site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   3357 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 22, 2023

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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't know what on earth makes you think you are disgusting and hypocritical for wanting a relationship now.

…

I cannot even fathom how you arrived at the conclusion that the desire to be in a romantic relationship is only legitimate conditional on having achieved XYZ, and is otherwise disgusting or hypocritical.

…

please tell me, in plain language, why you think the fact that you want to be in a romantic relationship makes you a disgusting hypocrite.

I believe Skookum does so here:

Like, the basic premise of the Hock cashes out to "if you're an unattractive person/dude, whether it's because fugly or autistic or physically disabled or whatever, your partners are probably gonna find you disgusting. So you're asking for an awful lot there from your partner, arguably for no good goddamn reason. You kind of suck and are hypocritical if you're not down to freely choose to suffer like a motherfucker for no good reason - you're asking the same of your partner."

TVTropes has multiple tropes ("And Now You Must Marry Me," "I Have You Now, My Pretty" "Scarpia Ultimatum, etc." full of examples across centuries of stories about the suffering of women submitting to the attentions of a man to whom she's not attracted — or even just under the threat of such. How is it not at least somewhat hypocritical, how does it not speak of entitlement, to expect a woman to voluntarily submit to such misery, and not be willing to voluntarily submit oneself to a comparable level of suffering? If not "the Hock," what can match the ordeal a woman undergoes, being in a romantic relationship with someone she finds repellent?

unlike you, who's so uniquely loathsome and contemptible that he ought to be euthanized unless he can Prove his Worth by etc.. To which all I can say is - bullshit.

What about that is bullshit, and what is your evidentiary basis for saying so?

As somewhat similar, from back in 2017 on SSC:

Kevin C. says:

…

I recall once reading, if not here then somewhere in the “rationalsphere”, someone, as an idle proposal, putting forth that with regards to this dynamic, one might consider comparison to domesticated livestock, and how we handle those males who aren’t in the minority that will be doing the breeding. That rather than leave large numbers of individuals tormented by a drive they cannot fulfill, we, as a mercy, take steps to remove or ameleorate the drive.

…

vV_Vv says:

…

It’s not too hard to imagine a not-so-distant future where any boy who isn’t a hyper-masculine Chad from a young age will be pushed, possibly with the help of hormones and surgical scalpels, to live his life as some sort of “queer” identity which does not involve having sex with women. And if the statistics are to be believed, we know that many of these men will eventually end up “taking the exit” anyway.

And further on the livestock analogy, when it comes to chickens — as opposed to cattle, sheep, etc. — the solution is indeed the culling of most male chicks.

So why not at least offer some sort of analogous "relief" for those human males facing a similar life of suffering under such unmet drives? Why not respect the self-determination of individuals to address such an irremediable condition by providing them assistance in attaining a dignified exit from an undignified existence?

And on what grounds do you say that the likes of Skookum aren't "ought to be euthanized"?

I'd point out that in most "primitive" cultures, girls become women — full adult members of the community — automatically at menarche, while boys have to "earn" their manhood through rites of initiation — difficult, usually painful rites. And it was indeed possible to fail said initiations.

I recall once reading a thread on Tumblr talking about how the prevalence of "third genders" wasn't nearly the support for modern transgender and nonbinary identities that some like to argue it is, by going into depth on the Polynesian example, laying out the details and pointing out that the closest modern counterpart isn't "trans-woman" or "non-binary," but a formalized, institutionalized version of "prison bitch." And that often, many who ended up in such roles were indeed those boys who failed to "become men" — that these societies did indeed have a "gender binary," just that instead of "man" and "woman," it's "man" and "non-man," with some biological males falling into the latter category by failure to earn membership in the former.

Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. Women are precious, men are expendable. Women attain full personhood, membership in the tribe, the concern of others, automatically. Males have to earn the privilege of being a person, through their deeds and contribution to the tribe, to women and children. We must earn the care and compassion of society — and those who fail don't matter; those who fail are expendable, disposable. So, in times of modern plenty, and when women have more options outside of marriage and "settling," why not dispose of at least the worst of disposable males, or at least assist them in disposing of themselves?

How is it not at least somewhat hypocritical, how does it not speak of entitlement, to expect a woman to voluntarily submit to such misery, and not be willing to voluntarily submit oneself to a comparable level of suffering? If not "the Hock," what can match the ordeal a woman undergoes, being in a romantic relationship with someone she finds repellent?

How about working a job one finds abhorrent?

That was the deal. That was what marriage meant. The woman agrees to provide exclusive sexual access to a man, and the man in turn agrees to support the wife and her children.

It is not necessary that a woman should be attracted to her husband, any more than it is necessary that a man should enjoy his job. All that is necessary is that they should do their duty.

The welfare state, alimony, and child support destroyed the deal.

Women are not a hive mind: it would be very surprising indeed if literally every woman in the entire world would be disgusted by Skookum as he currently exists. There's no accounting for taste: I routinely see an ugly and/or overweight man walking down the street holding hands with a plain or even attractive woman. Moreover, if a given woman is disgusted by @SkookumTree as he currently exists, I very much doubt that her opinion of him will significantly change once she learns that he went on a hike in Alaska. (If anything they might be even more repulsed: I can't imagine that spending two months completely alone without interacting with another soul will do much for the social skills of someone who already seems to consider himself rather socially awkward.) I wasn't asking why Skookum thinks (certain) women are disgusted by him - I was asking why he himself thinks that he's disgusting for merely wanting to be in a relationship. If he thinks that he's disgusting because he wants a relationship even though he hasn't "earned the right" to want one by proving his masculinity - well, that implies that the vast majority of modern men are disgusting, as most of us haven't fought in a war or gone hiking in Alaska or etc.. That includes most of the men who post on this site: I'm certainly not a hyper-masculine Chad, and I've never been to war or similar. If Skookum literally believes that any man who wants to be in a relationship without having proved his masculinity is "disgusting" and "hypocritical", I wish he would just come out and say "I am disgusting and hypocritical for wanting a relationship, and so are most of you", rather than dancing around the issue by self-pityingly asserting that he is disgusting and hypocritical, but dodging the question of who else is according to his metrics.

