There has always been a population of students that attend college/uni with seemingly no higher goal than scoring and making life worse for everyone around them. The only interesting development here is that the published diversity data has allowed them to finally create Scumbaggery as a Service.
If there are students in the class who need help but don't want to go to the upperclassmen, then I'd assume the professor would have more time to help them. Overall I'm curious if the class is doing better or worse than previous classes.
and people *not* having the wealth and freedom to have children, being burdened by 80+ hour work weeks to pay rent on a place they'll never own or have capital in.
Listen to the millenials and gen z'ers before you make bold accusations.
This data's a little old, but makes the point:
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2013/unintended-preg...
in every meaningful sense the income/fertility relationship is negative.
No. That is definitely not more likely.
We're wealthy, free to pursue our hobbies, and advance in our careers. Nobody's body is getting wrecked, nobody's free time and sleep is getting upended, and it's generally a Very Good Time.
Both having kids and not having kids feels selfish for different reasons. It's hard to really feel like there's a right answer here.
For what it's worth, my partner and I have made the same decision. We're not having children. It's already too difficult to buy a home here in Brisbane, let alone with the spectre of climate change related problems in the future. And, more to the point, we love our lives as-is!
Of course having kids is also selfish, as it's bringing someone into this world just to fulfil your biological imperative to reproduce; you create a human being that will (if you don't screw it up) love you for the rest of your life, and your gift to them is this fucked up world, forced to consume scarce resources that may already be gone by the time they're old enough to actually enjoy being a human.
Women are relatively lonelier than in the past too.
It is weird when people take a class specifically because of that reason though.
It is even weirder when the class in question is something that they have a very high skill level in specifically so that they will be able leverage that into some kind of situation that leads to dating.
This is pretty cut and dry to me, I am not sure why so many people in this thread see no problem with this.
Really? I know people who specifically chose their entire major based on the ratio of women in that major.
It’s like the attack of the puritans here.
I don't want to whip out the dictionary definition of that word, but in what way does choosing classes to spend more time with women (because your existing classes are full of guys) mean you hate women?
But that isn't really what we are talking about. The average hypothetical man choosing his class or major because of how many women are in it isn't looking to make female friends.
He just wants to surround himself with a higher percentage of people that he is sexually attracted to.
I assume you're not saying that, but you're not explaining why this behavior is misogynistic. At best, you might mean that if a man is sexually attracted to women, and he seeks out the company of women, then he must believe that women are sexual objects made strictly for his personal pleasure. Is that what you're trying to say?
I am sort of saying this but not as tautologically as you are stating it.
I am saying that generally, when someone chooses a class or major because of the high percentage of people taking it that said person is sexually attracted to, said person is probably objectifying those people. Said person is probably not interested in friendships with those people or with the personality of those people.
I am not saying that any situation in which a person seeks out another person that they are sexually attracted to is misogynistic or requires objectification.
What is this modern style thinking that sex is bad? Sex is a tool for love making.
It comes across that you are demonizing natural and biological sexual attraction between the opposite sexes, and categorizing it as objectification and bad. Then there is oddly separating the possibility of friendship or having an interest in people beyond sexual attraction, as if this is not possible. To include, based on previous statements, these are probably misandric beliefs directed towards men in general.
There is nothing wrong with being physically attracted to the opposite sex, and it's also possible to form friendships or be attracted to other aspects about them. A man can think of a woman as both physically attractive and intelligent. A woman can look at a man as both attractive and possessing a nice personality.
And whatever are the attributes that attract one person to another, that is their right. It is not for a 3rd party to decide what two people find attractive between them. If they want only the purest of friendships or only completely sexual relationships, that is their prerogative. Of which, we usually can't truly know, because both men and women can lie. Only when the line is crossed towards actual violations of written legal policies, violations of human rights, or criminal behavior that it should become the concern of 3rd parties.
This statement comes across as a bit misandric, but in way in which it appears not to be realized. It's demonizing males who are attracted to the opposite sex, which is natural biology, and as if men shouldn't be allowed to freely associate with other adults of the opposite sex.
On the flip, I don't see women being demonized for wanting to be around a higher percentage of people she is sexually attracted to. Be it males or other females. To include if she chose a class or major with higher prospects for meeting the opposite sex, dating, or for greater marriage prospects.
> The average hypothetical man choosing his class or major because of how many women are in it isn't looking to make female friends.
Again, the casual male demonization and vilification, is both sad and amazing. Few people would come to the conclusion that a woman choosing her class or major based on greater opportunities with the opposite or same sex, would find that to be nefarious by default.
> If you are someone who genuinely enjoys the company of women over the company of men, then I agree that it is not misogynistic.
The later statements contradict this statement. It also appears that for a male to genuinely enjoy the company of women is something weird or odd. Why can't an adult prefer to be around other adults that they want to associate with. There are many women that state they prefer male friends to female friends. That's their preference or personality, nothing nefarious should be read into it, without evidence.
Going into "easy" courses you have already mastered to force interactions with others is different.
Therefore people wanting to but unable are not human, I guess.
