5 ms·

Economic equality means women don't need to pair up with men for utility reasons anymore, which means a lot of men will be leftovers since this has historically

by DC1350 6y ago

Economic equality means women don't need to pair up with men for utility reasons anymore, which means a lot of men will be leftovers since this has historically made up a huge chunk of all marriages. Polygamy or at least polyamory follows since sexual and emotional needs are better met by one man to many women pairings. This is very easy since online dating creates a super efficient market where most women have hundreds of options and most men have very few. Unmarried and sexually frustrated young men are generally unsatisfied with life and prone to engage in antisocial activity.

jfengel 6y ago
I am genuinely sorry that so many men appear to grow up in a culture that teaches this about women. It's deeply misogynist, and makes the assumption that women must hate men just as much. This simply isn't the case. The vast majority of women genuinely like men. Not as penises to be notched, but as human beings. Many of them want a long-term partner because it makes them feel good. It's nice to have a person they can rely on and develop a life with. It's hard enough to find one person for that, and many are content with finding that one person. For most women that's going to mean finding one man. And that gets even harder when faced with the sheer number of men who seem to think the way you do, seeing women as commodities on a "super efficient market" to meet their "sexual needs" -- and threatening "antisocial activity" when they're not met. If you ever wonder why women refuse to date you, you can cross off everything you think is at the top of your list -- money, attractiveness, ambition, whatever. Every reason women refuse to date you is in your post here, and none of the others matters even a tiny fraction as much as you think it does. Your "sexual frustration" has nothing to do with women. If you need an orgasm, go take care of it yourself. If what you want is a trophy of your economic and sexual prowess, don't use a human being for that. If what you want is a partner in life -- including one who takes an interest in your sexuality -- stop talking about them as if that were a commodity to be purchased or a prize to be won. And certainly not as predators looking to use you, because that's precisely how you are appearing to them. Women are human beings. Seek out a human connection with them, and you'll discover that that's something that they want, too. That doesn't make it easy to find one who is a good match that stands up to years or decades. But that's not the reason you're alone, brooding about how better men are taking up all the women.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  Not the OP and happily married 42 y.o. But the following sentence is worth looking at under current conditions: > Women are human beings. Seek out a human connection with them We (as "world") have a problem with dating moving completely online. There isn't much human connection to make on Tinder, it is a very artificial and unnatural environment that places enormous value on photos and little else. All the other dimensions of a human being are secondary there. My experience from the dating world of the late Analog Age (1996-2006) says that things like sense of humor, kindness, quirkiness contribute enormously to total attraction. These qualities are hard to express online.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    I had a lot of dating success both on Tinder and pre-Tinder. My experiences are of course anecdotal, but I think worth considering. Tinder's focus on photos is somewhat misleading. A picture is, famously, worth a thousand words. If you treat Tinder as a simple HotOrNot game, you will have problems. But a photo contains a lot of information about a person: what their interests are, what's important to them, even whether they're conscientious enough to seek out a good picture. When you put up a picture of yourself at your hobby, or traveling, or in front of your bookshelf, you say a lot. My heuristic was this: I examined each photo that caught my eye with a thought about something I could say to them. "Hey, I also visited City X!" "What a great fish tank. What do you raise?" Even "That dress is amazing" is a truthful statement about something that makes me interested in them. If I didn't have anything to say to them based on their photo -- maybe they'd be interesting In Real Life anyway, but at the very least I know that they're not very good at thinking about how they present themselves. I do wish Tinder had better support for what text it does have. I'm a person of words, and would like to know that they have at least something to say. It's not presented by default and I don't think they push people hard enough to fill something out. Still... I started several multi-year relationships on Tinder (and Bumble). Humor and kindness are still found there; they start in the chat and quickly move into the real world. (Being a person of words I really liked long involved chats before we met, but apparently a lot of women have experienced being strung along, and there's a push to meet up earlier rather than later. That tends to favor cities, where a lot of people are close by. The worst you lose is the time for a short coffee date.) There are certainly plenty of difficulties, but I don't think the photo focus is as bad as you'd expect. I found it no more unnatural than other ways of meeting people, which are also often very visual since that's your first impression.
chaorace 6y ago
This makes sense if you don't believe in the existence of undesirable women. They exist, and there are just about as many of them as there are undesirable men. When you improve "dating market" efficiency, you're essentially reducing the overall disparity in attractiveness between any given "pair". Believe it or not, even ugly people get together. Sure, there's a lower floor, I suppose some people are simply so hideous as to be unlovable, but money would only have done so much in those cases!