So, in times of modern plenty, and when women have more options outside of marriage and "settling," why not dispose of at least the worst of disposable males, or at least assist them in disposing of themselves?

Skookum is able-bodied, physically strong (able to deadlift a perfectly respectable 275 pounds and squat 245, the latter of which far exceeds my PR) and intelligent enough to be training to be a doctor. Any criteria of "the worst of the disposable males" which includes him would probably include you. And, based on your weird comment history, on the off-chance it turns out that you're really Skookum using an alt account, I will be very annoyed by the run-around.

I was asking why he himself thinks that he's disgusting for merely wanting to be in a relationship.

I don't recall him ever saying that he's disgusting for wanting a relationship, only that he's hypocritical for wanting a relationship while being disgusting (because ugly, awkward, etc.).

it would be very surprising indeed if literally every woman in the entire world would be disgusted by Skookum as he currently exists.

I'm reminded here of the They Might Be Giants song "Ana Ng," which explores the underlying horror of the "one true soulmate" concept via the singer wondering what if his "soulmate" is a woman living on the other side of the world whom he will certainly never meet.

The relevant set isn't "every woman in the entire world," it's the set of single women likely to be in a position for Skookum to ask out, which is at least a few orders of magnitude smaller.

And why would you find it surprising with this smaller set? I mean, I get there are broad cultural narratives about "someone for everyone" and "plenty of fish in the sea," but as far as I can tell, that's all they are — unsupported cultural narratives, absorbed and perpetuated mostly unquestioned. And while I wouldn't assume a consensus in these parts around the evidentiary value of pure cultural consensus, I wouldn't expect most here to rate it particularly high.

I was asking why he himself thinks that he's disgusting for merely wanting to be in a relationship.

Not to speak for Skookum, but that's not how I read his arguments; the "disgusting" part isn't due to "merely wanting to be in a relationship," it's prior to that.

If he thinks that he's disgusting because he wants a relationship even though he hasn't "earned the right" to want one by proving his masculinity

Again not speaking for Skookum, but it seems to me that you're continuing to misread him, and getting things backwards — his "disgustingness" is not an effect but a cause. It's not that he's disgusting for "wanting a relationship" without having "proved his masculinity," it's that because he is exceptionally disgusting that he has to "prove his masculinity," or else be a hypocrite for refusing to suffer as much as a woman would suffer from a relationship with someone as disgusting as him.

well, that implies that the vast majority of modern men are disgusting, as most of us haven't fought in a war or gone hiking in Alaska or etc..

That would be the implication of what you've said, but, again, that's not what I read him as saying. It's not "men who don't do this are disgusting," it's "those men (number not specified) who are disgusting need to do this, to 'offset' the suffering they expect others to endure by tolerating their repulsive presence."

If Skookum literally believes that any man who wants to be in a relationship without having proved his masculinity is "disgusting" and "hypocritical", I wish he would just come out and say "I am disgusting and hypocritical for wanting a relationship, and so are most of you"

And, again, I'd say the reason he doesn't "just come out and say" that latter is because he's not arguing the former. It's not "disgusting and hypocritical for wanting a relationship," it's "hypocritical for wanting a relationship when disgusting." Again, the "disgusting" part is prior to the "desire" part, not an effect of it.

To summarize my interpretation here:

  1. Being in a relationship with a man she find unattractive causes a woman suffering.

  2. Some men are so unattractive and unlovable that practically any relationship he'll ever have with a woman will fall under (1). Therefore,

  3. When one of this (quite possibly small) set of men desires a relationship with a woman, he is thus desiring that she voluntary choose said suffering; and

  4. Asking someone to voluntarily choose to suffer for you benefit is hypocritical and entitled if you are not willing to similarly voluntarily choose to undergo comparable suffering.

  5. He is a member of this (again, quite possibly small) set.

Note, this is not the argument that you've been attributing to him. It does not imply that most men fall into this "repulsive, unloveable" set, nor that one falls into this set because one hasn't undergone the Hock, or whatever, merely that this applies to the (again, number not specified) men who do.

And I get that you seem to disagree with (2) and/or (5). But can you at least follow the argument?

Any criteria of "the worst of the disposable males" which includes him would probably include you.

Indeed it would, and should. I've been telling people for years that my ideal society would almost certainly have me executed.

Edit — Addendum: All that said, I'd still prefer he doesn't do his suicidal stunt in the state I live in, because it doesn't matter how much he repeats "don't look for me," if he goes missing, the state will send out people to find him (or his corpse), which will cost money, when we have a crappy economy and serious budget woes. (Hence my "why not just put people like us out of our misery?" take.)

What do Alaskans think of Chris McCandless?

What do Alaskans think of Chris McCandless?

Mostly that he was an unprepared idiot.

I have heard that Alaska Natives respect him for attempting to live with the land; any knowledge of that?

I don't recall him ever saying that he's disgusting for wanting a relationship, only that he's hypocritical for wanting a relationship while being disgusting (because ugly, awkward, etc.).