I know people have some conditions (such as psychopathy) where they don’t form attraction towards other people, I also know there are people that do form attractions but have a hard time expressing it (such as in autism), however I don’t know of any condition or neuro-diversity which wants to form attractions, but is unable to, that would be like a psychopath that still show empathy (which is kind of a contradiction).
But if these people exist, they are still human. I merely said that humans have this capability, not that it was a necessary condition for human individuals.
You've claimed that it's weird that these men go to these lengths to find partners, because it's supposed to be just natural for them to find them.
It's clearly not.
My main point is that if you go about living a normal live, attend social functions, or just see other people on a regular basis, most people will be attracted to some of the people they meet along the way. What I’m getting at, is there is no skill nor effort needed, nothing needs to be carefully evaluated and planned. These attractions just arise naturally for most people. So altering your life course to maximize some chances of attraction, that is weird.
> ...go about living a normal live, attend social functions, or just see other people on a regular basis, most people will be attracted to some of the people they meet along the way.
It is more of a feminine perspective and privilege to wait and hope random luck will take care of romantic matters, because males pursue females. Many women are able to get attention, as a matter of biology. Ignorance on the mechanics of what is occurring in the background, with regard to why this attention exists, can lead to distorted and misplaced views.
Furthermore there are clearly great numbers of people (male and female) that are shy, fear rejection or embarrassment, are socially awkward, or at some disadvantage in social settings. To pretend otherwise, seems to be making a concerted effort to remain oblivious.
> What I’m getting at, is there is no skill nor effort needed, nothing needs to be carefully evaluated and planned.
That is not a perspective many others share and when people are specifically and repeatedly saying this is not the case, it's not helpful to blatantly ignore them. For various people, and more so for men, they do need various levels of knowledge, skill, effort, and/or planning.
You are right, I might be the one who is tone deaf here, but I still get a strange vibe from people that do this kind of thing, and personally I think I would feel uncomfortable around them.
When I did math & cs - there were almost no women in any classes I took. The few that showed up were typically fob and didn’t speak English much at all or have any interest in integrating.
[Edit: It's sarcasm... mostly]
> As Scott has kindly allowed this discussion to carry on, let me try to inject some more sisterly honesty into the question of dating and what women do or don’t want.
> Let me start by noting that there are a few billions women in the world so the question as posed is ridiculous . In fact I will just say what the sort of women I know well want and leave you to guess how widely applicable this could be. Everything below is unbelievably obvious to most people but I feel is somehow being hidden from the argument by feminists.
> In broad brush strokes, we would like the attractive men to find us attractive and potentially to hit on us *and the unattractive men not to notice we are women.*
> In fact we want a very small percentage of men to find us unbelievably attractive and to hit on us, but in, you know, a nice way. We would like a slightly larger number of men, but still small, to find us very attractive but to do nothing about it (they can talk to each other about how hot and unattainable we are though) and the rest just to completely leave us alone and preferably have no thoughts about us at all.
> But of course it’s not actually that simple, sometimes we don’t even want the hottest men to hit on us. It depends. *To achieve this attraction of the hottest men, we would, like millions of women, dress in a way that is designed to be maximally attractive. A lot of thought and a lot of money goes into the design of the clothes women wear and it’s not an accident that your eye naturally runs up the leg of the dress or down the cleavage*. But how can you dress in a way that is attractive to the men you want but not attractive to other men? How can you let it be known which subset should hit on you? You can’t of course. We Western women take a not very well calculated risk every day hoping that the odds will work out in our favor.
> *It is of course disgusting when an unattractive man hits on you in any situation. You might say we should hit on men. Apart from the fact that you would then just reverse the problem, we don’t want to. Rejection is humiliating*.
> As you may tell, we would like to have all our cakes and eat them at once. But who wouldn’t? Women are just like men, people. Those who are aware of the other nations of Earth will also notice that some cultures don’t think this degree of freedom for women is a good thing. Despite what our media may suggest, they are not simply insane. Although you may not agree with them, our system is not without its flaws.
> My advice to nerdy men would simply be this. If you see a women you would like to date, ask her gently and respectfully (and only once) for a date somewhere non-threatening. How about lunch? She may reject you out of hand. If so, take it politely but confidently and move on and don’t worry about it. Everyone normal understands that what you have done is perfectly reasonable even though you may feel embarrassed at the time.
To note, chosing a field with higher ratio of women can be good for completely different reasons. After spending years in almost 100% male environments, moving to more balanced and diverse environments was like night and day, the toxicity was mostly gone, discussions and communication would be more interesting etc. I heard the same for women moving away from women only places as well.
So yes, looking at the ratio can be plenty helpful outside of any dating concern.
I've chosen my high school (CS-profiled) and major without any such consideration and ended up having ~0 contact with female peers through it all 'till now at 26 years old (and it's unlikely to change...)
I'm an aspie so I guess that might've been for the best*... still, maybe something is slightly off with the society in which this can happen. It seems rather absurd.
