something_else

It's probably not that insane. I reckon there's a high overlap between ADHD and having lots of partners. It certainly wouldn't surprise me. There's also nothing wrong with it either.

That doesn't really add up, as something like 50% of LTRs start via dating apps now.

This is false, or at the very least completely unproven. There is a demonstrated increase in divorce rate for people (not just women) with 10+ partners, but it’s pretty minor. There are several far bigger factors in divorce rate. If the underlying reason for a high body count is BPD or a generally chaotic lifestyle or something else unhealthy, then yes, perhaps a long term relationship is unwise. But the same is true of a man. The reason for the high body count is more important than the body count itself.

Most rapists are not men who struggle to get sex. Rape is rarely about sexual needs. It’s about power. This is very well understood academically, you need only google it. You said sex is more fundamental than power, but no. That’s wrong. The reason power makes sexual dynamics so hot is that power is often a prerequisite to sex. In the past, powerful men got the most sex and so these concepts of sex and power are tightly interwoven within our biology. Obviously this can be expressed in healthy ways, but as a result of this a certain number of people desire really extreme or fucked up power dynamics. This creates rapists and pedophiles and the like. It’s actually more common for men who have been in relationships, married, or slept around to rape a woman than men who are sexless. Again, you need only use google to see this is quite well established. Really it wouldn’t surprise me if most of the guys who commit the crime of rape have slept around a lot. A sense of entitlement, not taking no for an answer, a need for power, and a need for control are all major motivators for rape. And as fucked up as it is, these traits overlap with superficially charismatic men, who probably don’t struggle to manipulate women. On an even more fucked up point, the guys who struggle to get laid are probably largely incapable of committing the crime of rape. Again, this is incredibly fucked up and there’s no nice way to say it, but rape is not easy. It requires a certain messed up kind of confidence and strength that your average socially anxious sexless normal man probably just does not have. One final point, most sexless men aren’t craving sex itself. They’re craving the love and desire that comes with it. Which of course you would not get from forcing someone to have sex with you. In short: Incel > doesn’t really have sex, craves love in the form of sex Rapist > probably already has sex, but craves more power in the form of forced sex, or views sex as a way to assert dominance

A lot of instances of rape are committed by men who don’t struggle to get laid. Rape is about exerting power more so than lack of sex in many (if not most) cases.

I think you guys are stereotyping dating apps way too much. Something like 50-75% of woman under 30 have used one. Most of the people on dating apps are just normal people

The irony is that reading between the lines here shows more bias than any of the items you actually listed

Then why are you unable to form an argument or even a a simple chain of reasoning explaining your point of view? you just make assertions and pretend you know what everybody else is thinking, and that you know better than them.

I've met several couples in their mid 20s to early 30s who have been together since they were like 18-19 and haven't really experienced single life at all. Even though they were all healthy relationships, almost universally they said they felt like they'd missed out on that aspect of life, male or female. If you've only ever been with one person you're most likely going to experience that FOMO at some point. Better to get that out of your system, get some experience with several types of people to really figure out who you're compatible with, and then settle down when you find the right person. This applies to male or female btw. I recommend you stop judging women for sleeping around a bit or thinking that it makes them "low quality"

To be honest, I think this kind of bias can often be quite beneficial. As Osho famously said, "the people are retarded." But the reality is that people are only retarded most of the time. Sometimes things are popular or trendy for good reason, and if you instinctively dismiss anything simply because it's conformist, you're inevitably going to misjudge things some of the time. I notice this pattern a lot because my dad has it to the nth degree, and I've seen both the benefits and drawbacks firsthand. Much of the success he's had in life can be attributed to his non-conformist outlook, but so can many of the problems he's encountered. It's very much a double-edged sword. Another (slightly random) example I've noticed is among frequent travellers and backpackers. You'll meet people who insist you should avoid anywhere that's "too touristy", and perhaps 80% of the time they have a point. But some places are popular precisely because they're incredible, and dismissing them outright means missing out on some genuinely amazing experiences. The irony is that this attitude is itself incredibly conformist within the backpacking community. In trying so hard to avoid following the crowd, you end up blindly following a different one.

I think the one I notice the most is a non-conformist or anti-mainstream bias. The discussions surrounding AI highlighted it the most for me. When everyone else was saying AI was terrible, you were talking about how it was great and smarter than most humans. Then when it became mainstream you were arguing that it was not that smart, and not 'real intelligence' like what humans have. There are other examples too, but that one jumped out at me the most. As far as bias goes, it's not that bad IMO. But sometimes things are hyped and popular for a good reason, and an anti-conformist bias can cloud the ability to see that.

Dude, please for the love of god stop pretending you know what other people are thinking. It's infuriating. Not everybody thinks the same way you do.

I mean it isn't a clear cut line, but yea, it's one aspect of it.

Emotional repression in the short term to deal with an immediate threat is valuable. In the long run it will eat you alive.