by DC1350 6y ago

jfengel 6y ago

I am genuinely sorry that so many men appear to grow up in a culture that teaches this about women. It's deeply misogynist, and makes the assumption that women must hate men just as much. This simply isn't the case. The vast majority of women genuinely like men. Not as penises to be notched, but as human beings. Many of them want a long-term partner because it makes them feel good. It's nice to have a person they can rely on and develop a life with. It's hard enough to find one person for that, and many are content with finding that one person. For most women that's going to mean finding one man. And that gets even harder when faced with the sheer number of men who seem to think the way you do, seeing women as commodities on a "super efficient market" to meet their "sexual needs" -- and threatening "antisocial activity" when they're not met. If you ever wonder why women refuse to date you, you can cross off everything you think is at the top of your list -- money, attractiveness, ambition, whatever. Every reason women refuse to date you is in your post here, and none of the others matters even a tiny fraction as much as you think it does. Your "sexual frustration" has nothing to do with women. If you need an orgasm, go take care of it yourself. If what you want is a trophy of your economic and sexual prowess, don't use a human being for that. If what you want is a partner in life -- including one who takes an interest in your sexuality -- stop talking about them as if that were a commodity to be purchased or a prize to be won. And certainly not as predators looking to use you, because that's precisely how you are appearing to them. Women are human beings. Seek out a human connection with them, and you'll discover that that's something that they want, too. That doesn't make it easy to find one who is a good match that stands up to years or decades. But that's not the reason you're alone, brooding about how better men are taking up all the women.

inglor_cz 6y ago
Not the OP and happily married 42 y.o. But the following sentence is worth looking at under current conditions: > Women are human beings. Seek out a human connection with them We (as "world") have a problem with dating moving completely online. There isn't much human connection to make on Tinder, it is a very artificial and unnatural environment that places enormous value on photos and little else. All the other dimensions of a human being are secondary there. My experience from the dating world of the late Analog Age (1996-2006) says that things like sense of humor, kindness, quirkiness contribute enormously to total attraction. These qualities are hard to express online.
- jfengel 6y ago
  I had a lot of dating success both on Tinder and pre-Tinder. My experiences are of course anecdotal, but I think worth considering. Tinder's focus on photos is somewhat misleading. A picture is, famously, worth a thousand words. If you treat Tinder as a simple HotOrNot game, you will have problems. But a photo contains a lot of information about a person: what their interests are, what's important to them, even whether they're conscientious enough to seek out a good picture. When you put up a picture of yourself at your hobby, or traveling, or in front of your bookshelf, you say a lot. My heuristic was this: I examined each photo that caught my eye with a thought about something I could say to them. "Hey, I also visited City X!" "What a great fish tank. What do you raise?" Even "That dress is amazing" is a truthful statement about something that makes me interested in them. If I didn't have anything to say to them based on their photo -- maybe they'd be interesting In Real Life anyway, but at the very least I know that they're not very good at thinking about how they present themselves. I do wish Tinder had better support for what text it does have. I'm a person of words, and would like to know that they have at least something to say. It's not presented by default and I don't think they push people hard enough to fill something out. Still... I started several multi-year relationships on Tinder (and Bumble). Humor and kindness are still found there; they start in the chat and quickly move into the real world. (Being a person of words I really liked long involved chats before we met, but apparently a lot of women have experienced being strung along, and there's a push to meet up earlier rather than later. That tends to favor cities, where a lot of people are close by. The worst you lose is the time for a short coffee date.) There are certainly plenty of difficulties, but I don't think the photo focus is as bad as you'd expect. I found it no more unnatural than other ways of meeting people, which are also often very visual since that's your first impression.

chaorace 6y ago

This makes sense if you don't believe in the existence of undesirable women. They exist, and there are just about as many of them as there are undesirable men. When you improve "dating market" efficiency, you're essentially reducing the overall disparity in attractiveness between any given "pair". Believe it or not, even ugly people get together. Sure, there's a lower floor, I suppose some people are simply so hideous as to be unlovable, but money would only have done so much in those cases!