* Somewhen during middle or maybe even elementary school I figured I'm unable to understand dating and such, so I should just not attempt it / min-max. I didn't know I'm an aspie until maybe 2 months ago (or rather, I figured I probably am, but as it's permanent I didn't bother thinking about it much and researching information about specifics).
It didn't bother me much, except now I've got an annoyingly persistent FOMO. Eh.
The ends seem to justify the means, sometimes. I know a married couple who met on a college campus. While students, the man (boy at the time, really) was a manager and chose his and her hours at the campus store so they would overlap. They tell this story proudly. The distinction between weird and romance seems to be whether it succeeds.
I'm queer. I think the issue in the OP is more like that one episode of Community where someone who's very advanced at pottery takes a pottery course -- nothing wrong with meeting people in a class. Nothing wrong with having people see your kindness as attractive because you do things like organize a study group.
The problem becomes if you only let someone like Jeff Winger learn from you, and turn away the Shirleys. (To keep with the "community" analogy :))
I agree there's nothing wrong with joining something to be social, the issue is hiding your skill level or purposefully competing below it...
Why is it not weird that tons of people use digital buffets to rate potential mates in their area before matching and meeting (often for one night stands)? Is that much different?
What about people looking for "the one" and going to unrelated social gatherings with strangers with that passive desire in the back of their head? That doesn't seem all that weird to me.
What makes this feel weird just seems to boil down to "they are trying too hard" or "they are trying in an unconventional way". The post said it: there are no unwanted advances, there is no harassment, there's just young men trying to find a wife, and pursuing that in a pretty direct and unconventional way.
I don't understand how people here (not you) proudly kick the "pathetic" ones down, apparently convinced that it's virtuous to do so.
If it disturbs the surrounding environment (eg: inhibits work to be done, disrupts classes to be held, etc.), yes it does matter where and how it happens.
A love life is a strictly private affair; if it intrudes into professional, academic, or otherwise not-private time then you are doing it wrong.
It's completely another to pork yourself out in environments and situations unfit or not intended for such purposes. You ostensibly go to class to learn, not (eventually) fuck.
This "porking" you are referring to is not happening inside of her classroom, it's outside. The adult students should have the freedom to associate with whoever they want to, for whatever reasons they want to, as long as its legal and consenting. If any of the individual adult female students have an actual complaint of harassment, they can bring that case directly.
The teacher in question didn't personally like the nature of the associations being made among her adult students, and seeks to stop any possibility of "porking" through multiple public and elaborate means. To include attempting to indirectly shame all parties involved and force the school's hand.
2. Why is porking yourself out at work more appropriate than academia?
3. What if you stay in academia your entire life?
Making romantic and sexual advances and acts upon another.
>2. Why is porking yourself out at work more appropriate than academia?
I said no such thing. Porking out should be done solely in your private time.
>3. What if you stay in academia your entire life?
See above.
whether it's "predatory" for a senior in college (21) to prey on a 100-level STEM student (basically an 18 year old/pre-college according to my friend), that's a whole different question from "consent to being hit on" in my opinion
How close to the truth is this as a different take on your situation: "you slowly hit on them, and they wanted it, so they didn't report you to HR/make it a big deal"?
My question is genuine though and stands: when is it okay to communicate interest in someone? If the answer is never, it doesn’t really impact me, it just feels very telling with the times (third places evaporating, and most people spend most of their time outside the home at work). If there is a line, I’m curious where that line is, not to leverage it but to respect it.
“Don’t be a dick” but you’ve still gotta put yourself out there if you want optimize for luck and possibility. To handle rejection with grace is key.
> But many lovers meet at work, and it doesn’t necessarily end in scandal (conversely, it could lead to a fairy-tale ending, like the Obamas, who met at a Chicago law office while in their 20s). Data from 2017 shows that as many as one in 10 heterosexual couples in the US say that they met at work. Considering some data shows people in the US between the ages of 20 and 50 spend nearly four times as much time with colleagues than they do with friends, this seems all but bound to happen.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220228-the-inevitabil...
And most people have introvert friends and extrovert friends. You meet safe and good people through friend circles and then they get you to meet the other person.
>I mentioned to several of the people I interviewed for this piece that I’d met my husband in an elevator, in 2001. (We worked on different floors of the same institution, and over the months that followed struck up many more conversations—in the elevator, in the break room, on the walk to the subway.) I was fascinated by the extent to which this prompted other women to sigh and say that they’d just love to meet someone that way. And yet quite a few of them suggested that if a random guy started talking to them in an elevator, they would be weirded out. “Creeper! Get away from me,” one woman imagined thinking. “Anytime we’re in silence, we look at our phones,” explained her friend, nodding. Another woman fantasized to me about what it would be like to have a man hit on her in a bookstore. (She’d be holding a copy of her favorite book. “What’s that book?” he’d say.) But then she seemed to snap out of her reverie, and changed the subject to Sex and the City reruns and how hopelessly dated they seem. “Miranda meets Steve at a bar,” she said, in a tone suggesting that the scenario might as well be out of a Jane Austen novel, for all the relevance it had to her life.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex...
I think the solution that leaves everyone happy is: start a conversation with that woman, but if she's not interested, leave her alone.
Look at it in utilitarian terms:
* If the woman you're talking to isn't interested, your attempt to start a conversation will create a brief unpleasant experience for her.
* If she is interested, there's a chance at a great, long-lasting romance which will benefit both you and her.
The positive utility from finding your future spouse is much larger than the negative utility from a brief unwanted conversation. So on expectation it often makes sense to start that conversation.
"[27/F] Why don't guys approach me? I even go out on my errands alone, or hang out at cafes alone (like, go out and eat while reading a book) just to put myself out there."[1]
(edit) removed link to avoid HN's flooding someone's Reddit post
And that doesn't happen, so...
The real point seems to be to scare away men who can be scared away from ever attempting this.
Then only dominant/aggressive ones will do so. And they're seemingly the ones women want, so...
Two days ago at a party I saw a woman sexually harass multiple men without any repercussions, and she constantly apologized afterwards which somehow made it ok to continue the behavior all night.
Yes, that person clearly has unresolved issues to work on but the double standard is there and it's harmful in both directions.
Women have different personalities and indicate their attraction or lack of attraction in very different ways. Flirting for some women is the exact same behavior presented to everyone for other women.
If you want to know if a woman is attracted to you, ask her out and see what she says
how does one ask a woman out if the default is supposed to be "don't hit on me right now ever"?
Sometimes she'll say no to test to see if you're serious or not and probably to test your social acumen too. Picking up whether it's a "no, I'm not interested" or a "no, but I want to see more" is exactly the kind of social cue reading I'm talking about.
And yeah learning that can be rough for people who aren't naturals and especially rough for spectrumy folks. Some of whom will probably even say there is no such thing at all because they can't see it. But them's the breaks. The reality of the sexual marketplace is what it is.
Taking no for no, and moving on with a smile to other women can show confidence, and maybe she will reconsider and take steps to get back into your social life.
In general, asking over and over again hoping for a different answer can signal desperation.
So it turns out in this situation, the spectrumy response of just taking a response at face value, can also be the best strategy for the "sexual marketplace".
That is in addition to it just being the right and decent thing to do, of course.
Now why these social cues are so often subtle or ambiguous is itself an interesting question. It's not one I have any good answers to though. In this area, as in most, I'm a phenomenologist and not a theorist. Needless to say the phenomenology I've developed precludes telling a woman I'm interested in about the phenomenology I've developed. Except of course when I think she might find it attractive. Human social interactions are marvelously complex. Frankly my inclination to start navel gazing has set me back once or twice.
you're asking socially awkward + nervous + scared guys to 1. go out of their comfort zone and smoothly create inorganically an opportunity to strike up a conversation with someone, and 2. sprinkle in something that is considered flirtatious but not too strong that it falls under the category of "hitting on"
BTW, I’m not talking about PUA stuff here. Rather, I would think of it as practising the art of conversation, and cultivating a curiousness about other people.
A skill that you need to practice with dedication and that "takes time" to learn still doesn't sound basic.
As someone that has participated in lots of flirting, conversation, and curiousness about other people, I can say confidently that being curious and being good at conversation are not sufficient to navigate flirtatious behavior successfully, unless you're using "art of conversation" as a huge umbrella term which includes charisma / etc. If you are doing that, then I'll note that probably the majority of people on Earth have not mastered the art of conversation (or even cultivated it much) by such a broad definition.
isn't flirting a form of hitting on somebody?
which one of you is right? i have no clue
Some people just seem to know how to do this. For others its near impossible. I'm in the others group. When a girl was flirting with me in the past I sent messages to her that I wasn't interested. As I had no idea how to play that game. I didn't even know it was going on. Then when I was interested in a girl I tended to creep her out by being too awkward too direct. Even when I asked my wife out she almost dropped the phone as I shocked her by being too direct. Luckily we'd been friends for years and she knew me well enough to say yes.
How do people not get this? It's about basic respect. Isn't it totally distracting to you if someone you're not attracted in is looking at you and commenting on you and trying to "help" you?
Maybe you'd like unattractive specimens distrupting your coding process by hanging around and offering to be "helpful"?
Do we know they are objectifying? The post said this was about finding a future wife.
But I'm not sure your point holds water. If women want to date, they can. If they don't want to then they don't have to. These other students hold no power, assign no grades, and so on.
Perhaps the root issue is the demoralization of some not being offered dates or extra tutoring? But it's hard to see how that might be corrected.
I confess I don't see the actual harm here - those that want to learn can learn, those that want to date can date. I suppose those that want to date, but aren't getting any offers....?
Still, as an old man, I'm not sure I'm qualified to weigh in - but to me it sounds like kids being kids.
A key point is that these students do have power because they already know the coursework. That is the whole reason that they chose these specific classes.
How is that not an attempt to take a position of power?
I hope they can figure out a better way of meeting someone
Well, if they're dating in that class, then you're obviously wrong; those women who date in that class are there to learn and (obviously) open to dating as well.
Who are you to tell women who they may or may not date?
Just to be clear, you're advocating that we should take steps to prevent two consensual adults meeting because if they date it offends some other people???