From the horse's mouth: I think that it is very likely that my partner is going to be disgusted by me. If I'm not willing to endure a similar level of misery as my partner, I'm a hypocrite: I'm asking someone to do something I'm unwilling or unable to do myself. In this case, I personally find this form of hypocrisy at least mildly disgusting - like a 400lb doctor eating a shitload of McDonald's and telling their patients to lose weight and eat healthier, Big Gulp in hand.

I'll add on an addendum to this, which is that many have criticized the Hock by calling it pointless and therefore stupid. The pointlessness of the Hock is a feature, not a bug; there isn't exactly a whole hell of a lot of point or meaning in a woman (or anyone) suffering in a relationship with someone they find disgusting. As such, a meaningful and even nobler, certainly a more valuable struggle/sacrifice (such as service in Doctors Without Borders, or the Ukrainian armed forces as an MD minus his residency) isn't as good at freezing off the hypocrisy. For that to be true, you'd need to believe that a relationship with your disgusting ass would be meaningful or that it would benefit some kind of greater good; I do not believe this.

Furthermore:

All that said, I'd still prefer he doesn't do his suicidal stunt in the state I live in, because it doesn't matter how much he repeats "don't look for me," if he goes missing, the state will send out people to find him (or his corpse)

Yeah. It would kind of suck to have guys braving 50 below and flying choppers and shit around in some godforsaken mountain range in the middle of absolutely nowhere to look for the frozen-solid carcass of some poor benighted fool who thought that an extended wilderness sojourn would solve his problems. Of course, Alaska probably serves as a magnet for such fools and the Alaskan wilderness has got to have a fair number of dead fools in it already.

Asking someone to voluntarily choose to suffer for you benefit is hypocritical and entitled if you are not willing to similarly voluntarily choose to undergo comparable suffering.

As mentioned by someone else in this thread, there's a big difference between "voluntarily choosing to undergo comparable suffering" and "voluntarily choosing to undergo comparable suffering in a way that will actually benefit someone else".

Let's say you* are in a relationship with a woman who's more attractive than you. You've determined that she sacrificed something by getting into a relationship with you rather than someone more conventionally attractive, and want her to know that you appreciate this sacrifice.

A normal person would demonstrate his appreciation for his girlfriend's sacrifice by making a sacrifice of his own which benefits his girlfriend: taking her out for a nice meal, buying her a thoughtful gift, offering to look after the kids so she can enjoy a night out with her girlfriends etc.. This is such an ordinary part of the dynamics of any healthy relationship that it hardly even needs mentioning.

An insane person would demonstrate his appreciation by taking a hammer from his toolbox, smashing all of the fingers on his left hand to bits, then waving his irreparably maimed hand in front of his terrified girlfriend while screaming at her "LOOK I KNOW BEING IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH ME CAUSES YOU TO SUFFER SO I MADE MYSELF SUFFER JUST AS MUCH SO NOW I'M NOT A HYPOCRITE PLEASE LOVE ME"

No prizes for guessing which one your hike to Alaska more closely resembles. Going on a hike to Alaska technically demonstrates a willingness to undergo suffering comparable in degree to the amount you think you're inflicting on some woman by asking her to be your girlfriend. But she doesn't benefit from this trek in any way, so why should she care? Willingly suffering so that others might benefit is noble and admirable; willingly suffering in a way which benefits no one is meaningless. If you don't understand why I'm baffled as to how you think anyone would be impressed by the nobility of your pointless trek to Alaska, ask yourself whether there's anything intrinsically noble or admirable about a lunatic smashing his hand with a hammer. God may be impressed by self-flagellation for its own sake, but we mere mortals tend to find it pointless, masturbatory and a waste of time and resources.

Imagine Dave is dating Alice, who was previously in a relationship with Bob. Dave gets into an argument with Alice and accuses her of not caring about his feelings. Alice says it's not true and starts listing off all of the sacrifices she's made. Only she's listing off the sacrifices she made for Bob's benefit, not Dave's. No one would be persuaded that the sacrifices Alice made for Bob's benefit demonstrate how much she cares for and appreciates Dave. No woman will be persuaded that your trek to Alaska (carried out before you even met her) demonstrates how much you appreciate the sacrifice she made by getting into a relationship with you.

*Or @SkookumTree, if we're still maintaining this charade.

*Or @SkookumTree, if we're still maintaining this charade.

What'll it take to establish I'm not the same person as him? I'm the 40-something permanently-unemployed Alaskan who used to comment at SSC as Kevin C. until Scott banned me, then used the same handle at /r/themotte that I'm using here.

Yeah, I'm from the northeast US, not an Alaskan. Never even set foot in the state. A few people from the SSC Discord have seen pictures of me: Cypren and SomethingElse for sure. Skeward possibly, I don't recall who else.

willingly suffering in a way which benefits no one is meaningless.

I understand. The meaninglessness of the Hock is a feature, not a bug: I'd be asking my girlfriend to make a huge and fundamentally meaningless sacrifice by being with me, given my subpar-but-not-Quasimodo physical appearance and autism.

I didn't mention very much the 'suffer so that your girlfriend benefits' thing; I had taken this as more or less given that I'd do my best and make unusually large sacrifices in order to keep my girlfriend happy. The Hock may be - but hopefully isn't - a prologue for the kind of determination, conscientiousness, and self-sacrifice I'll need to display in order to maintain a relationship with someone that isn't morbidly obese, has a job, isn't a hard drug user or danger to herself or others, and can manage her own affairs.

Further: I don't know how much I'll talk about the Hock after I complete it, assuming that I survive. I think that the Hock is going to alter my character and personality. I've read accounts of martial artists being able to recognize other martial artists from how they carried themselves, and combat veterans have talked about being able to recognize other people that have been in life-or-death struggles against other people. I know that if I told people about the Hock - even if I called it a "solo backpacking trip" people would either think I was a liar or crazy. That too - the stupidity of the Hock - is a feature, not a bug. Because it's pretty dumb to be in a relationship with some dude that disgusts you just 'cause he's into you.

