Warning sign about what, exactly?
why won't the bitches just open their legs for any guy without strings attached
I don't see how you read this into his comment
What the fuck is it about sex that makes humans crazy?
Is this a rhetorical question? I feel like you could answer this
This is usually because they conflate promiscuity with low standards, they're not equivalent
Considering who posted this it's difficult not to read it as a thinly-veiled rant. I think the responses cover most of the best answers but I'll add that the phenomenon you describe is very exaggerated online where a subset of users (especially on Reddit) have a rabid hatred of incels, Redpillers, and any group of men who have anything less than perfectly normie, bluepilled opinions on gender relations.
I'm reminded of this thread where a young man sexually propositioned a classmate he was friendly with. It did not go well for him. I think his approach was misguided and someone should nicely tell him that, he's still very young and has plenty of time to learn from the mistake. But many of the commenters jumped straight to "he's doomed to be an Andrew Tate fan or an incel". I think this is a bizarre, almost autistic response. Like telling someone posting about struggling with their faith in Christ that they're doomed to be Dawkins fan. There's definitely some people just looking for an excuse to rag on sexually unsuccessful men. Either women who just use them as an outlet for their rage or men virtue signaling their superior moral status.
/r/Tinder is similar. Every now and then a woman will post a man starting a convo with an overly forward pickup line and the comments will be filled with people saying "ha! next thing you know he'll be complaining about how women on Tinder don't wanna fuck him!". Which is especially bizarre considering that the most popular genre of post on the sub is men trying similar lines successfully. Almost like a low-effort, sexualized pickup line will sometimes get you laid on an app designed to get you laid with as little effort as possible. Shocking.
In general I wouldn't put too much stock into the opinions of people who comment things like this. Worth remembering that a lot of the content you read online is produced by insane people. In real life, women are mostly just baffled when they hear an otherwise normal guy is romantically unsuccessful. I remember an ex being shocked my college roommate was still a virgin and she said something along the lines of "why doesn't he just talk to some girls at a frat party and get it over with?". Which is sort of adorably naive. Though tbf that was in 2017, slightly before that incel discourse had reached its peak online.
Being unemployed is seen as a moral failing because someone has to provide for you. Either a relative or your countrymen through benefits paid via taxes. Doesn't really apply to inceldom. Even then we recognize there are people who are unemployable through no fault of their own (the mentally disabled/mentally ill).
Daniel Ingram's Mastering The Core Teachings of The Buddha, which Scott reviewed a few years ago. I've seen a few interviews with Ingram and he's a fascinating guy. Shamelessly claims to be Enlightened, and can speak in detail about what that entails. He also writes from a secular but not anti-religious perspective.
Completely agree, their end of the year list from 2013 is very diverse and holds up really well: https://www.albumoftheyear.org/list/255-pitchforks-top-50-albums-of-2013/
Pretty much thought it was fake based on the title alone. When he described his appearance I was about 100% sure it was fake. Even male models would likely struggle to get to 200 matches/week and looks matter more than job title in online dating. And the job title on Hinge is not displayed that conspicuously. He didn't mention anything about pictures in a ferrari or a nice beachview apartment.
Pitchfork's Best Albums of the Decade for each decade are decent, diverse lists (though avoid the ones that came out after 2016 or so). After that Spotify playlists are quite good. Just pick a song you like and the radio station based on that song will usually introduce you to similar but less well-known music. That's how I discovered Melvins through a radio station based on Alice in Chains' Them Bones.
Among 2nd generation Indian-Americans, I literally don't know a single one who believes that Vishnu, Shiva, Kali, etc. all exist as separate entities. They're more or less panentheists that sometimes pray to a one of the Devas (usually Shiva or an incarnation of Vishnu) as the personality of The Absolute. Sometimes they don't even do this and their beliefs are indistinguishable from New Age spirituality (which ofc is heavily influenced by Hinduism).
I can't fathom having sex with a woman who lives with her parents, is this a European thing? In America I think it's your place or bust. Maybe exceptions might be made for Chad.
If you are looking for something that might build some kind of relationship that lasts a relatively fun period of time and leaves you both feeling like you've contributed in some way to the net authenticity, and, even, romance of male/female interaction, I would rethink.
Completely disagree, will just copy+paste from my other comment:
Alcohol is a social lubricant and gives her another reason to rationalize sleeping with you quickly. And yes, that is important in online dating because you'll have lots of competition who won't be afraid to move fast. I think the whole idea that it's better to take time and build up to making her feel butterflies in her stomach only applies to someone you met more organically. In the online dating world, strike while the iron is hot or the whole situation will lose momentum.
There's really nothing about first date sex that would preclude a more meaningful relationship later on in my experience and those of my friends.
Do you cook? If so, decide a menu. Pick her up and take her grocery shopping. Buy wine if you must. The more stops on the way the better, up until your butter begins melting of course. If you can shop and get home before anything has begun to spoil, you're fine. Now go back home
Suggesting cooking dinner on a first date seems more like you're trying to sleep with her. I've done this on a 2nd date and did sleep with her and she was fully expecting that from the moment I suggested it. In fact I find it odd you didn't manage to (unless you were actively avoiding it).
