number of participants. It's actually an effective strategy (if nobody else does it) for a man to constantly swipe right, as you get to see everyone who swiped right on you, so eventually more and more men do it, and the few guys who don't never get looked at because, well, the women are deluged with likes so they're just going to swipe right on the cute guys. (I experienced this myself on OKCupid in the late teens--I would carefully craft responses showing I had read all parts of the lady's profile, and eventually my response rate dwindled to the point I just had to swipe right on everyone and then do that on mutual matches.)
I mean, that is literally what women said "men shouldn't approach us." They have no right to complain.
I'm married happily with kids and a good sex life. I say that because "incel" is the insult of the day when women hear opinions they don't like from men.
"but pornography in its current form is undeniably a replacement of the best version of the real thing (sex with a real live woman that you think is hot who thinks you are hot) with something that is good enough but worse (watching someone else have sex with a woman who probably looks like she’s having more fun than any woman you’ve ever banged). "
This is a good claim...but for many men, actually, sex with yall isn't worth the effort modern women require to stick around. You flirted with an uncomfortable reality. Good enough, is , well, good enough. Once AI porn hits and men can watch themselves have sex with any women doing literally physically impossible feats...good luck. Enjoy the liberation I guess.
Most women are really delusional about what they are « worth », that’s for sure. They fail to realize that after enough experience a men realize that fucking is just a necessity for tension release and not a goal in itself. It doesn’t have that much of a difference from women to women and porn is a good enough approximation indeed.
I think this is why they are working on banning porn in some parts of the EU, women have realized that they don’t hold the cards (despite what they like to pretend) and as with everything they complained and got what they wanted.
Definitely. I'm married and honestly it's Definitely more of a loving thing for me too rather than purly physical But you're 100% right...women psyop-ed themselves into believing they didn't have the cards...and now porn has absolutely lowered their negotiating value collectively. The milks free now. These aren't my morals, but the milks free. The cows....
I happen to be a man, and I loathe dating apps. That said, I really don't know what to do about socializing.
Join a yoga class
Same, I don't think we're rare
Also I'm not a fan of most hobbies or groups of people that I have access to, and I feel very weird when I try to start an hobby or join a group with *ulterior motives*