You know what, med school allowing, go volunteer in Ukraine for a few months. They're probably not too picky about doctors, even if they're only med students, and you might find a woman to bring back with you.

Certainly bigger bragging rights and street cred than a glorified trekking expedition through bumfuck nowhere, and it might even carry a lower risk of dying.

I'd be asking my girlfriend to make a huge and fundamentally meaningless sacrifice by being with me

Going on your stupid hike is meaningless: it's imposing suffering upon yourself to no end and for no tangible benefit. Putting up with the slings and arrows every relationship throws at you because of how much you and your partner love each other is the very opposite of "meaningless": it's pretty much a defining part of the human condition.

The Hock may be - but hopefully isn't - a prologue for the kind of determination, conscientiousness, and self-sacrifice I'll need to display in order to maintain a relationship

And yet I'll note that the vast majority of men throughout human history in stable healthy romantic relationships were able to maintain the desired level of determination, conscientiousness and self-sacrifice without embarking on a stupid narcissistic hike in the middle of nowhere. They just got into a relationship and treated their partner as they'd like to be treated. It's the golden rule, it's not rocket science.

I think that the Hock is going to alter my character and personality.

It will not, at least not in the way that you think.

Because it's pretty dumb to be in a relationship with some dude that disgusts you just 'cause he's into you.

It would be. That doesn't describe the inner life of any woman who voluntarily entered into a relationship with a man she likes even if he's less than a perfect 10. You're describing a person who doesn't exist outside of your own warped imagination.

You shouldn't be seeking out a relationship with a woman who's disgusted by you. You should be seeking out a relationship with a woman who genuinely likes you and enjoys your company. I know you think the best you can hope for (based on the five or six women you've spoken to in your life for more than ten minutes) is a relationship with a woman who tolerates your presence even if she finds you faintly repulsive, but I am extremely confident that you are wrong, and I wish that you would at least give that possibility some sincere consideration for a few minutes.

I think the absurdity of your chain of "reasoning" is derived partly from the hidden assumption that only women in relationships with unattractive men suffer, whereas women in relationships with hypermasculine Chads are walking around in a state of uninterrupted and unqualified ecstasy 24/7.

This is nonsense, as should be obvious to anyone who's interacted with another human being at some point in their lives. Everyone in a relationship will hurt the other person in the relationship at some point, in ways overt (domestic abuse, cheating, being a deadbeat) or subtle (passive-aggression, neglectfulness, forgetting birthdays). Even in a healthy relationship devoid of abuse, petty squabbling and so on, every relationship entails sacrifices, compromises, opportunity costs and accommodations which could be characterised as "suffering" e.g. passing up on your dream job in London because your spouse and family live in Berlin; you might not enjoy dinner with the in-laws but you go because it keeps herself happy etc.. The idea that you can enter into a relationship with someone and everything in your life becomes better and they never cause you any amount of hurt or pain (even indirectly) and you never have to make any sacrifices or change your lifestyle for the benefit of the relationship - this is a childish adolescent fantasy. No mature adult person going on a date will "pitch" themselves as "if you get into a relationship with me, you will never experience upset or suffering and will instead be swimming in a lake of good vibes only in perpetuity" - they will instead say "I have a great deal to offer, and getting into a relationship with me will have a net-positive impact on your life - but both of us are only human and are bound to cause each other trouble and upset from time to time". To quote Bob Marley: "The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for." Please tell me you don't actually believe that every woman with a physically attractive boyfriend or husband has never been upset or hurt by something he did. No relationship - none - longer than six months old meets this description.

So it's trivially true that "being in a relationship with a man she finds unattractive causes a woman suffering." - being in a relationship with anyone (attractive, unattractive, male, female, tall, short, fit, fat) will cause a woman some nonzero amount of suffering. What I think you really mean is that the amount of suffering visited upon a woman in a relationship with an unattractive men is net-negative: that the life of every woman in a relationship with an unattractive man is strictly worse than it would have been if she had stayed single. I don't think you or Skookum (assuming you aren't a Skookum sock-puppet) have anything near the kind of data to justify such a hyperbolic claim: the idea that "every woman in a relationship with an unattractive man (in the entire world throughout human history) would have been happier on net had she remained single" is just such an alien proposition to me that contradicts everything I know about the world. It's more bonkers than astrology and Scientology combined.

Let's zoom in from "the entirety of the female sex throughout history in every country in the world" to "you and Skookum". Maybe you both believe that you're so ugly that you can be reasonably confident that any woman who enters into a relationship with one of you would see her quality of life decline precipitously as a result. I'm assuming neither of you would cop to being the kind of men who would beat their girlfriends, or insult and belittle them, or cheat on them, or gamble all their money away. So you're essentially claiming that you're so ugly that the magnitude of your ugliness completely negates whatever positive impact you might have on a prospective girlfriend's life through your other positive qualities. "Yes I provide for her, yes I listen to her, yes I'm emotionally nurturing, yes I satisfy her in bed, yes she finds me funny, yes I get along well with her friends and family, yes I would never insult her - but none of that matters because I'm just ever so hideous, and how could a woman ever love a man who looks like THIS?!!"