Really? What sort of regressive primitive viewpoint is this?
Didn't we fight for decades to ensure that consensual adults can do whatever the fuck they want to even if some people find it offensive, disgusting and/or immoral?
I wouldn’t, because that’s not the point of work.
That doesn’t mean you should stop people from dating their coworkers at all.
If I’m teaching or participating in a class it’s reasonable to expect that everyone shows up with the same primary purpose: learning. Doesn’t mean you need to ban people from dating. But these men are showing up and ignoring the whole point of the class.
Obviously if the men are harassing the women, that's bad and they should be held accountable.
Should men not seek dates? Should men not go where single women are to seek dates? Should men limit their efforts at getting dates only to "appropriate venues", where women's interest is explicit? How does the man's attractiveness factor into these constraints?
None of this seems reasonable at first blush. Obviously women don't want men they're not attracted to to engage them with romantic interests. Conversely, women generally do want men they are attracted to demonstrate romantic interests, regardless of venue (to a certain extent). But how can this constraint possibly be enforced in a reasonable way?
But that is so different than showing up to class with the intent of getting a date. It's disingenuous and, when you have multiple people doing it, it's disruptive and disrespectful to everyone there who wants to learn, especially women.
I'm not saying people never ask each other out in class. What people were doing usually do is fine by my book. But this is a situation where a difference of degree becomes a difference of kind.
Seems pretty sexist frankly.
I think we can assume that most freshmen did not share that explicit purpouse for taking the class.
Any sizable group of people where there is fun occurring, will inevitably have someone complain because they aren’t included. It’s impossible to please everyone.
It also can happen if there are actual problems too!
But without looking at the situation, good luck figuring it out.
Nice personal attack though!
It's not hard to see how incel culture rose up and why people like Andrew Tate have so much support. Turns out chickens come home to roost.
When I was in college, many women were there for their "Mrs. degree." Not most women but enough that it had a familiar jokey label. This was even joked about by those same women who were partner-hunting.
And investing time into an activity to meet someone is the opposite of disrespectful. It shows a willingness to at least commit something. I don't see how this is any worse than taking dance classes to meet people. As long as they're not interrupting dance class.
Honestly assuming we send our kids to college (it's looking like a house and a trust fund will be cheaper by the time they're 18 if we're trying to be financially optimal), we'll definitely be telling them that finding their spouse is going to be the most important thing they could possibly do while there. Almost all of our two social groups are not married, and we probably wouldn't be either if we hadn't met in university (I almost certainly wouldn't be). It is probably the best opportunity for one of the most important events to set the course of your life. Absolutely people should treat it that way.
The situation that we are dealing with in many societies, is the attempted demonization of heterosexual males by certain groups, which ends up being destructive and a net loss.
That a woman would purposely choose to pick a class to find "better dating options" is fine or even a woman's privilege. If a heterosexual male does so, then it's distorted into being a type of crime or abuse, that certain elements feel it demands punitive school administrative actions or to be criminalized
> It is probably the best opportunity for one of the most important events to set the course of your life.
Not only have many known this for a long time, that college is often the best time and place to find a husband, but statistics bear this out. Many highly educated women who have got married, found their husband during college. When they don't, many regretted it and had severe struggles later on, or the clock ended up running out on their fertility and dating prospects.
Showboating, or "offering to help" in something you have already learned thoroughly is disruptive to others learning.
But merely offering, not pushing, assistance, or even less "showboating", letting students in search of help come to them if they want to, isn't disruption or even untoward.
> No, you just to treat women with respect.
We've really come to a point where even the purest romantic intentions (the post talks of wife material, not one night stands) are "disrespectful", have we?
Rule 2. Don't be unattractive.
It's not a joke.
Confidence and the ability to talk are huge. You're social status among your peer group. How well you dress. Do you look after yourself physically. All of these things can be developed.
"There's truly nothing you can do today to change her mind. All the things that would have made her say 'yes' are things you had to start working on 2 years ago. Today you can start working on who you will be in 2 years and persuading the girl you meet then to say 'yes'."
The unfortunate thing is that not only is this totally opaque, but society actually gives instruction that doesn't work, i.e. bad advice. That's how we get 'nice guys' and pickup artists. Young men have an overwhelming need for intimacy that they're driven to satisfy and there. are. no. guides. on how to obtain it.
I do pretty okay in that department now, but only from 20 miserable years of trial-and-error. Looking back, I had no opportunity to learn the things I know despite desperately looking for them. Felt like I was playing a game where everyone but me and my friends knew the rules. An older brother or maybe a coach might have been a help, but that's all I can think of.
And we also know a lot more about what doesn't work. As it turns out, nice guys simply have no need to gaslight or bamboozle others into doing things they don't actually want, quite unlike the males in OP's story; they have way better things to care about. And the best part is that women can tell; these are not things you can fool anyone about for very long.
They aren't trying to be creepy, they are just misguided and lost.
> Confidence and the ability to talk are huge. You're social status among your peer group. How well you dress. Do you look after yourself physically. All of these things can be developed.