Yes, I'm always very clear about this. Though a lot of the girls I end up with casually are also pretty sexually open so I get the sense they enjoy talking about sex and past experiences as well with no strings attached. I think that you may be applying your own experience to other women prematurely. I think on average women do need more of an emotional dynamic to enjoy sex than a man does, but that can come in many forms. A lot of men can literally put their dick inside any woman and cum without a care in the world, but I agree that women need at least baseline chemistry to even consider it. If the chemistry is playful and fun it can create the emotional stimulation required even if it's short term. Similarly, I also struggle to have mechanical sex when there is zero chemistry or emotional dynamic of any kind, but that chemistry or dynamic doesn't have to come from a deep long term connection.

This is great advice if you’re already vaguely put together. If your life is a mess it’s better to learn to fit in to society first before you try to break out. The ideal is to be just familiar enough to new people that they feel comfortable but just unique enough that you’re interesting. A lot of people try to go straight for unique and interesting without learning to calibrate first I.e. fit in, and that’s usually a mistake.

That's essentially exactly what I said in the rest of my response outside of the small section you quoted.

Hunting and warfare are quite different. Like I said, men's strength adaptations were probably more for war with other humans/tribes rather than specifically for hunting. Humans have never relied on their strength for hunting, even the strongest human would lose to a lion in a physical fight. Our strengths when it came to hunting were stamina, being able to throw things, and being able to use tools, all of which a pre-historic woman could do effectively too. That's a perfectly reasonable evolutionary hypothesis, and I suspect there's some truth to it. But it assumes hunting was sufficiently dangerous that the reproductive costs of women participating outweighed the benefits of the additional food they could provide. We don't actually know that, hunting deer and small animals probably wasn't very risky. And even if it explains why men generally hunted more, it doesn't establish that women were excluded from hunting altogether. Also, there's another flaw in this argument. Men aren't nearly as disposable as you're making them out to be. If a tribe lost 20% of its men, it's not like their partners would suddenly just jump into bed with other men. Humans formed pair bonds even back then. Men also contributed to childcare and providing resources, so losing them would have real consequences beyond just their ability to reproduce. It's not like tribes would happily send men off to die just because they were easier to replace reproductively. They likely had to balance the risks and benefits of hunting for everyone, not just women.

You're so sure you know how everybody else should be living and how they're thinking. Dude, live your own life and stop trying to insist everybody else should live life and think how you do. Have some empathy.

I agree with the overall sentiment of the criticism here, but I am inclined to play devils advocate a bit, for fun. One thing worth remembering is that a lot of our understanding of prehistoric human behaviour is reconstructed from fairly limited evidence. Evolutionary explanations can become plausible-sounding stories that reflect our more modern cultural assumptions. The underlying point this person is trying to make is "we don't actually know as much about how early humans acted as we all like to think we do" bundled in a controversial enough wrapper that it will garner attention. There almost certainly were women who hunted back then. The most successful way to hunt as a pre-historic human was probably endurance and throwing spears, which women aren't inherently disadvantaged at. We assume men developed strength for hunting and providing, but it's also possible men developed extra strength for intra-species competition like fighting other men, and war. Small Stage Purple tribes would likely have a lot of variance between them because there isn't a massive underlying social structure spanning empires that you would get from something like Stage Blue civilisations. Some tribes may have distributed hunting between men and women, some may have restricted women from hunting, some may even have been matriarchal. The truth is we don't actually have that much evidence either way, because it's all pre-historic. By the time we have access to historical record we're already hitting Stage Blue where the variance starts to coalesce into modern social hierarchies and distribution of labour.

This is 100% already, or going to become, a cult.

@Emerald I think women do fantasise about sex with a guy even if it’s casual. But as you say, casual sex is freely available and so the standards for fantasising about a guy casually are way higher than they would be for a relationship. There often has to be some hot power dynamic, or he has to be really hot, or charismatic. I think this gives rise to a lot of the incel beliefs that women only want the top X% of men, because in a casual sense that’s often true. Girls who are having casual sex often go after the guys that still present a bit of a challenge for them to ‘get’ casually, which will be the guys who have other options. Obviously this is a heuristic and not universally the case. But I’ve had quite a bit of casual sex and still find that women who are open to it fantasise a lot about it with me, or other guys they’ve hooked up with. One of the more interesting things about casual sex for me is that with that casual dynamic, women seem pretty willing to share thoughts on sex snd dating, and past sexual experiences. Compared to a guy they’re interested in dating where I get a sense they’d be less willing to do that.

Yea, exactly. I’m not even sure porn is that much of a net negative. Stuff like infinite scroll algorithms on social media are orders of magnitude worse and probably easier to regulate

Banning VPNs would be absolutely wild. There are so many legitimate use cases for them, for example many companies use them for security.

No! I disagree. I don’t know it. You can’t just assume other people feel the same way you do about a topic.