With all due respect, chill the fuck out. I am quite confident you are not the fucking Phantom of the Opera. We both know that if you DM'd me a selfie, I would be looking at a picture of a perfectly average dude in his twenties - not strikingly handsome by any means, but far from hideous. You won't do this, because you've built up this cosmic self-pitying self-absorbed tower of a belief system - in which you are forever doomed to be miserable and inflict misery on others because you drew the short straw in the genetic lottery through no fault of your own - and if someone were to say to you "dude, relax, you look fine" you'd be forced to confront the fact that this elaborate edifice you've constructed was based on faulty assumptions - namely:

  1. that every woman in a relationship with a less than maximally attractive man is miserable and
  2. that you are so uniquely hideous that you could never hope to meet a woman for whom being in a relationship with you would represent a net positive impact on her life).

All that being said, I imagine that many women in a relationship with you would be unhappy. Not because you're ugly (as I said, I very much doubt that you're anything like as ugly as you think you are), but because it doesn't sound like much fun being in a relationship with a self-pitying narcissist who's unable to take his girlfriend at her word that she sincerely enjoys his company for its own sake (while acknowledging that he's not a 10), and who cannot be dissuaded from believing that she only entered into a relationship with him out of some misguided sense of pity. You don't need to hike to Alaska for two months to fix this problem (in fact doing so will do nothing to address it) - you need to talk to a therapist and get out of your own head.

"Yes I provide for her, yes I listen to her, yes I'm emotionally nurturing, yes I satisfy her in bed, yes she finds me funny, yes I get along well with her friends and family, yes I would never insult her - but none of that matters because I'm just ever so hideous, and how could a woman ever love a man who looks like is as unattractive as THIS?!!"

Fixed that for you; a lack of gracefulness due to autism isn't physically unattractive, but is pretty deformity-adjacent. Two seconds of video footage, or a single still photo of an autistic person interacting, is enough for people to judge them as awkward.

I'm assuming neither of you would cop to being the kind of men who would beat their girlfriends, or insult and belittle them, or cheat on them, or gamble all their money away.

I'm willing to entertain the at-best-counterintuitive position that a relationship with an awkward autist trying reasonably hard to be kind can be worse than a relationship with your typical, garden variety shithead that gambles money away, has a booze problem, or is physically abusive. Playing devil's advocate here, the autist is sincerely trying their damndest to be a decent person...but his attempts (and it's usually a he) suck donkey balls. Also his awkwardness contributes to their social isolation. And it's pretty difficult for her to get assistance in leaving the relationship: after all, he's a genuinely kind, caring man...so what if he's a little awkward?

You don't need to hike to Alaska for two months to fix this problem

The plan is to finish the Hock in two or three weeks; if I'm not out of the wilderness after seven weeks are up, I'm probably just a human popsicle for wolves or bears or something.

And it's pretty difficult for her to get assistance in leaving the relationship: after all, he's a genuinely kind, caring man...so what if he's a little awkward?

Women have far more license to terminate relationships on a whim than men do, they can utter a bunch of tripe that summarizes to the "the vibes were off" and most people will at least be mildly supportive, unless she's already married with kids or something.

I'm willing to entertain the at-best-counterintuitive position that a relationship with an awkward autist trying reasonably hard to be kind can be worse than a relationship with your typical, garden variety shithead that gambles money away, has a booze problem, or is physically abusive.

Find me an example of a woman who was diagnosed with literal PTSD after being in a relationship with a kind but socially awkward autist, or whose kind but socially awkward autist boyfriend tried so hard to be nice to her that he landed her in the hospital with a split lip and a broken arm - then we can talk. Your worldview is not merely wrong, not merely ridiculous, but actually grossly offensive to victims of domestic violence.

Find me an example of a woman who was diagnosed with literal PTSD after being in a relationship with a kind but socially awkward autist, or whose kind but socially awkward autist boyfriend tried so hard to be nice to her that he landed her in the hospital with a split lip and a broken arm - then we can talk. Your worldview is not merely wrong, not merely ridiculous, but actually grossly offensive to victims of domestic violence.

I had said earlier that it was at best counterintuitive and at worst - yeah, grossly offensive as well as ridiculous and wrong sounds about right. Best steelman is that awkward dudes isolate their partners and loneliness is as bad as 15 cigarettes a day. It's not a great steelman.

grossly offensive as well as ridiculous and wrong sounds about right

Typically when a person recognises that their belief is offensive, ridiculous and wrong, they stop believing in it as a result.

Note that your claim that loneliness is as bad as 15 cigarettes a day directly contradicts your earlier repeated claim that it's better for a woman to be alone than to be in a relationship with an unattractive, awkward man. You can't have it both ways.

Typically when a person recognises that their belief is offensive, ridiculous and wrong, they stop believing in it as a result.

I don't believe this. I think that being in a physically abusive relationship is a good deal worse than being with an autistic guy that genuinely tries hard to be a good dude and is functional enough to hold a decent job. However, what I'm willing to consider is that there might be extremely non-obvious ways in which a relationship with our autistic hero sucks donkey balls.

Note that your claim that loneliness is as bad as 15 cigarettes a day directly contradicts your earlier repeated claim that it's better for a woman to be alone than to be in a relationship with an unattractive, awkward man. You can't have it both ways.

No, it's very possible to be lonely AF while in a relationship.

More comments

I don't recall him ever saying that he's disgusting for wanting a relationship, only that he's hypocritical for wanting a relationship while being disgusting (because ugly, awkward, etc.).

He explicitly said "Surviving the Hock will mean that I am no longer both disgusting and hypocritical for wanting a relationship." He did not say "I am disgusting, and the fact that I am disgusting makes me hypocritical for wanting to be in a relationship."

Moreover, if surviving this Alaskan hike makes him not-disgusting, that implies that the only thing about him that makes him disgusting is the fact that he has not completed this hike yet, meaning his physical appearance and social awkwardness etc. have nothing to do with it.

