This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Continuing my theme in the previous comment of springboarding off the QC thread for discussion topics...
War of the sexes, but specifically regarding long term relationships and marriage.
What, in your opinion, should/does a desirable male partner bring to the table? What should/does a desirable female partner bring to the table?
The goal here is not specifically symmetry, if the desirableness is asymmetrical. For example, if you think a woman should desire a man with a stable job, but a man would be neutral or negative towards a woman with a stable job, then there's no need to include that on both lists.
To make the discussion more specific, less hypothetical: excluding amorphous concepts of "chemistry", what is the concrete package of measurable traits the opposite sex needs to offer for you to want to commit to a relationship with them? What is the package you are offering them in exchange? Do you feel this is a "good deal"?
(I'll answer for myself in a reply rather than answering within the question.)
I guess. I can answer better for the women seeking men side.
First of all, mature. This can be a lot of things. Can he keep up a household without hand holding, bathe, do the laundry, do very basic cooking. Is he prone to neglect important people or tasks for long Tv or video game sessions (which is a red flag). Would he be able to be trusted alone with a small child (in the he watches that the kid doesn’t get hurt sense)?
Second, does he have, or is he working (seriously on getting) a full time family-supporting job? Does he take that job fairly seriously?
Third, is he a well rounded individual? Does he have lots of friends he sees regularly? Does he have hobbies and interests that are not media related? Does he understand the basics of how the world works?
More options
Context Copy link
I'll echo my learned friend in argument @f3zinker and say this is the real test. I do think over time patterns can be observed in who I have chemistry with and who I don't, but it's there or it's not. If you gave me a woman who met a bunch of objective standards I'm about to give, but the chemistry wasn't there for a reason I didn't articulate, marrying her would be a bad idea, because I've had the real thing and if it showed up after I married an "ok" woman without it, that's the kind of thing that ruins lives. I'm glad I didn't find that out the hard way.
My physical type is pretty eyes and waist:hip silhouette. The rest I can pretty much work around, historically speaking. I'll find things I like about her face, her weight, her skin color, her hair, her cup size, her height; if she has gorgeous eyes and she's shaped like a woman I'm pretty much there. I find no observable pattern on any of those other factors with past partners.*
After a party, is she the type of person who helps clean up before she leaves? This can be a house party, a political fundraiser at a fire hall, Thanksgiving with my family, a weekend at a friend's beach house; when I look at the girls I esteem and feel I could have committed to that is the number one shared trait. They were all the kind of girl who helps clean up when we're done. Whether out of native instinctive altruism, or merely out of familial/religious training in the idea of duty and help.
How does she understand things? Not what does she believe, that doesn't matter, but how did she come to believe it and why does she believe it? I can deal with anyone if our underlying epistemology is similar, but I can't get along with anyone if they believe things simply because they were told so, or because it benefits their "tribe." I need someone with intellectual curiosity and the ability to change their beliefs a little. Though I suspect this is an artifact of my personality, in that anyone who didn't share this with me would find me very tiresome, and girls who like me are going to be more attractive when they're with me, while women who are hidebound or take things too seriously will not be.
Have you always wanted to date a 5'11"** model of a Ken Doll that got ahold of Frosty the Snow-Man's hat and came to life? Do you want a man who will send you highlighted passages from The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans to illustrate his thoughts on your relationship? Do you want to walk the dog and hear my hot takes on how America never should have given Mexico back after the Mexican American war? Do you value that your parents will fucking love me and say I'm "such a nice boy" regardless of their own beliefs or background?*** Are you ok with the fact that I'm going to make satisfactory money, but probably less money than I strictly speaking could make if I were more ambitious about getting ahead at work? Do you need someone emotionally stable, almost pathologically incapable of overreacting to things going on around him, to balance out your own insecurities and neuroses? Do you want someone that will always listen to you, but will normally give you off-the-wall opinions about your problems? Also, I've been told that the fact I know how to use laundry bags is pretty lit.
Well, do I have a deal for you! Some as-is, but in pretty good condition! Unfortunately, been under contract for a long time, and no signs of coming on the market.
I think my wife and I both got a great deal, which is sort of the definition of a good match in my mind.
*As an aside, I think having low or absent standards has contributed to success with more "objectively" attractive women, like my wife, because I don't overly value how hot she is, where other men did.
**I've dated girls up to 6'1", no problem; being shorter than me is not a standard I have, as long as they are ok being submissive to a slightly shorter man.
***Honestly, if you don't believe in white privilege and eurocentric beauty standards, you haven't been where I've been meeting parents of virtually every race and being universally approved as 100% marriage material. Pakistani muslim immigrants, Black power leaning Babtists, Singaporean bankers, and of course any variety of white Catholic; your mama is going to love me. High SATs, saying "ma'am", and blue eyes are pretty much the master key to any mother's heart when her daughter brings you home.
