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 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