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 -
Your experience is vastly different from my own.
It's hard to have fun on a date if nobody agrees to go on a date with me in the first place.
This may be a key problem for me. And unfortunately it wouldn't be easy for me to move.
Unfortunately, mental illness makes all of this more difficult than it would otherwise be. I tried getting contacts, for instance, but I found it psychologically impossible to actually stick the thing in my eye, even with a optometrist's assistant trying to help me.
I'm told that Raya has a 1% acceptance rate. https://elitedatingmanagers.com/raya-app/
If you're on Raya, maybe that's because you're among the top 1% hottest (or most popular) men in the world, which probably explains why you've had so many partners.
This does not match my experience.
The link about Raya also states it used to be easier to get accepted.
In general, this is a common theme with dating apps. Most of them work much better (for men) during their first growth phase before becoming too mainstream and flooded and monetized. So it is a good idea to be on the look for new popular apps.
Would the cycle of dating apps being better at the start be weak evidence that early-adoption correlates with attractiveness in some ways?
The obvious problem with the apps is that average female gets a shit ton of attention from low quality men, while average men gets very little attention unless he paid/put effort into good photos. Too many women who aren't looking for actual dates but just some ego boost or instagram followers.
And when I say low quality men, I mean typically absolutely horrible and rude. Nobody wants to deal with that shit. Just like nobody wants to deal with women who has no intention of meeting up. Especially Tinder was absolute garbage when I was still using it a couple years ago.
So desirable young women actually looking to date typically migrate to the new shiny app (typically with a feminist vibe as that gives women some confidence) every couple of years. The user count will be small but much higher quality and still sufficient in large cities. Until it gets discovered by common people as "the app". Then rinse and repeat.
So to answer your question, I think the early-adoption correlates with being a bit savvier and putting some more effort into getting good dates.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link