More options
Context Copy link
As always, the most interesting answers to this question probably lie in what isn't said in the replies because it is taken as self-evident. I am not perceptive enough to tease that out, but maybe somebody should.
So, I could wax lyrical about the love of my life for ages here, but I won't. She's too precious for you cynical lot and you don't deserve it (neither do I, but I digress).
Instead, I will tell you an anecdote. When I was in my late twenties and freshly heartbroken, it was around the time PUA became a thing. And I remember leaving a comment under one of those blogposts to the effect of "but I want to be able to cry in front of her, I want to be able to show vulnerability without that being taken as a sign of weakness!" and the reply was "sure, and she wants to cut her toenails and pick her nose in front of you, it just fundamentally makes you less attractive".
Well, let me just say that I found someone that lets me do that without thinking lesser of me (it probably helps that she also said similar things about me as @raggedy_anthem recounts below). Or, as loveless harpies would put it: She provides emotional labor for me.
To me the subject of men crying is pretty easy:
Imagine the ideal paragon of a masculine alpha male. He's got three hot young college girls bent over his bed in a foursome, drilling them and thrilling them with his rabid piston-like ramming and endless stamina, tossing them around like juggling balls. They love him. They'd do anything for him. They would rip a baby right to shreds right on the bed if they thought it would appeal to him or make him devote even a second more of his attention to them. They caress his muscles like a rare and invaluable diamond. They would die for him, kill themselves for him. He is their God because of his pure testosterone-fueled magnetism and charisma.
Maybe in another scene he's fixing a car, sweat and grease smeared across his brow, his 40 year old MILF neighbor that he's doing a favor for wishing she was in the first scene instead (and maybe she will be after the car is done). Maybe in another scene he's surfing, programming (a nice masculine, logical activity), kicking someone's ass, cleaning a gun, humiliating someone verbally with his impenetrable wit, or making millions of dollars.
But in any scenes of his life, is he crying? And if he is, is he letting a woman gawk at it?
So who would you rather be? Would you rather be him or would you rather be given fake pity applause by women for your "emotional sensitivity?" Sure, most of us here will never be that close to this perfect Super Chad Infinity, but would you rather get closer or further away?
And maybe you have a nice wife or girlfriend who is decent enough to tell you that there's nothing wrong with crying and it just shows that you're exquisitely in touch with your feelings unlike some other unenlightened caveman.
But when her fingers snake beneath the waistband of her panties in those idle moments, who is she fantasizing about? Again, who do you want to be?
Is Achilles enough of a paragon of manliness? Is Ulysses? Aeneas? Beowulf? Roland? All of them cry, some quite often, and all in public.
More options
Context Copy link
That's quite a lurid little pornographic fantasy you've TMIed us with there. But you know, Chad Thundercock may not be crying, but he's not doing much in the way of intellectual activities either. (I like how you slipped "programming" in there between surfing and kicking someone's ass, with the "nice masculine, logical activity" qualifier - that is, ahem, a tell.)
Pretty sure your girlfriend isn't snaking her fingers beneath the waistband of her panties imagining you or Chad Thundercock writing code or reading books either.
No. But she's not imagining him surfing or fighting either. She's imagining him fucking, as all people (barring weird fetishes) imagine when they fantasize about somebody else sexually.
That doesn't mean the surfing and fighting don't still turn her on specifically though. It also doesn't mean that programming and reading books turn her off either. Most likely they will just get a superficial "OMG he's smart AND hot!" reaction from her, even if you're just reading Twilight and programming "Hello World". (And of course if you weren't hot the reaction to the same would probably be "What a creepy nerd! He's probably not even as good at programming as Chad!" even if you're reimplementing ChaCha20-Poly1305 directly in PPC assembly.)
Crying though?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
...So, does she pick her nose in front of you?
(Fwiw my husband's ability to cry from sheer emotion is something I cherish about him, coming from a family that has all the emotional range of a shriveled peanut. He cries whenever he's feeling really deeply and just thinking about it makes my heart go all melty. He's just so emotionally well adjusted and not fucked up and repressed! I thought that kind of thing was a myth!)
I see womwn talking a whole lot about how they conclude that a man who cries is in touch with his emotions. That is typical minding males.
It assumes men that men can or even want to cry to begin with but are hiding it.
I for example, cry maybe once a year or two. Not because I dont feel strong emotions, quite the opposite. Its just that crying is not my natural physical reaction. I couldnt do it even if I wanted to. Its a testosterone thing.
Define “crying”?
Full on crying that lasts more than a minute, I can’t remember the last time I did that. But I will frequently shed a few tears when I’m just reflecting on things and I become overwhelmed by the gravity of a certain concept, or I encounter a particularly beautiful piece of prose, or things of that nature. It’s quite easy and natural for me.