The relevant set isn't "every woman in the entire world," it's the set of single women likely to be in a position for Skookum to ask out, which is at least a few orders of magnitude smaller.

The point is well-taken, and I've never really bought the idea that "there's somebody for everyone". A lot of people will die alone through no fault of their own. If Skookum had Down's syndrome, or some horrific facial deformity, or dwarfism, or some bowel condition rendering him anally incontinent etc. I'd think his belief that every age-appropriate single woman he meets will find him disgusting or otherwise unfuckable would be pessimistic but understandable. (I'd also think that his belief that completing his Alaskan hike will magically negate the disgust prompted by his facial deformity to be pure cope.) But Skookum, as previously mentioned, is fit, able-bodied and intelligent. Until I'm given good reason to believe otherwise, the claim that it's reasonable of him to assume that every age-appropriate single woman will find him unfuckable is prima facie ridiculous. It's a delusion of grandeur couched in the language of self-pity.

Being in a relationship with a man she find unattractive causes a woman suffering.

I disagree with this outright. I note that none of the three TV Tropes examples you cited actually illustrate the alleged claim that women experience distress as a result of being in relationships with men they find unattractive. They are, rather, about the distress a woman experiences when she is forced to marry and/or have sex with someone she doesn't want to - which is a completely different scenario to a woman voluntarily entering into a relationship with a man she doesn't consider particularly physically attractive. This happens all the time. If you have hard evidence that women actually do suffer in such a scenario (e.g. if women who describe their husbands as unattractive have lower self-reported happiness than those who don't after controlling for confounders), I'd love to see it. Until then I will not accept this claim at face value, which means the rest of the argument cannot rest on it. A cursory Google pulls at least one study finding the opposite (that men and women both report greater relationship satisfaction when the woman is more attractive than the man). I think there's a lot of typical-minding going on here: maybe you and Skookum think that you'd feel distressed being in a relationship with an unattractive woman, so you're assuming the same must be true of women.

But can you at least follow the argument?

No, I can't.

The Hock will freeze off most or all of the hypocrisy that I've talked about. For the disgust: there's the "Damn, this motherfucker is unattractive as all hell; he's gross for openly wanting a relationship and grosser yet for seeking one" component, and then there's the "Fuck, the asshole's a hypocrite too" aspect of the disgust; the former is quite a bit larger than the latter. So the Hock will only make me slightly less disgusting, maybe moderately less disgusting, if I survive it. Cypren from the AstralCodexTen discord believes that the Hock, like any other life or death situation, will probably give me perspective or else break me, and if it breaks me I'm just royally fucked and a future human popsicle for wolves or something.

He also believes that this is dumb as all hell and strongly disapproves.

I'll also say that - as someone that's seen more than most people do of the inside of hospitals - that 'ugliness' doesn't scratch the surface of the suffering generated by unattractiveness; health problems, physical and mental, are most of the reason why people are unattractive. Certainly ones between 18 and 40.

he's gross for openly wanting a relationship and grosser yet for seeking one

Once again - why? What makes you gross for wanting to be in a relationship? You've asserted this so many times, and yet haven't even attempted to explain why (so far as I've seen).

If you think that other people think you're gross for wanting to be in a relationship (in the "Nice Guys™"/incel etc. context), I'd understand what you meant. But why are you accepting the stupid opinions of a bunch of obnoxious nerdy libfems as if they were holy writ? Just because some irritating woman with problem glasses and an asymmetric purple fringe thinks you're gross for wanting to be in a relationship, doesn't mean you have to agree with her.

So the Hock will only make me slightly less disgusting, maybe moderately less disgusting, if I survive it.

Not to the people currently calling you gross for wanting a relationship. If someone thinks that now, nothing you do will ever persuade them otherwise. You're better off just dismissing their opinions entirely.

He explicitly said "Surviving the Hock will mean that I am no longer both disgusting and hypocritical for wanting a relationship."

[Emphasis added]. The key word is "both." Once he "completes the Hock," he won't be hypocritical anymor, therefore he won't be both disgusting and hypocritical (just disgusting).

the alleged claim that women experience distress as a result of being in relationships with men they find unattractive

Well, I see plenty of people, in talking about the "do's and don't's" of modern relationships and dating argue that, at least for a non-trivial number of women, being simply asked out (or comparable expression of interest) by a sufficiently-unattractive man will make her uncomfortable, let alone him expressing it directly by asking her out. Not to mention plenty of institutional "factsheets" and the like on sexual harassment which define it as "anything that makes you [generally implicitly female here] feel uncomfortable sexually" constitutes such, and coming rather close to implying something like the meme comic. Then there's all the people arguing for why no-fault divorce, and sometimes even the decline of marriage, have been vast positives for women, and therefore society, because they're no longer forced to "settle" as their grandmothers were. (See, for example, CNN here.)

A cursory Google search returned these:

ScienceDirect: "Committing to a romantic partner: Does attractiveness matter? A dyadic approach"

Taylor and Francis Online: "Sitting pretty: satisfaction with physical appearance, division of household chores, and satisfaction with housework"

SpringerLink: "Female coital orgasm and male attractiveness":

Female coital orgasm may be an adaptation for preferentially retaining the sperm of males with “good genes.” One indicator of good genes may be physical attractiveness. Accordingly, R. Thornhill, S. W. Gangestad, and R. Comer (1995) found that women mated to more attractive men reported an orgasm during a greater proportion of copulations than did women mated to less attractive men. The current research replicates this finding, with several design variations. We collected self-report data from 388 women residing in the United States or in Germany. Results support the hypothesis that women mated to more attractive men are more likely to report an orgasm at the most recent copulation than are women mated to less attractive men, after statistically controlling for several key variables. Discussion addresses (a) the inability of the present research to specify the causal link between female orgasm and male attractiveness and (b) the proactive nature of female sexuality documented in recent research guided by an evolutionary perspective.