So, "fit smooth-talking alpha guy"? I'm not sure I agree with it, but your description seems _very_ shallow TBH.
What traits, that are found attractive, would you describe as less shallow?
You got it backwards - my point was that your description of "many physical traits that women prefer but they're less shallow than us men" is as shallow as "hot lustful babe with big tits" or some other stereotypical horny teenager's dream partner that you probably meant by "shallow".
Also, you know that "gender X is less shallow than Y" is sexist statement, right?
>Also, you know that "gender X is less shallow than Y" is sexist statement, right?
I strongly disagree. It's like saying women on average prefer people and men on average prefer things. It's not a judgment just an observation.
Majority of things you mentioned are not personality traits.
> Unless your point is that attraction is shallow. That I could see.
Yes, obviously.
> It's like saying women on average prefer people and men on average prefer things. It's not a judgment just an observation.
Your anecdotes are not statistics.
Here are the things I listed:
Confidence and the ability to talk are huge
You're social status among your peer group.
How well you dress.
Do you look after yourself physically.
"Confidence and the ability to talk" is absolutely a personality trait.
"You're social status among your peer group" this happens as a result of your personality. If you are a jerk you will not be well liked and will not have very good standing amongst your peers.
"How well you dress" this is an external reflection of who you are. Do you put effort into picking clothing that fits and looks good. This has a massive impact of how other people perceive you. It's the first insight someone gets into your personality. Does this person care enough to put effort into their external appearance. Do they value the perception others have of them.
"Do you look after yourself physically" women and men are looking for life partners. Often people to have a family with. If you want to stick around for long enough to do these things you're going to have to maintain some level of a healthy lifestyle. That desire to maintain health is a personality trait. It doesn't need to be that you spend 2 hours in the gym each day. Just that you haven't let yourself go to the point that you need a mobility scooter and a cpap machine.
> Your anecdotes are not statistics.
Sure if you'd like data please refer to these papers.
Sex differences in sexual attraction for aesthetics, resources and personality across age https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8133465/
Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests
This is quite a reach. Sorry, I'm not going to argue any longer why "has a six pack" or "dresses nicely" are not a personality traits.
> Sure if you'd like data please refer to these papers.
Thanks for the links.
No they're evidence of personality traits.
Sure, using academic data to statically enter the easiest class with most chicks exudes pure romanticism. I'm sure the upperclassmen playing professor in a lab or doing the work of women they find attractive is totally helping the students learning. No unwanted advances are taking place is code for "no forced touch or stalking is happening".
This suggests otherwise. I personally would be very upset if someone helped me purely because they thought I was attractive.
Why be upset about the sky being blue?
Either way I think you're allowed to discourage whatever you want (assuming you do it in a civil way). Not everyone's going to agree though.
Some people are going to think/do things that you/I don't like. And sometimes there doesn't have to be some kind of resolution that comes out of it, some kind of trial and adjudication. Life can just go on regardless.
Yeah I think this is a good way to approach this. Absolutist views tend to be problematic. Society functions by breaking a lot of rules.
What if they helped you because you were funny, or kind, or intelligent, or any number of traits that are primarily related back to your genetics or upbringing?
This is how humans interact. It's rarely a concious consideration of the reason we help others, but it's almost always based on our perception of them.
> purest romantic intention
where did I say anything about unwanted advances?
> We've really come to a point where even the purest romantic intentions (the post talks of wife material, not one night stands) are "disrespectful", have we?
that's not what was said. read again.
You want to know what's romantic?
Respect.
Or do you want to be just like all the other bros who think there's a "trick" and you kinda like have to 'do A, B + C' then you "get" someone? That's a creep who see's women as some sort of prize.
EDIT: I don't know what you've assumed about this post but I'm a guy. If you are actually interested in someone for who they are, try to do good stuff and try not to do bad stuff and respectful you won't have much trouble. Just trying to be a decent human is a universal turn on.
> Isn't it totally distracting to you if someone you're not attracted in is looking at you and commenting on you and trying to "help" you?
And what if they are attractive?
You go to a class, offer to help a girl and then at some point later (End of the class, etc) you ask for her number. If she says no at any point you leave her alone. What's disrespectful about that if you're genuinely helping her?
Of course if you're leering and won't leave a girl alone that's disrespectful, but taking a class and offering help to attractive girls isn't inherently disrespectful.
My example above says otherwise.
>can you explain what is a respectful attempt?
One done in good faith. Which is a slippery and vague concept. The ambiguity would explain the state of this comment section.
>taking a class and offering help to attractive girls isn't inherently disrespectful
I, and others, would consider the crucial point here to be "taking the class" because there will be attactive girls there, to be the disrespectful part. It also matters that this is being done on a mass scale, so that many suitors are disrupting the studies of many students at the same time.
If men have to pursue women in "good faith" and not purposefully try to position themselves then I have news for you, 99% of men are 'disrespectful'.
I don't think this will be news to most women
EDIT: please cite a source for "99% of".
Bing bing bing! We have a winner!
Also these who are pursuing are the only ones who have a shot at relationship, pretty much.
