site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   2302 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 23, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In my experience young (and especially young and attractive) women rarely come to the bar alone, usually with a friend/spouse or in a group of friends who are having their own conversation and don't want an outsider butting in.

This has been my primary observation. Any woman who is out is always accompanied. Sometimes its by a less attractive friend who can police the men, other times its a gang of girlies who are just out to get some instagrammable moments.

Last night there was a squad of stereotypical 'bros' (zoomer edition) sitting at a table near us. And one (1) lone woman who I assume was one of the GFs.

There was a squadron of girlies wearing matching outfits that were all attractive but very inward facing, and you could read the signs of 'self policing' where none of them were 'allowed' to go talk to a guy even if they had the inkling.

And the one thing you NEVER see is a lone woman, at least not one who stays still for very long.

As a male, you begin to realize is that for the amount of money you'd spend on a night out swinging futilely for a date, you could subscribe to a handful of girls' onlyfans accounts and be GUARANTEED a positive interaction, you'll get to see boobs and cooch if you want, and she'll at least pretend to find you attractive.

The older guys have the money to buy her drinks and are sexually non-threatening, and thus will win most of her attention.

I could do a whole screed on older (and I'm starting to count myself in that number) guys who can just burn wealth and leverage their experience to monopolize a woman's attention, even if he doesn't really want to take her home. The boomers who were raised on "keep women happy and safe" will sometime lavish their oodles of money on women just because she's there.

Which makes the young upstart, with his entry level job and studio apartment (if he's lucky) seem like a loser by default.

And Mr. Boomer will probably blame the guy for lacking confidence or failing to close the deal without noticing how his own presence has changed the very nature of the game.

Sometimes its by a less attractive friend who can police the men

This is your opportunity right there. Since 90% of guys will hit on the more attractive woman, the less attractive one is used to used to her getting all the attention and ends up playing sheriff out of resentment, if nothing else. If you hit on the less attractive one, she feels validated, and the more attractive one is both relieved that she's not the one getting hit on and feels good for her lovelorn friend finally getting some action. And if you start talking to a group of girls, always be prepared to hit on the least attractive one in the group. If this girl is a real dog, then don't necessarily throw in the towel, but have realistic expectations.

Used to be you could bring a reliable wingman for that purpose.

I recently started to explore speed dating events. For those unfamiliar, the way they work is they arrange a number of pairs, and you go through a few ~10 minute conversations (strictly timed) over the next 1-2 hours. You get to mark down your like/dislike per person, sometimes with specific intentions (friends/romantic/hookup) depending on the event, and matches get each other's contact info.

The pros are that the conversations are opt out rather than opt in, and they're one-on-one by design, so the part about the woman's attention is solved. Since she paid her entry fee as well as you did, she's probably not the kind of person to stare into her phone for the entire duration of the time slot, either.

On the other hand, it's still up to you to leave an impression over 10 (usually less) minutes enough for her to reply, even if you end up matching. The women there are also probably not the same as those who go to bars, but that might be a pro for you rather than a con depending on who you're looking for.

Overall, I'd say it beats a dating app in terms of getting guaranteed talking/flirting practice for the same price of a few drinks you'd spend at a bar.

I did go to a speed dating event last year.

Bit of a dud.

Some of the women flaked, so they delayed the start time to call in some pinch hitters.

Even after that the ratio came out to (as I recall) 8 women to 11 men.

3 of the women were single mothers.

Although I can say that the locale was a good spot, I actually liked it enough that I invited a girl I met through the apps out to that spot later on. Date was also a dud, the apps suck.

I appreciate that speed dating events are 'trying' to create a space where it is appropriate to interact with ladies with very open intent, but I still lament the dearth of 'organic' meeting opportunities that are available.

I second this. As long as you have done enough self development on your attractiveness and ability to hold a conversation, speed dating is great. Time wasters are weeded out because its a paid event. The girls are (almost) guaranteed to be single (some organisers give free tickets to their taken contacts to even out the gender ratio).

The time/cost investment stacks up very well compared to the apps. You don't need to spend an hour broken up over a week convincing an app match that you're safe/not boring enough to meet for a coffee.

Worth a try if you're looking for something serious.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats