something_else

This is so judgy

I‘m surprised you’ve made out with 10 women in a night and not got laid with any then. Because in my experience at least 50% of the women I’ve kissed in clubs have ended up sleeping with me

I’m guessing that because you’re in a conservative Muslim city, hooking up is a lot more frowned upon? You’re probably making the right call to move. Logistics wise, I got laid the most in my life when I lived a 30 second walk from the door to a nightclub. Fun times.

I don’t need alcohol to socialise anymore because I drank alcohol and used it to gain massive social experience, despite being very socially anxious. Although I do still enjoy it occasionally if I want a really fun night. Alcohol basically cured my social anxiety by giving me the confidence to go and find out that socialising is actually really fun and not something to be scared of. I have so many crazy experiences, stories, and friends that I just would not have if I didn’t drink. These experiences would actually be worth sacrificing 10 years off the end of my life for me, although I don’t think I’ve actually drank enough to do that.

It’ll probably get you laid. Or at least make it much easier. If you’re socially anxious and you need a way to relax when you’re out partying or whatever, a bit of alcohol goes a long way. The risk to reward ratio is very favourable if you drink in moderation. I’ve tried cocaine a few times and it’s not worth it. Some people seem to really enjoy it but it just felt like I’d drank a few red bulls. And it cost me like $80. For the price tag and the health/addiction risks it’s not remotely close to being worth it. It’s not going to ruin your life instantly like the other two drugs you mentioned but it’s just a terrible risk to reward ratio. It’s kind of obvious that taking heroin or meth is a terrible idea. That can actually destroy your life just by taking it once or twice. So don’t.

He seems pretty certain these have no side effects, but I really doubt that.

I think you may be overthinking this

@Princess Arabia Women enjoy interesting men, there is no doubt about that. A big part of being interesting is having some depth/intrigue about you. Men who find a healthy balance between being open + direct and interesting + mysterious are usually the ideal. Obviously it depends on the woman but in general I find that tends to hold true.

Thanks for the links. Looking at the actual numbers from these studies, the correlations between number of sexual partners and relationship stability are there, but they're very small. There's typically a negative correlation of around -0.1 to -0.2 between no. of partners and things like relationship satisfaction and stability. That's very much in the weak correlation category. For reference I think 0.3 to 0.5 would be considered moderate and above that would be considered strong. You can see that correlation between many of the other categories (e.g. communication, sexual quality) in the chart below sit around 0.6, showing that they are far more important qualities. My statistics is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure you can calculate the estimated percentage effect of the no. of sexual partners on relationship stability by squaring the R value. So in this case the correlation between no. of partners and relationship stability is -0.17, so that works out at (-0.17**2) * 100 = ~2.8%. That means no. of sexual partners accounts for around 2.8% of the total variance in relationship stability. While for communication, this works out at around 35%. So this kind of shows the same thing as what I've seen in other studies. There is a correlation there, but it's definitely weak.

What issues that these people care about do we focus 50% of our political bandwidth on?

You made good points in this comment. However on this point in particular, the studies I've seen are never particularly convincing. IIRC there is a massive jump in divorce rate between 0 and 1 premarital partners and a minor but not especially significant jump between 1 premarital partner and 10+ The issue is that a majority of people with 0 premarital partners are heavily religious and would be prevented or discouraged from getting divorced even if it was the right decision.

Jesus dude, I missed your reply. Calm down I just assumed that by referring to 'the wokes' you were talking about left leaning people in general. That's typically how the word 'woke' is used nowadays. I guess what you meant by it was extremely left people, bordering on hippies—and sure—I guess they are not particularly focused on practical solutions. I can't say I've met many of these people though. Usually left leaning people of all degrees are very much aware of the issues you listed.

It should be easy enough for you to do it again then. I'd appreciate it if you could explicitly point out the: mental gymnastics fallacies hypocrisy the points you made which I ignored (this one confuses me the most because you posted a video and an article, you didn't make any points) anti-meritocracy misuse of statistics Because I'm struggling to see any of those in my post. I talked briefly about asymmetries in other industries. In female dominated fields there should be a drive to hire more men, for the same reason. There usually is to some extent, especially in healthcare for example, although it's not as intense as it is in fields like tech. This is just a strawman. I did not say white men all have an easy life. Men have plenty of challenges in life. On average white men have an easier time building a career than white women, though.