Where are you meeting these women? I am quite bad at picking up women through my mostly STEMbrained male social circle and have only cold-approached a few times but I have been on several online dates. Best strategy I've found is first a bigger bar somewhere in the city (sit at the bar) and then a more intimate one closer to your place (where you sit in a booth and can hold her hand/kiss her), both on the first date. Alcohol is a social lubricant and gives her another reason to rationalize sleeping with you quickly. And yes, that is important in online dating because you'll have lots of competition who won't be afraid to move fast. I think the whole idea that it's better to take time and build up to making her feel butterflies in her stomach only applies to someone you met more organically. In the online dating world, strike while the iron is hot or the whole situation will lose momentum.
Edit: mandatory disclaimer that these dates were all in big American cities and dating culture might be different in Britain
Respect for disregarding the social norm Zoomer women seem intent on pushing these days.
Would you have any qualms about going out with a girl who’s 18 or 19? I had a 25-yo friend turn down an attractive girl because she was 19.
I just meant the sample is disproportionately older people
The case he makes is that there is significant overlap. A Christian might see Jesus as a spirit guide, a Hindu might see Shiva, but there’s still a sense of the other reality being eternal and more real than this one.
Interesting video on Near-Death Experiences and what they might tell us about the afterlife.
It's basically a summary of the book "Why An Afterlife Obviously Exists" by Swedish philosopher Jens Amberts. It makes the case that:
- Almost everyone who has an NDE comes to believe in an afterlife
- There are no psychological/sociological predictors of who has an NDE, so they are a random sample of the population
- 10s of millions of people have had them
- They're skewed by age ofc, but even children who've had these experiences describe them in similar terms
The go-to physicalist explanation for why these happen is a release of DMT in the brain at the moment of death, which I'm sure the author is aware of. I haven't read the book yet but I'd be curious to know how he compares these experiences to DMT trips. Given the sheer number of people who've had NDEs there must be a few thousand who have also tried DMT, would love to read their thoughts comparing them. Of course, even if they did claim there were substantial differences, we could say that other chemicals are involved in different doses and these are all just a particular flavor of psychedelic trip. Still, seems like a topic worthy of more research.
The Problem of Evil isn’t just “why does evil exist” it’s “how to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of a benevolent, Omnigod (omnipotent/omniscient)”. I think it’s intractable and so it’s a good argument against the existence of said God.
A similar problem from a nondual perspective is why does the Universal Self experience itself as separate selves that go on to hurt each other? Darwinism explains most of this after the original dissociation, but that dissociation still needs an explanation. I’m not sure we’ll ever find it but I’m not sure it’s truly intractable either.
Just a bit awkward to go bar-hopping with friends or a date and not be mostly sober after 2 drinks
I have had very little alcohol throughout my life, but recently I've been going out for 1-2 drinks a week. Even after a light dinner, and one beer, I'm still tipsy enough that I stumble over my words. If I keep this up, can I expect my tolerance to improve any time soon?
I'd pass on even a hookup with an attractive woman who has had too many partners.
It's usually not that easy to tell. There are indicators of particularly extreme promiscuity but I've often been surprised.
In both cases only one party gets most of what they want: sex for men, emotional intimacy for women. In most real cases of friendzoned guys and girls having casual sex, no one is making it clear that the relationship has no chance of going further
This particular argument doesn't convince me at all. If you go home with a man after a first date that wasn't particularly romantic you should be aware there's a risk there won't be a second. If it's happened to you a few times, learn to say no or lower your standards to find a man more likely to commit. The friendzone example is even less convincing, are women supposed to suss out which of their male friends are romantically interested in them and preemptively reject them?
But most hookups don’t start with the man being propositioned, it’s usually a result of them consciously pursuing a woman.
Is anyone of the opinion that even honest, non-coercive casual sex is immoral, for secular reasons? I think I share a common preference among men that I’d rarely pass up on a hookup with an attractive woman but would probably not date a woman long-term who has slept around too much (“too much” is probably decided on a case-by-case basis and there are other factors involved). I can see how that’s hypocritical in one sense. And according to my own value system, I’m denigrating the value of women I have no long-term intentions with but other men with my shared preferences might. But a certain libertarian perspective also says “whatever is honest, legal, and uncoerced is ethical” and men (including me, probably) will just have to learn to settle later in life for women with a higher body count than they deem acceptable.
What distinguishes an "innocent misunderstanding" from, well, whatever you think it is? I lean toward "it is an innocent misunderstanding" because that sort of behavior can easily result from uncritically taking terrible mainstream dating/hookup advice at face value, such as:
#1 and #3 taken literally are retarded but they're suggested all the time online, mostly by women. In reality hooking up almost always involves a situation that starts with some plausible deniability and maybe a little alcohol. And women hardly ever complain about the setup after the fact. He might have gotten away with this had he invited her over to his place to study, rushed through a problem set and then handed her a beer and put on a movie. But were he to post about this idea there would be people, some of whom presumably understand signaling and subtext irl, who would accuse him of getting her drunk to take advantage of her or being a creep who tried to sexualize what the poor girl thought was an innocent study session. To a naive young man who doesn't have the experience or intuition to understand that advice on Reddit and from women generally is effectively designed to preserve your virginity as long as possible, the approach he actually took seems much less manipulative and therefore ethical.
More options
Context Copy link