But I’m also a huge weirdo and I shouldn’t be taken as an exemplar of any demographic, man or woman.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, I assume the men and women I know who never, ever cry — my grandfather was noted as having cried a total of three times in his entire adult life, my aunts/uncles do not cry at funerals or weddings— have plenty of emotions. It's nonetheless also obvious they are uncomfortable with expressing said emotions in a lot of contexts, not just crying. The ability and willingness to cry is a symptom of being more emotionally open, not more emotionally feeling.
It's fine for you if you don't cry, it's not like it even would have been a deal breaker for me, given how used to it I already am. But that doesn't change that it's a relief to me that my husband does cry, and that I appreciate that about him.
I think many of us view crying as being emotionally overwhelmed. In this view, it's not about openeness, it's about self-control and emotional maturity.
Right, and viewing crying as a lack of self control and a lack of emotional maturity would be something I'd want to run away from. Someone who lets himself cry is strongly signalling that he does not believe crying is a lack of control and a lack of emotional maturity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The only times I’ve cried in front of my wife related to deaths in my family / when I got emotional about the harm caused to our child due to covid response. Though now at weddings I almost become misty eyed when father daughter dance occurs (I have daughters).
So to me this wasn’t that important (if my wife mocked me for crying about my father dying well that would be a very cold woman). Are you naturally emotional?
I am very sensitive, I guess. I cannot watch Theoden's speech without crying, for example. I am also very neurotic. I ruminate a lot about disrespectful behaviour towards me. Otherwise, I am quick to anger, but also very quick to forgive. I do not always show it and I would say that I have better control over the external symptoms of my emotions than most. I am much more needy than the median man I would say. Or maybe I just admit to it more easily.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
deleted
Basic economics suggest there is some truth to the idea that opposites attract. Stated differently, long term successful relationships are positive sum. Generally, you need comparative advantage to get positive sum. To an extent, you want differences to maximize that comparative advantage.
At the same time, gravity theory of trade suggests that while you want some differences (to maximize comparative advantage) you don’t want too many differences because that limits ability to trade.
So do opposites attract? Yes and no.
More options
Context Copy link
Please make a separate post about that and tag me. I have been wondering the same thing forever.
More options
Context Copy link
You hit the nail on the head. Very sad to interact deeply with people who only conceptualize the world through the lens of TV or newspapers. It's the difference between a PC or an NPC, a gap that cleaves through intelligence, status and everything else.
More options
Context Copy link
Ha. I broadly agree in that, like I said, posting on the Motte is a strong signal against what I like in a mate.
I used to value the ability to maintain super intense philosophical discussion more. Certainly it was part of what I enjoyed about dating, probing people's minds in great depth. I find that in the actual day to day nitty gritty of being married it's barely even a half point bonus. I just need a partner who is willing to indulge me occasionally going off at length about a topic— I can find discussion partners with strong opinions online for no cost at all. As long as I feel assured my partner isn't an idiot and his opinions and values come from somewhere sincere and genuine, his being able to obsessively analyze them is, eh. Not very important.
I wouldn't describe "opposites attract" as total baloney, while still basically agreeing with you. I think people are highly attracted to certain very compatible personality opposites that are suited well to complementing their own strengths/weaknesses, and that aside from that they prefer to be as similar as possible. I don't specifically view it as sexed, at least individually, although it's clear that on a statistical level it is. My situation is a slightly weird variation on yours - I consider myself and my husband to be very, very different people, with an excellent match of complementing strengths, but outsiders say we're basically the exact same person, so at least on a superficial external level I guess we are similar. (We're certainly almost the same politically, religiously, intellectually, etc...).
Hm. I would describe myself as possibly none of those things? I am certainly not organized or particularly ambitious. But I do highly value conscientiousness in other people - I'm the kind of person to immediately offer a 7000 word opinion on anything I'm asked, on the spot, but I've always adored the kind of personality that says "good question, let me think about that" and then comes back two days later with a response. To me that kind of slow, deliberate care IS an area of opposite-attraction-compatibility, a very nice braking mechanism on my own more reactive/impulsive style (which I like plenty in myself, but since I've got it covered I don't need it from someone else).
It's worth having a smart or intense spouse because - your childrens' genes are half their genes, and creating more smart people is valuable, tbh. If you pick a randomly selected ~100iq 'nice person' as a spouse, your kids are going to be a lot dumber, less interesting, in expectation than otherwise. And just on a purely altruistic basis, more people being smart is pretty important!
Smart ≠highly analytical and inclined to in depth discussion, introspection, navel-gazing.
Disagreed. They are the same.
But you are touching on the part where @curious_straight_ca errs. Smartness can be good because it allows you to navigate society better than non-smart people who don't analyze the world right/at all. On the other hand, it might lead to you inventing calculus, molecular wave theory, or special relativity while your non-smart peers go out to the club and flirt with girls. (Those guys ended up with 0, 2, and 3 kids respectively.) More likely, you could unheroically become engrossed in a useless but fascinating system like chess openings, futurism debates, or rationalism.