So you are advising that _truly respectful_ males should just remove themselves from the gene pool. Great thinking.
Wait until you find out why men go to nightclubs...
"You don't get me Amanda, I'm stalking you because I just have so much respect for you. I'm one of the nice ones!"
"Well detective, I felt like we got off on the wrong foot because I kept a journal of her movements and social circle in a purely respectful manner, but she thought it was creepy. So then I thought, how much more respect can you show a woman than by carefully planning her murder and meticulously cleaning the scene and disposing of her body?"
That would be the "unwanted advances" that the complainants claim did not happen.
An extreme example, I know, but I can't help but think of the movie Audition.
I mean, "unattractive objectifying slobs", really?
Infact, that's exactly how high fertility societies operate. At least the Islamic ones, like Afghanistan for example, where the population doubled since 2001.
Fertility has been dropping since the 80s, long before anything to do with wokeism or meetoo or whatever.
But in our free societies, where dating and romance are left to chance, we are one by one prohibiting it in the places where that chance might occur, and not replacing them with anything. Not at school, not at the workplace, not outside the workplace if you are in the same profession and there might be a perceived "imbalance of power"...
That doesn't eliminate everyone you meet and get to know, but it eliminates most.
That's not what I said.
I said high fertility societies strictly prohibit dating-like activities in daily life and limit it to pre-designated settings.
This can happen without sex seggergation in school.
Iraq's population also nearly doubled since 2003 (23m to 42m). Schools in Iraq have not been seggregated since forever.
So nobody was woke in the 80s? Feminism and homosexuality just sprang up out of nowhere in 2010?
Ever wonder why murdering, killing, blood, guns are allowed on prime time tv but naked breasts are not? It use to be the opposite.
Isn't that the definition of "dating" though? If you're not at a previously designated "date" you're not really dating, you're just hanging out as friends. You can still try to show off good qualities that would hopefully raise the other person's interest. Sometimes people who hang out as friends even get involved quite closely romantically prior to having any formal "date" together.
Sometimes people who hang out as friends even get involved quite closely romantically
because that is really the better way to find a partner. someone you already know and are friends with.
>we routinely have cases where a young man is leading open labs as if they're a teacher themselves (in order to "wow" their female classmates, offer "private free tutoring sessions", etc). Some of the young students in my class take up these offers, and this further demoralizes other female students seeing this happen (i.e. only attractive women being offered tutoring sessions).
Imagine how it must feel to be sincerely interested, possibly struggling because they didn't have a great K-12 experience and thus didn't have things like pre-Calc or AP credits and then... being brushed aside so someone can "tutor" their crush 1:1?
Speaking as someone who's had the unpleasant experience of having someone treat me differently at work based on if I'm "datable", it's incredibly demoralizing, it makes you want to leave an entire field. On my end it made me leave a specific strain of research, but had it happened earlier on I'd have probably switched majors entirely.
You cannot ever harass someone through non-interaction, which is by definition aggresive and unwanted interaction.
People complaining the women aren't being offered enough "private tutoring" in a post about how men offering women "private tutoring" being harassment.
Being mildly autistic you can see why I don't date either gender with ridiculous sentiments like these being blown around.
Maybe not harass, but it's a form of discrimination -- only giving professional opportunities to people willing to fuck you is absolutely not kosher.
>Being mildly autistic you can see why I don't date either gender with ridiculous sentiments like these being blown around.
I'm also on the autistic spectrum, and I've never had an issue finding partners, and I doubt that complaints about tutoring are the reason your sex life has taken a pause.
I get that rejection is demoralizing. Probably almost any man understands that. But we can't exactly expect people to prioritize fairness to everyone in their personal relationships, nor does it make sense to ban students from seeking those relationships.
I don't think you actually think, that - be honest with yourself, have you ever spoke up on behalf on incels, claiming that they are actually a group of harassed males because females are ignoring them?
"Involuntary celibate" is a rapey, entitled, oxymoron of a phrase. Everyone wants physical affection.
I remember being distressed after the Elliot Rodger shooting, and discussing in therapy how I was... not like that... and still very lonely. I developed an eating disorder, because I had my PhD adviser and coauthors trapping me in academia by playing fast and loose with reccomendations -- only giving good ones if it'd benefit them getting tenure and keep me working on their grants, and meanwhile I had zero social life despite trying very hard.
(In retrospect, I should have taken a year off of drinking and dating and given it another go when I was healthier rather than fail upwards onto K Street, but that's a story for another day.)
Anyways... I'm talking about refusing to tutor someone unless they're pretty, not refusing to date them.
If you shut down any "fatties" or "uggos" who ask you how to smash the stack, you're engaging in a form of harassment.
I'm sorry that correctly stating a fact (giving different levels of support depending on if you've got romantic prospects) is a form of harassment apparently triggered so many.
Not only have I not spoken up for incels, I've actively advocated they should feel free to exit this planet (sans spree killing) if they feel that upset about their dating prospects.