A true meritocracy would be amazing, but it’s just not possible. At least not anytime soon. Humans are too biased for that. Even if we could make hiring decisions perfectly merit-based, it would still be unfair because the playing field isn’t level to begin with. If white people are far more likely to have access to quality education than black people, then even a “pure” meritocracy (where equal education leads to equal hiring chances) still reinforces inequality. To have a truly fair meritocracy, you’d need a truly fair society. One where everyone has the same opportunities from the start, especially in education. And right now, we’re nowhere close to that.

That's pretty fucking wacky, I'll give you that. However this is ultimately just one small team at one company. I’m immediately skeptical of this study because the headline is deliberately misleading. The actual finding was that 1 in 6 hiring managers have been asked—not told—to deprioritise—not stop—hiring white men. That’s a big difference in tone and intent and shows a very clear bias. In industries where white men (or white women, like in healthcare or education) are significantly overrepresented, aiming for a more diverse workforce isn’t unreasonable. If you’re part of the majority, DEI makes you feel like you’re being penalised, but it’s less about making things harder for you and more about easing access for people who’ve historically faced more barriers, even when just as qualified. Take tech, for example. If you’re a white man entering a field where 70–80% of employees are white men, you’re still statistically far more likely to land a job in that field than, say, a Black woman with equivalent skills. She’s going to have a much harder time in a white male dominated field because humans are naturally so biased towards their in-groups. And it’s worth noting that startups and small-to-midsize tech companies usually don’t push DEI initiatives very hard. It’s mostly the big firms that make a point of it. I’m using tech as the example because it’s the space I know best, but the same pattern holds in many industries.

I'd appreciate a link to that. Even if this happens, it is not remotely close to common practice. Maybe 1 out of every 10,000 companies would have a policy of 'no white men' If you are a woman, minority etc. and you're equally capable of completing a job as a white guy, the white guy is still more likely to be hired. DEI just exists as a way to balance that out. It doesn't exist specifically to fuck over white guys.

This would be illegal in the vast majority of the Western world. You know that they don't actually stop white people from applying and getting the job right?

I think you have the right and the left mixed up in your head A left leaning government is far far more likely to prioritise the issues you listed here. Right wing governments tends to focus on issues like excluding trans people or kicking out immigrants because these issues get them votes.

There was a video created recently in the UK discussing the surge in Reform UK voters within the university. Reform is our far right party which has recently gained a ton of traction. The gist of why all of the young men interviewed in the video were drawn to it was essentially because they were struggling to date. The incel type dating content online is all very right leaning and so it ends up creating a pipeline from 'struggling to date' to joining the far right. Ironically being far-right makes dating even harder for you, especially in a university lol.

If some women want to use this strategy then they can. Other women can also behave however they like. Some guys like to chase, some don't, some enjoy games, some don't. Everybody is different and your approach to dating all depends on what kind of partner you want. Some men and women enjoy more dramatic and transactional relationship dynamics (which is fine) and this approach will work for them. If you want a more equal/partnership relationship (also fine) then this approach will not work for you.

Because you are pumping up how great and amazing salespeople are while also claiming they have to get rid of their own ego lol

@Nilsi Do you work in sales?

Yea, you’re right. It varies a lot depending on the sub. Generally you have to pick the right place to post and you’ll be alright.

Then the issue is definitely your tone. I see posts about loneliness and male mental health on Reddit all the time, and usually the comments are very supportive, unless the poster comes across like a fuckwit. So if even on reddit you’re not getting support, I’m sorry, but it’s on you. I may have been a bit harsh in my wording in my last post, but I stand by the core of what I said.

It’s because of the way these guys bring their issues up. For example, look at the way you write here. You can just feel the whiny shitty energy radiating out of you. Any girl who talks to you in real life will feel it too. I know that’s insulting, and I’m sorry for being so direct, but it’s true. No girl thinks “oh yea I really want the man whining online about how his life sucks and he’s miserable”. You have to learn to express your issues and problems in a way that’s more eloquent and less toxic. Then people will take you seriously and not label you as a manosphere incel. You can absolutely talk about loneliness, shyness or any other emotional topic with girls, or other guys. They’ll be very understanding if you do it in a way that shows even a modicum of social awareness. The same is also true for women, by the way.