It's also possible smartness might make you piss off your tribe and/or develop mental disorders. Smartness is not an unalloyed good, probably because it leads to in depth discussion, introspection, navel-gazing.
Need more evidence/citations that they are same.
Anecdotally, using proxies for intelligence like vast breadth of knowledge, grasping new material extremely quickly, getting good grades in very challenging programs, and creative problem solving, I can think of a number of very smart people I know who don't do much in the way of in depth discussion, introspection, or navel-gazing. It doesn't interest or excite them the way, say, a cool engineering problem does. Their approach to their inner selves is -shrug-, to interpersonal politics is "well, it all works out in the end", etc. These things simply don't bother or preoccupy them, they find them tedious and a waste of time better spent on cool problems.
Positivism is useless for defining words. I like my definition and think most people share it. As for why I contested you on a semantic point, it's common for people to try to redefine "smart" as "having the collection of mental attributes that lead to success", which is circular (good brain = good brain). This is IMO not a valid definition. From this comment, you are not falling into that trap, so my bad.
Highlight meaningful. You rephrased my definition. Their smartness is the mental quality that leads to them becoming engrossed in untangling systems: that is to say, analysis. We on the Motte are engrossed in analyzing and introspecting on one particular type of problem. They have another. Non-smart people get engrossed in analyzing neither. They just live life and vibe, which is probably the better way to go about this thing.
I simply don't feel that "interesting ways to solve energy output problems from solar cells" can be described as "in depth discussion, introspection, navel-gazing".
If you think that any contemplation of a complex problem is "in depth discussion, introspection, navel-gazing", then sure, a total lack of desire to interact with complex problems is not well correlated with intelligence.
But if people are inclined to "live life and vibe" outside their professional fields + areas of special interest, that doesn't intrinsically reflect on their intelligence.
(I think this whole comment thread kicked off with someone dropping in to say prioritizing a smart mate is important, which I interpreted as a response to my claim that constant in-depth quality discussion turned out to not be nearly as meaningful to me as I'd imagined when I started dating. Hence my initial response resisting conflating the two. I really believe it has much more to do with personality than intelligence)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What makes me want to enter a relationship with someone and what makes me want to commit to a relationship with them are two almost entirely different things.
For me to enter into a relationship it's about whether they are hot and socially fun enough.
For me to commit it's how I see them acting long term. What is their earning potential, how is their family (not as in i would have to spend time with them but as an indicator of where they are likely to trend), how do they treat household activities, what are their goals and most important of all: how committed are they to me and the relationship? I also expect my partner to do a similar evaluation of me and if I perceive that they don't then that is disqualifying.
Specific qualities are pretty uninteresting, most things are somewhat negotiable/exchangeable. Although, one attribute that isn't is confidence for men, if you're not able to at least project confidence then you're doomed.
Do you enter relationships with the intent of finding a long term one, or do you expect to perhaps stumble into a long term one maybe? Is long term commitment a goal or just a possible thing that might one day happen to you?
If the latter, your strategy makes sense to me - have fun now, maybe it'll lead somewhere - but if the former, I don't get why you'd waste time on people who have none of the traits you'd want to commit to.
I never had to specifically look for long term qualities in a partner in the first stage but I don't really see that working very well anyway. People falsely advertise all the time. To me it seems better to date in a pool of people that are likely to have the attributes you're looking for than specifically seeking them out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The man should bring love for the woman, and the woman should bring love for the man. That is my actual answer despite you requesting otherwise.
Listing out attributes is meaningless. I can just list the "desireable" 80th percentile most commonly matched keywords from dating expectations elsewhere and call it a day and it would be more correct than any hypothetical ideal answer.
I can literally list them for you but you can just come up with the above yourself.
To me the use of the word love here is a bit abstract.
What would be causes of the love? What would be observable effects of the love? How would the two parties coordinate on knowing whether they love each other or if the word even means the same thing to both of them (or if different meanings, then a difference they can live with)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The length of my reply may not communicate it, but I've been thinking about this question pretty much daily since 2017.
The answer is that if either a Man or Woman is looking at what the other can "bring to the table," the relationship is going to fail at some point. First, remember the passion-to-companionship cycle. At the outset, both parties generally want (and receive) fireworks. Somewhere pretty early on this gives way to a more "fun friends who have sex" situation. If it makes it two years (look around at your social circle and mark this as a milepost for breakups) then a lot of couples will get married if both parties are 28+. 7 Year itch within a marriage, 50/50 in America make it. Kids show up a lot of marriages are effectively dead but keep on going for the kids. Divorce late in high school or early college is most common for upper-middle class suburbanites.
