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

https://sci-hub.ru/10.1037/a0017364

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?