ScienceDirect: "Correlates of satisfaction in British marriages":

Similar criteria may operate in mate choice and in mate retention. For example, United States couples tend to be similar, and the more similar they are, the happier and more stable their relationships are. Another widespread criterion is male dominance, which females in several primate species seem to find desirable in a mate. Defined in various ways, dominance seems to characterize men that women find desirable. Also, cross-cultural evidence suggests that attractiveness, particularly in women, enhances mate value. A survey of over 1000 British couples was undertaken to test the homogamy (similarity), male dominance, and female attractiveness hypotheses in that society. In 19 of 42 tests, homogamous couples tended to be significantly (p < 0.01) more satisfied. Couples, especially wives, were more satisfied if the husband dominated decision making, but excessive husband dominance reduced satisfaction. Husbands were more satisfied if the wife was moderately more attractive than they were. Unlike some previous U.S. studies, this one revealed no relationship between marital satisfaction and the husband's earning more than the wife, being better educated, or having wealthier parents. In addition to the homogamy hypothesis, the notion that dominant men gain attractive wives received qualified support. Economic factors may be less fundamental to marital satisfaction than these other variables.

[Emphasis added]

From Cooijmans, N.C.J. "Does Being Physically Attractive Make You Successful in a Speed-Date? A Study That Defines Success Through Popularity, Selectivity, Amount of Matches and Satisfaction." [PDF]: "Several studies found that physical attractiveness correlates with people’s satisfaction in a relationship (Lucas, Wendorf, Imamoglu, Shen, Parkhill, Weisfeld, & Weisfeld, 2006; Krebs & Adinolfi, 1975). Lucas et al. (2006) looked at heterosexual couple marriages in four different cultures, and found that in every culture, physically attractive people who married a person with approximately the same attractiveness level were more satisfied about their marriage than physically unattractive people, or couples that differed in attractiveness."

Lucas, Wendorf, Imamoglu, Shen, Parkhill, Weisfeld, & Weisfeld "Marital satisfaction in four cultures as a function of homogamy, male dominance and female attractiveness"

Mate choice and mate retention may both depend in part on the principle of homogamy, or positive assortative mating. In humans, the more similar couples are, the happier and more stable their relationships are. However, the practice of homogamy in mate selection must be balanced against the need to select qualities in a mate that are slightly different from one's own, and evolutionary theory has suggested that male dominance and female attractiveness are two particularly adaptive qualities that are sought in a mate. The present study investigated the relationship between marital satisfaction and homogamy in American, British, Chinese and Turkish couples. In addition, the present research assessed the evolutionary hypothesis that spousal ascendancies on dominance and attractiveness would relate to marital satisfaction. Cross-culturally, romantic love for ones spouse increased as a function of both homogamy and some evolutionarily predicted divergences on both dominance and attractiveness. However, marital satisfaction also benefited from some ascendancies that were contrary to the predictions of evolutionary theory, suggesting that self interest and cultural criteria may also guide preferences for spousal ascendancy. The present research provides for debate concerning the cross-cultural use of evolutionary hypotheses as predictors of marital satisfaction, while also suggesting unique cultural criteria for positive assortative mating.

Lucas, Wendorf, Imamoglu, Shen, Parkhill, Weisfeld, & Weisfeld "Cultural and Evolutionary Components of Marital Satisfaction: A Multidimensional Assessment of Measurement Invariance"

Psychology Today: "(4 Reasons Not to Settle in a Relationship)[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201404/4-reasons-not-settle-in-relationship]":

If you have ever found yourself grappling with the question of whether it's better to be alone, or to settle—which Gottlieb calls “one of the most complicated, painful, and pervasive dilemmas many single women are forced to grapple with"—read on. Here are four science-backed reasons why you should consider holding out for a relationship that makes you truly happy:

…

A recent set of studies found that people who were afraid of being single—those who agreed with statements like, "I feel it is close to being too late for me to find the love of my life," and, "As I get older, it will be harder and harder to find someone”—were more likely to prioritize being in a relationship over the quality of that relationship or a potential partner. In a longitudinal study, those who feared being single were less likely to end a dissatisfying relationship, and in a mock online dating study, such individuals were more likely to express interest in dating someone whose online profile included statements like, “I love what I do, so I need someone who respects that and is willing to take the back seat when necessary.”

Could it be that people who are afraid of being single are happier in lower-quality relationships because of their lower standards—that for them, any relationship is better than none at all? Not likely. The researchers found that fearful participants in bad relationships were just as depressed and lonely as fearful participants who were single.

…

Settling is the safe bet, whereas holding out is a gamble. There is a reasonable chance that you won’t find true love. But the payoff is so much bigger. For every story you hear about someone who was too picky and ended up alone and miserable, there is another story about someone who stuck to their guns (despite harassment from friends and family) and ultimately found someone amazing who made the wait more than worth it.

Or in "How Couples Deal With the Loss of Physical Attraction":

• Ignoring physical attraction when choosing a partner makes a relationship more likely to be temporary. • A person who isn’t attracted to their partner will find a way to stay away, both physically and emotionally.