The point of the above paragraph is that a romantic relationship and marriage that last 10,20,30 years changes so much that it is not possible for either party to meaningfully say "Yes, I'm in this for life" at the outset if the rubric is simply the "match score" for the other partner.
What's required is a personal commitment to the idea of a long-term relationship before you even meet the other person. And a recognition that the relationship will drastically change multiple times and require constant work. If that is the starting point, you've got a shot and then you can sort of grocery list for all of the matching attributes. If that is not your starting point, I think you can still have a decent enough romantic life, but you shouldn't think you're going to make it long term.
I don't blame this totally on the failing character of contemporary western folks. Most of marriage in human history (and, I would submit, the majority of it today worldwide) is basic economic survival and co-dependence. The idea of learning to love whichever person you ended up shaking up with to not starve to death is far more common the world over than "omg, this is how I met your mother" fairly tale stories. For a trip, read up on the emotional development of the arranged marriages of first generation Indian Couples in the U.S. from maybe the 1970s or so.
The idea of deep emotion, long-term pair bonding as the everything of marriage is a product of the massive growth in personal wealth the western world experienced after World War 2 and is also a good outcome of the mid-century feminist movement. It's just super, super rare. The bad outcome of this has been the destruction of the nuclear family since the 1960s. When the primary motivator is personal emotional satisfaction in a highly individualist society, the family is going to have a bad time absent some very strong microsocial pressures (i.e. high religiosity communities, or hyper invested "helicopter" parents who see the performance of their children as reflective of personal worth).
To conclude, however, I wouldn't call myself a marriage / long-term relationship cynic. In fact, I still think I want to get married (I just think the odds are low). I'm slightly optimistic that there's going to be some level of Gen-Z backlash to the crazy 4th wave feminism we see now and that may prompt new personal commitment to having a nuclear family and shedding some of the "but how do I maximize my own personal emotional state?" thinking. I am not Gen-Z, however, and their customs and ways are strange to me.
TLDR; It isn't about your partner, it's all about you.
I strongly agree with this.
More options
Context Copy link
deleted
More options
Context Copy link
As someone that's been in the same relationship for over a decade, I agree with a lot of this. But one slight disagreement is that I wouldn't say I've ever made an explicit personal commitment to the idea of a long-term relationship. The way I would describe it is that I feel that I get a lot out of the relationship itself, which is different from getting something from the person I'm in the relationship with. In that way I think it's similar to having children. You don't really ask "what do kids bring to the table" and if you do then you're probably going to convince yourself it's not worth it. You have kids because you want to be a mother or a father, the value is in taking on that role and in forming and building that relationship. Sharing your life with someone that has their own agency (even if they use that agency in frustrating ways), the game of trying to make things work together, experiencing the emotional highs and lows.
So I would say that one of the important things for a long-term relationship is that both people really want to be in a relationship and they value being in a relationship.
In my opinion, this reveals a lot of very good and positive perspective on things. So, go MWei.
I would wager, however, that the overwhelming majority of currently married / long-term relationship'd people are miles away from sentiments like that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As promised, my own answers:
I actually didn't mean the focus to be on traits, so much as on what you're offering in the relationship. So less "smart", more "interesting conversation partner", less "hot", more " regular access to sex with someone hot", if that makes sense as a distinction. Nonetheless I'll answer in both ways.
So, part one:
Traits I found sexually attractive:
Attractive face, healthy lifestyle, not fat. I didn't care about height unless the guy was not just shorter than me but extremely shorter than me. I didn't care about six-packs beyond "not fat" (tangent: I genuinely do not understand why this is the shorthand for attractive muscle. I am pretty sure I am a typical woman in my attraction to nice biceps and pectorals, based on both accurate internet stereotypes about women's obsession with nice arms and basic sexual dimorphism logic where clearly sexed traits like upper body strength are more attractive. Very defined six packs just look vaguely insectoid, whereas very defined arm muscle ... Drool...). Ugly faces were a total deal breaker, though. For my standards of "not fat", I'd roughly say fat visibly spilling over waistline of pants would be my cutoff for "ew, no".
Ambition and clear life goals. I actually didn't care about money, I had vaguely assumed I was going to be the primary breadwinner because of my chosen career‡, but I could feel my sexual interest shrivel up and die when guys didn't at all know what they wanted from life, or when all they wanted was to "kind of exist, I guess". I had empathy for them, sure, but it was also a super obvious kill switch for my libido.
Emotional stability. I am the stereotypical neurotic, anxious, over-reacting woman attracted to calm, grounded, under-reacting men. Neurotic men just fed into my own anxiety, thereby killing my libido, therefore, not hot.
Very affectionate, especially physically.
Signaling caretaking and responsibility — this was actually very distinctly separate from caretaking and responsibility towards myself. It was things like someone being an older sibling and talking about ways they cared for their younger siblings, or someone being involved in community service, or someone helping old ladies carry their groceries. All of these things were very hot, and then guys without it just... Were less hot.