(I'm not in the best place myself -- I got some bad advice on how long it takes to get an EU passport, so I'm stuck in a country I don't consent to living in with no job prospects because I'm not some alt-right lunatic and tried to stick up for people. But at least if I decide to leave this earth, I'll do it alone. But at least I know I can dial out for a booty call if I get sad, because I'm not some weirdo.)
Yeah, still not harassment. Discrimination maybe, definitely not harassment in any known dictionary.
> I'm sorry that correctly stating a fact (giving different levels of support depending on if you've got romantic prospects) is a form of harassment apparently triggered so many.
I don't think you know the difference between harassment and discrimination.
> Not only have I not spoken up for incels, I've actively advocated they should feel free to exit this planet (sans spree killing) if they feel that upset about their dating prospects.
Are you or are you not claiming that $GENDER_A ignoring $GENDER_B is a form of harassment?
If you're making the claim that MEN ignoring WOMEN is a form of harassment/discrimination, but WOMEN ignoring MEN isn't, then you're experiencing some severe form of cognitive dissonance.
Semantic difference. It's discrimination to only help the hotties.
>If you're making the claim that MEN ignoring WOMEN is a form of harassment/discrimination, but WOMEN ignoring MEN isn't, then you're experiencing some severe form of cognitive dissonance.
I've had folks politely turn down coffee, but I literally never had a female classmate refuse to help me with something related to an engineering course.
> Semantic difference. It's discrimination to only help the hotties.
>If you're making the claim that MEN ignoring WOMEN is a form of harassment/discrimination, but WOMEN ignoring MEN isn't, then you're experiencing some severe form of cognitive dissonance.
> I've had folks politely turn down coffee, but I literally never had a female classmate refuse to help me with something related to an engineering course.
Are you or are you not claiming that $GENDER_A ignoring $GENDER_B is a form of harassment?
Imagine how life must feel for these males, who, desperate for attention, spend large amount of effort going to classes which are useless to them, solely to get it (potentially). And then they're, IDK, reading threads on HN about themselves being _predatory_ and _manipulative_. Because they tried.
But of course, men don't matter. Can't wait 'till society decides to cull unattractive men or something - they're "dangerous" after all. I guess world war would be really handy, so that people unworthy of empathy can be dealt with.
I mean, seriously. You're blaming them for not trying to interact with people they're not attracted to?
Do you blame attractive women for not interacting with unattractive men? Ever thought about it?
I'm not even trying to say that the former is a majority that represents the real desires of the "society", and the latter is a vocal minority: I don't have the data for that (even though I suspect that might be the case — but again, I don't know). I'm trying to say, that I'm wary of such wording, because it contains an implicit assertion that some part of the society isn't really a part of society and what it demands doesn't count. Because society demands this and that, and whoever wants anything else, isn't the society: at best, it's a sore spot on the body of the society, which should be treated as such, by applying a medicine to cure that... thing. Which is rather totalitarian worldview.
So, I get what you are trying to say, but even just by saying it like that you kinda help the cause you are supposedly against.
It's not so much "society", as it being groups with extreme contempt, misandry, and hostility towards heterosexual males, that have pushed a very distorted narrative. That is acting like all heterosexual males are a constant danger and threat, in which all women in their presence must feel uncomfortable and under continual harassment. Leaders and advocates of such groups with negative views about men, act like they speak for all other women, and are continually attempting to push these biased and actually hateful agendas.
So we get placed more into situations where any actions initiated by heterosexual males, is perceived by such groups as aggressive or predatory. Asking someone out for a date, asking women questions, heterosexual flirting... easily becomes demonized. Despite how such is unfair, illogical, and opposed to biology. It should be no more of a "threat" or "violation" for a man to ask a woman out, as a woman to ask a man or another woman out (note the included cases).
Furthermore, many heterosexual males are afraid to even ask women out, for fear of rejection or embarrassment. Lots of guys can't do it or seek advice. Asking out the opposite gender is not something that needs to be so tightly regulated, unless its truly a case where the person has repeatedly said no (thus actual harassment), is stalking, blackmail, extortion, etc... And in that context, women are equally capable of harassment, stalking, blackmail, etc...
> men are to behave as eunuchs, and all prospects of romance are to be extinguished.
There is a trick being played here, to get to that misandric destination that certain parties wish for. This is to stealthily and by defacto limit and restrict male rights, and give women extraordinary and special rights.
So, push the situation where only women would have the right or privilege to initiate the possibility of a date, with men or other women. Where if a heterosexual man attempts to do so with women, he would face the possibility and fear of punishment.
Think about what this teacher, who is so preoccupied with the dating lives of her students, is trying to enforce in her classroom. Looks like if she got her way, she could actively restrict the numbers of male heterosexual students in her class, for any half baked suspicions. Wants to control the popularity of where heterosexual males want to go. Then seek punishment or expulsion for any male heterosexual students that might of asked one of her female students (like she's their owner) on a date.
It seems increasingly that society demands a world where dating only happens during designated and approved dating times and venues, and outside those strictly delimited places, men are to behave as eunuchs, and all prospects of romance are to be extinguished.
Then wonder why marriage and fertility rates are tanking.