…

Many people believe that the importance of physical attraction is overrated. These individuals contend that other factors, such as an emotional connection, friendship, the ability to communicate, the willingness to start a family, and safety and security are just as vital, if not more, to sustaining a healthy, long-term relationship. But I beg to differ. While these factors are important to a viable relationship, so is a passionate, physical attraction. I’ll even submit that if physical attraction “never” existed between partners then they are living in a veritable “house of cards.” When choosing a lifemate, many of these individuals came packing with a “checklist” comprised of tangibles but lacking in physical attraction. “I was never raised to consider such a thing,” said a female client. “I was taught that looks and sex weren’t that important. Honesty, productivity, and loyalty were important, and above all else, religion and family. Now I don’t even want to kiss my husband. When I see a man that I find attractive, I get excited. It’s as if I’m finally freed up to feel my desires.”

It is true that many people manage to stay together with little to no physical attraction. Severe health issues notwithstanding, some of these people are engaged in child-centered marriages or they’ve found a way to sublimate their sexual desire via work, sports, or even substance dependence. Others consciously submit to living with a big hole in their lives. But for many, sooner or later the void craves filling and trouble ensues. It’s only human.

…

  1. Nitpicking. When a partner feels trapped in an unhappy relationship, they tend to consistently find things wrong with their partner: The way they smell, the way they eat, the words they use. Things they may have once found endearing are now annoying. Some of these critics hope that the partner will get the message and end the relationship—something the nitpicker may be scared to do. Others are simply projecting their own frustration onto a partner. Nitpicking in this context may be considered sadistic, but because it is usually unconscious it is difficult to stop. In my clinical experience, once the underlying reason for the nitpicking surfaces, a couple may find themselves forced to deal with their attraction issue—a more authentic, yet dangerous place to be.

…

  1. Lack of Respect. An individual who isn’t attracted might show a lack of respect for their partner. While the nitpicker is always on the watch, demonstrating a lack of respect might be less consistent but more stinging. Insulting a partner in public is a common occurrence, or unfavorably comparing a partner to a neighbor, family member, or co-worker—or someone they despise. Humiliating a partner on the grandest stage is often a sign of unhappiness with a relationship.

…

I realize that Victorian roots are still at play for many. But the media routinely uses attraction and sex to sell. Divorce is still stigmatized—less so now than in previous decades—but it is certainly not celebrated. And yet we still don’t pay homage to all that can make a relationship work. The next time you’re looking for a life partner, remember to put physical attraction and sexual compatibility on your checklist if you truly want a strong foundation.

From the Stanford Graduate School of Business via newswise.com "No-fault Divorce Laws May Have Improved Women's Well-being":

Tapping into the national database of death certificates, Wolfers and Stevenson traced suicide rates before and after divorce reform and found a statistically significant reduction of nearly 6 percent in the female suicide rate following a state's change to unilateral divorce. There was no discernible change in male suicides. Looking longer term, they found close to a 20 percent decline in female suicides 20 years after the change to no-fault divorce.

From psycnet.apa.org: Spielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., Maxwell, J. A., Joel, S., Peragine, D., Muise, A., & Impett, E. A. (2013). Settling for less out of fear of being single. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1049–1073.

No, I can't.

Which numbered step is unclear? Where do you "lose the thread," as it were?

Then there's all the people arguing for why no-fault divorce, and sometimes even the decline of marriage, have been vast positives for women, and therefore society, because they're no longer forced to "settle" as their grandmothers were.

I think it says a lot about you that you hear "settle" and immediately think "woman forced to stay in a marriage with an unattractive husband" as opposed to "women forced to stay in abusive marriage/marriage with a drunk/marriage with a deadbeat" etc.

The fact that women are more likely to come when having sex with an attractive man does not remotely imply that women in relationships with less attractive men are therefore miserable. Sexual satisfaction is but one component of many in what makes a relationship work. (Also, most unattractive men still have fingers and tongues.)

ScienceDirect: "Correlates of satisfaction in British marriages":

Nowhere in the excerpted passage is it mentioned that women married to less attractive men are miserable. The study found that husbands are more satisfied if their wives are more attractive than they are, which is a separate question.

Lucas et al. (2006) looked at heterosexual couple marriages in four different cultures, and found that in every culture, physically attractive people who married a person with approximately the same attractiveness level were more satisfied about their marriage than physically unattractive people, or couples that differed in attractiveness."

This does not imply that attractive women in marriages with less attractive men are miserable, only that they are less satisfied than attractive women in marriages with attractive men.

Lucas, Wendorf, Imamoglu, Shen, Parkhill, Weisfeld, & Weisfeld "Marital satisfaction in four cultures as a function of homogamy, male dominance and female attractiveness"

Nowhere in the excerpted passage is it mentioned that women married to less attractive men are miserable.

Psychology Today: "(4 Reasons Not to Settle in a Relationship)[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201404/4-reasons-not-settle-in-relationship]":

Again, you're conflating "an attractive woman marrying a less attractive man" with "settling". That's not what "settling" means. I imagine quite a lot of women would rather marry a plain-looking man who is caring, supportive and a good provider over an attractive man who cheats on her and can't hold down a steady job. Plenty of attractive women in relationships with attractive men are still settling.

Or in "How Couples Deal With the Loss of Physical Attraction"

This is just an opinion piece, I don't care.

From the Stanford Graduate School of Business via newswise.com "No-fault Divorce Laws May Have Improved Women's Well-being":

Again, you haven't come close to demonstrating that attractive women in marriages to unattractive men are more prone to suicide. There are hundreds of better reasons a woman might divorce her husband (abusive, drunk, deadbeat, philandering etc.).

Which numbered step is unclear? Where do you "lose the thread," as it were?

You've demonstrated that some rather weak and equivocal evidence exists for step 1, but are treating step 1 as if it was axiomatic and basing the subsequent steps on that.

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