There were other traits that weren't really about hotness but about basic compatibility, like I needed a guy smart enough I could respect him, and obviously for marriage I wanted us to be on the same page re values and life goals. The above is just the list of things that made guys more/less hot to me, and then things like "don't hate his family" was just necessary qualification checking before the big leap.
Traits I offer, the package, as limited by my own self awareness:
Physically hot - obviously there's a limit to how accurately I can gauge my own attractiveness, but still... *
Playful, sense of humor
Smart, curious
Money and good social connections
The rest is harder to identify — from an outside perspective I can say a guy is involved in community giving, from an inside perspective I don't consider myself that way or think of it as a trait I offer even though I do, stepping back to look at myself objectively, get involved in community initiatives, regularly get turned to for help by my friends, etc. I also think some of the things I "offer" are technically more "negative" traits, ie I am relatively happy to be "needy" followed by being abundantly grateful and admiring to the person meeting my needs, which sounds vaguely bad while still being pretty clearly something men I was with enjoyed. I guess the more positive psychology term for this would be "vulnerability" perhaps?
‡ I was right
*(subtract points for being the kind of person who occasionally browses the motte, an unbelievably unhot trait. In total seriousness I think my level of being online is easily the least sexy thing about me and not something I'd ever tolerate in a partner, yet still I return, like a dog to its own vomit ... Sigh)
Part two: what I actually meant to ask, even though that's not where the discussion went
What I can offer:
I will cheerlead your goals, brainstorm with you how to pursue them, make time and space in the relationship for them to be a priority.
I will communicate my desires directly, including occasionally saying "I don't know, I just want something I can't articulate" or "I just want you to magically read my mind" if that's what I want. I am pretty in touch with my desires, of which I have many, and I don't like beating around the bush. (if you prefer more indirect, coy communication I am not for you. I don't do indirect flirting, I do "let's have sex")
I value regular and high quality sex, and will actively pursue it as a goal.
assuming you are admirable (otherwise why I am in a relationship with you), I will express my admiration frequently, including to our kids. Similarly I will both provide and demand physical affection frequently. (once again, if this isn't for you, it's no longer something being offered but a warning.)
I am shit at housework and will be hiring cleaning help.
I will do extensive research on big life decisions and provide summaries as needed for why I think the correct choice is X and what case could be made for alternative Y. I'll handle the load of researching correct child rearing, correct mortgage borrowing, etc.
I will handle necessary social coordination of who is doing what with whom and why this matters and where we need to respond how.
I will be a highly involved parent
Etc.
In exchange, what I expect from a partner:
someone who will make space for me to nurture my social network, i.e. willing to enable me to host social events, carve out time and money to support my friends, etc
regular orgasms
large quantities of physical affection
an intelligent and thoughtful sounding board for thinking out major life decisions
highly involved parent
whatever our disagreements, always backs me up in public and does not undermine me in front of other people.
equal partner around the house (but this can simply be paying for more cleaning help)
There's some asymmetries here, I don't care if my partner is good at communicating their needs, even though that's something I offer on my end.
Also this isn't even close to a complete list, it's just a sample, which makes me realize that the scope of the question was too ambitious. Oh well. I'm too tired to continue writing, but felt like I had promised this second part of the response, so here it is, even if incomplete.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are we talking averages or specifics?
If we're talking averages, the male partner needs to be better than every other male partner in a woman's social circle. She needs to see her friends seethe with jealousy. All other criteria are downstream of this. It just sucks that a woman's social circle is now roughly 5 digits on social media.
Realistically women don't date down, so men are out of their brain if they think they can expect financial support from a woman. And realistically, very little causes a woman to lose attraction for a man like them ever showing weakness, so I wouldn't count on emotional support if I were you. There is the old trend of men being things oriented and women being people oriented, so it wouldn't be wise to count on shared interest. Probably the safest thing you can expect is that they can photocopy your DNA for you.
Specifics. What are you offering? What are you trying to receive?
If not interested in an LTR I guess the question isn't relevant, unless you want to imagine a hypothetical member of each sex and what you'd suggest them to offer and to look for.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe this is a cop out but I think the terms of which partner brings what to the table is something to be negotiated by the parties entering the relationship. I, personally, don't think of any of these things as being inherently gendered.
This is kind of orthogonal but I have felt much better in my relationships when I stopped viewing them in this kind of transactional manner, as being about getting something in return for giving something. Maybe that makes me a sucker, certainly I'm confident some people viewing my marriage from the outside would say I was getting a bad "deal", but I have been much happier from letting go of that framing.
I'm fine with answering the question in an ungendered way if you think that's the correct answer.
First, this can of course work on an individual level, but any discussing of the dynamics of a "sexual marketplace" or what have you is obviously about broader transactional politics.
