I think the word that Rosenstock was searching for, was "Introvert"[1]. I'm an introvert who had the good fortune to marry another introvert, and live contentedly with her for 40+ years. Following her death a few years ago I reflected on the differences between being part of a couple, and being solitary. There were many.
Health maintenance was one; somebody else in this thread has already commented on married men living longer. It works both ways, too. Each partner keeps tabs on the other, notices problems, encourages them to stick to health resolutions, etc. Plus you both are much less likely to forget things or miss appointments, because the other one is there to say, "Didn't you say..." or "Weren't you going to...?" and so on.
There were other, more subtle but still powerful effects. In general, I and my wife, as a couple, were a bolder, smarter, more adventurous "person" than either of us was alone.
So my advice to Rosenstock would be to seek another dedicated introvert. Of course it's hard to get their attention...
"Introversion is the state of primarily obtaining gratification from one's own mental life". There is a considerable popular literature on the benefits and drawbacks of being introverted.
Introversion has drastically different effects for men and women in the dating market. An introverted woman will still get approached by men, so even if she intentionally opts out of dating, she can always opt back in pretty much on the fly if a guy she likes approaches her. So she will still get relationships, if she wants them.
Introverted men, on the other hand, often just don't pursue women, especially if they have low testosterone (or sex drive) as the OP probably does. Since in most cultures men are expected to do the initial approach, this can translate into very long spells (decades or more) of singleness for them. Even worse, introverted men are often very bad at reading women's signals. Those are often quite subtle, because for extroverted men interested in dating (the majority), women just don't need to signal that much to get results.
> An introverted woman will still get approached by men,
I'm an introverted man and all 4 women that have hit on me in my lifetime have been those I didn't feel similarly about. I imagine the ratio for women is similar. Just because she can jump back into the sea, doesn't mean she can summon new types of fish.
(just looking at heterosexuals as you are doing,) every time a man forms a relationship with a woman, a woman also forms a relationship with a man. So, "different outcomes" for men and women are bounded by the roughly equal numbers of men and women, and the number of single men will come out the same as the number of single women*, so any impact that introversion of either sex has will also play out in the other sex. So, if introverted women are getting more relationships than introverted men, then there a bunch of extroverted women who are not getting relationships.
*women tending to date men older than them and vice versa does mean that in an increasing population there might be more women in a particular dating pool than men than one would otherwise expect, but there might be negative feedback in the form of more pressure for age-reverse relationships to take up the slack
btw, this type of reasoning also applies to many other relationship canards like "men are more promiscuous than women", because no, not possible
This argument is wrong. A "hot man" or "hot woman" can have many partners in a short period of time, sometimes at the same time. Less desired people, as you can see in this thread and pretty much everywhere this topic is discussed earnestly, can go a whole lifetime without even a single partner.
In my experience, women absolutely have an easier time getting partners, and there's no contradiction. It's just that a few men are taking all the girls - always been this way (notice how many places used to even enshrine that in law by allowing marriages between one man and multiple women - quite a few countries to this day) and probably will never change.
You implicitly assume that one man can only have a relationship with one woman at the same time (or vice versa). If you drop that assumption (because it's BS), your reasoning just collapses.
There aren’t any, because it’s nonsense. Even introvert and extravert is mainly a myth; during experiments there are no clear measurable differences. One recent study even claimed the only difference was that introverts were slightly smarter.
There is also no measured connection between being an introvert and having low testosterone.
And in fact around 2/3 of all psychological research cannot be reproduced. Take any psychological claim with a giant pinch of salt.
Sounds like he made a few claims: 1) "An introverted woman will still get approached by men", 2) "Introverted men, on the other hand, often just don't pursue women, especially if they have low testosterone (or sex drive) as the OP probably does", 3) "In most cultures men are expected to do the initial approach", 4) "introverted men are often very bad at reading women's signals", 5) "women just don't need to signal that much to get results".
1, 3 and 5 feel like super common sense to me, were you asking for sources on that? I'm asking mostly because I wonder whether my intuition is completely off when it comes to these things, or if there are people who live in completely different realities where women are expected to make the first step, more women approach men than the opposite and men really don't need to signal interest because they get so many offers.
I was asking for a source that showed that introverted women had happier outcomes ("results") than introverted men in dating.