Second, I guess I do find that a vaguely strange worldview. Sure, after eight years of deep investment in my marriage, I have a lot of reasons, both moral, emotional, and practical, to stay loyal to my spouse if he stopped bringing anything to the table, although even then I'd probably be struggling with whether I should divorce him or not if it was a true total cessation of everything.
But certainly before marrying him I wouldn't have considered it if he wasn't bringing anything worth having. Why marry someone if marriage to them is not better than being single, and also assumed to be better than at least the most easily available other marriage prospects?
I am admittedly not convinced that the best or most productive way to model human intimate relationship formation is as a marketplace. Surely there are some similarities, in that there are a large number of diverse participants attempting to enter mutually consensual interactions. But there are also lots of differences. There isn't really analog for currency. If it's any kind of marketplace it seems much closer to a barter-based system, the double coincidence of wants is in full effect. Frankly, I think most modeling of relationship formation as a marketplace involves flattening the diversity in men and women's preferences to a cartoonish degree, one that often leads such reasoners astray,
I mean, I agree. It's not like there's nothing my wife could do such that I would consider leaving her. But nor am I keeping some kind of mental ledger of how much I do for her and how much she does for me to make sure the scales are balanced or something. Maybe what I intended to convey is the kind of value my wife brings is often of a less quantifiable sort, though no less valuable to me for not being quantifiable.
I think we may be in agreement.
I don't see a barter system as not a marketplace.
A barter system is "how convenient, I can provide X and you can provide Y, what a mutually profitable exchange for both of us", instead of "I can provide X units of value, you can provide Y units of value, of X is greater than Y I have lost". I agree that's a way healthier way to think of relationships, but it's still a kind of transaction, with the goal being both parties feeling they have benefited.
As for quantifiable or not, I guess my impetus for writing this question is in discussions of the "war of the sexes" I constantly get the impression of people struggling to think of the other side as a full agent in a transaction. They'll fall back on complaining that men/women are "shallow" or whatever, whereas to me it makes perfect sense to conceive it as, for example, both sides want a partner who they are sexually attracted to, women want a partner they can trust to provide adequate parental investment in offspring, men want a partner they can rely on for sexual loyalty/paternity, etc. I don't see why this needs to end up turning into an antagonistic market relationship when it could just as easily be a mutually profitable market relationship.
But then, I'm happily married. So my perspective is obviously shaped by the market having "worked" for me. I guess I am trying to understand what makes it so hard to work for others.
Fair enough, I was thinking too narrowly about a "marketplace" when I wrote my comment above. Reflecting on it some more I actually think a barter model avoids most of the things I find problematic about discussions of a "sexual marketplace" or "sexual marketplace value." I think discussions of SMV and similar tend to be oriented more towards the second mode of thinking you describe, where you "have" some objective value and you are "losing" by being with someone whose value isn't close enough to yours.
Two observations. People rarely think their own standards for partners are too high. If they did, they would lower them when they failed to find a partner. Relatedly, people can rarely think of things to change to make themselves more attractive to people they want to date or to meet people who would want to date them. If they could, they would probably just do it!
I think these observations combine to lead a lot of people (maybe just vocal online people) to believe the problem is other people's standards. This ties in to your description of not seeing the other person as a full agent. Their standards are too high, so they should lower them! They aren't entitled to their standards the way I am entitled to mine! Notions of a sexual market value, and that value entitling one to a partner of a similar value, also play into this.
When you fail to get a date with someone on a more barter-y model you both just had incompatible wants and that's fine. "They needed a cobbler but I'm a haberdasher, no mutually beneficial transaction for us." When you have a different orientation it's a matter of not getting your due. "I'm obviously a seven and she's only a five so she fact the wouldn't date me clearly shows her standards are too high." The relationship can become antagonistic because of the attributions of one's failure to unreasonable or unjustifiable actions by the other party.
I am admittedly in the same boat. My wife is the only long term relationship (or any kind of romantic relationship) I've been in. Though I do read a lot of other people articulate their romantic woes online!
I agree with all of this comment and hence don't have anything useful to add, except idly wondering if pushing strongly for people to think of dating as barter, not sales, would have any positive effect on the discourse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
3 parts:
A difficult quality to articulate, like: At least one passion/interest which she develops/works on/improves (can be chemistry "i love cute chemicals", dog training, old philology, horses...) / having agency / a serious about life, making active long term decisions (this leads to many things, like a good role model for kids, understanding cause and effect, to give kids a good mindset, so she isn't boring herself, so I don't feel guilty concentrating on something for hours because she has things to do too...)
in context of the above, the desire to also build a family, execute on some sort of plan etc. ...forever! So linking my own agency with another, whereas most seem to either not have any agency/selfstarterness or
also boobs, because I'm shallow
From 20-24 I wasn't mature enough to take basic steps and missed out on a few jewels, who then got married etc. shortly there after. Then I ran into some trainwrecks who failed on the 2nd point / misrepresented their goals or own position (went so far as to stay with a girl's family for a month, planned many things out... then she ghosted me for her wedding with the neighbor guy, her parents wanted her to marry since they were 12, who she quickly divorced...) But I've definitely met hundreds of perfect people, and some dozens who were actually in a position to be in a relationship etc. I just dropped the ball a lot. To some extent, at 30 I'm now scared that "everyone" is now TikTok addled and unable to truly make such a commitment. At least, it's much harder to find lovely people than 10 years ago. (Central Europe) In Latin America, I've met 2-3 people ever who would fit - all taken already or such.
The first point can often perhaps go too far, where it turns into anti-familiness etc.
More options
Context Copy link
Making 30hr/week of work count as "full-time" for employers so you get health insurance would be a big one. The work culture / health culture in America at least is insane. I'd like to see it for everyone but parents are a good start I guess.
This is more controversial, but you could also let parents exercise kids' voting rights before they turn 18. Essentially give another vote for each kid your family has - maybe make the parents agree on where to put it?
Congratulations. If I ever find myself as the dictator of America, you've given me the exact approach I'll take with our Neo-Sullan constitution to kneecap progressives in a way that might actually stick.
Would probably need to be limited to married couples to do that
This seems to suggest the political correlation with fertility rate holds even if you include unmarried fertility. But putting that aside, by the pure math of the thing, the more children you have the older you must be, and older folks skew conservative.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think a lot of the problem here is that it's very hard to articulate what men can actually do to be an attractive partner without it being some shallow 6 pack 6 figures 6 feet evaluation without appealing to gender roles that have been thoroughly burried, in many ways for good reasons, by the feminism of the past few decades. If women can do anything men can but better what could the male gender role even be? I have some opinions that might fit but I don't think we're ever going to get universal buy in.
Eh, why not try to answer anyway?
What makes you a good partner? What makes someone a good partner to you?
Who needs universal buy in, just describe what you personally think the opposite sex potentially has to offer, and what you personally have available to offer them.
More options
Context Copy link
These aren't shallow requirements. Wealth, health, and fitness are clear markers of actual traits that women care about for very good reasons. I think it's pretty obvious to all that whatever putative gender blurring has happened on this front, it has had basically zero impact on the value of bringing wealth, health, and fitness to a relationship.
My grandmother has been a widow for nearly 40 years. It really doesn't seem to have particularly bothered her, though her marriage was a very happy one. She has children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, and she is far from lonely.
More options
Context Copy link
Women inherently tend to have life expectancies a couple years higher, and also tend to marry men who are atleast somewhat older than them.
Outliving your spouse as a woman feels like a pretty consistent thing regardless of their height, thusly.
More options
Context Copy link
Height is not actually health or fitness in today's world. Few people are literally stunted, we're just genetically short.
Height is overrated. And when I say this, I don't mean women don't care about it much which is demonstrably not true. No, what I mean is, men keep stressing too much importance on this aspect of themselves. The outcomes can be positive if they work on areas that are within their control.
My anecdote: I'm actually below average in height, but I am fit and used to be in damn good shape before the 8 hour desk job got me craving to sink back into bed the moment I get home. I did get decent game in college, quite a few interracial successes too. Despite having been an introvert all my life, I managed to be a social butterfly. I knew someone in literally every store in the suburb I lived in, hell I don't recall even once paying for my movie tickets during my time there. And I wasn't even from the country.
And then there are two of my oldest friends. One of them is 6'2", mildly overweight, very social but too shy to ask anyone out, and somewhat below average on facial features. The other is 6'0, fit, very attractive but not too social. Both of them have well paying jobs. And both are still virgins.
More options
Context Copy link
You say that until you get in a fight. Yes, they still happen, and should the current order weaken significantly they'll be happening a lot more. Women are smart to select a man who is physically capable of at least standing up for himself and his family.
And equally you can say tall height isn't bad but then you get into a room with low doorways and bump your head, causing great pain/needing hospital trips in the very worst case.
If anything bumping heads is a lot more common than fights these days so the expected cost from both situations is probably the same. Plus why would you ever willingly get into a fight these days, willingly risking harm to yourself is idiotic, not brave, and in modern society pretty much every situation has a flight option available to you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Agreed, but there's only so much to be done about such strongly evolved instincts. Money and abs still work fine as honest signals in the modern world though.
More options
Context Copy link
Being unable to reach the top of the fridge is an evolutionary dead end.
That's an extreme example though. A 5'6" guy can reach most places he'd have to realistically reach, with more difficulty obviously.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps there is simply nothing deeper and/or less traditional than that?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think a lot of this depends on the age / stage of life when married.
As an example, my spouse and I got engaged in grad school. I’ve done well for us and she is now a SAHM. While she could’ve suspected that earnings potential it wasn’t a guarantee.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link