Introverted women probably get hit on more ("more offers"), but using that to conclude that they see better outcomes is like saying it's a good thing that my dating life is successful because my inbox is filled with unsolicited dick pics.
The primary argument was that it makes it a voluntary decision for them ("opt back in"), because they'd have the opportunity. It doesn't mention that those are necessarily great opportunities, but we usually consider having opportunities better than not having them.
If you're unemployed and you get an offer a week, you're better off than if you didn't get any offers, even if those offers aren't great. Options > no options.
At the risk of everyone wanting my head on a pike:
A. We don't really know what introversion and extroversion are.
B. The higher the IQ, the more likely they are to qualify for the label "introvert."
So in at least some cases, it's possible smart people just give up on trying to connect socially because they get a lot of negative feedback from other people and it's mostly downside for them, so they stop bothering.
Most people marry people within about 10 IQ points of themselves. If you are "introverted" because talking at most people is an extremely negative experience due to you having a high IQ, it's not unrealistic to shoot for finding a means to connect with someone of similar IQ in hopes of establishing a relationship. If your IQ is high enough, odds are good they will also be labeled "an introvert" by the world.
Please note this is not saying "introversion indicates high IQ." That's not what it says at all.
My completely unscientific experience (n=1) of having a major mental health breakthrough and “becoming” and extrovert after years testing as an introvert tells me a few things.
1. For a variety of reasons, some people have extreme difficulty making mutually supportive connections and/or have no service familial attachments
2. There are compensating structures in the form of small safe groups that are lower risk or share a common yet outsider connection (obscure music, complex systems, historical or obsolete collections etc…) that lend themselves to a different “pace.”
3. In some cases, a combination of factors, mental health issues, lifestyle and life issues etc… mask a self love that can represent as something shameful in being expressive and thus after perceived or real rejection or failure many people just give up trying to put the effort in and become comfortable in that lifestyle.
That’s in the best case however, and assumes you can find an affinity group. Unfortunately it’s getting harder to get people together cause everyone’s just trying to survive they don’t feel like they have time to spend building community.
I knew someone with a very high IQ who was an extrovert and became an introvert after an abusive middle school experience.
I also know of a case of a bright child who consciously chose to stop playing to the crowd after they started school because it didn't go good places.
People act like extroversion and introversion are some kind of hard wired internal set point and seem oblivious to the myriad ways humans get taught to be one thing or another and that some people change in reaction to outside influences.
My personal anecdote is when I was younger. I took things very seriously. I took people very seriously. I came off as a smart ass.
Later I learned if I want to be part of the party. I needed to check my brain in a lock box and not let it out until the social event is over. A social event is about meeting people and good feelings.
Bitcoin. Investing in Beanie Babies. Selling your house and becoming a digital nomad? That’s wonderful. You are living the dream. Other platitudes.
I suspect introversion is correlated with my IQ because high IQ people enjoy thinking, and thinking is easier when you're by yourself without distractions.
I did volunteer work eons ago for tagfam.org and I test as a middle-of-the-road extrovert but spend a lot of time in geeky circles where most people are basically painfully shy and many people interpret my middle-of-the-road extroversion as "God, what a ridiculous attention monger!!!!!"
I've gotten enough negative feedback over it, I spend less time on forums than I used to. I'm not an introvert but even I eventually give up on bothering if it's mostly downside.
It can be isolating when one has thoughts and ideas that the people around one simply cannot follow or understand.
Of course it’s also often the case that introverts are simply low social status and thus find social interaction generally unrewarding. In that case pretensions of high intelligence are usually just a coping mechanism.
You can also just be labeled as a weirdo and become the target of bullying for sharing your ideas which aren’t well understood by your peers, and therefore you just keep your mouth shut and become an introvert.
Another aspect is that the IQ grades a very specific set of capabilities. I usually get a result between an armchair and a fly (I am not particularly proud of that, but it does not exactly reflects my capcities :))
It may be tha introvert people, rather calm in their heads, are better at analyzing the patterns you typically find in these tests (wildly guessing)
However, while introverts are a minority group in society, they form the majority of gifted people. Moreover, it appears that introversion increases with intelligence so that more than 75% of people with an IQ above 160 are introverted.
Being an introvert doesn’t mean they don’t like to share or communicate. It means they don’t crave real world human interaction as much.
I’m also an introvert. I like to communicate at my own pace. Online forums allows me to do that. I can leisurely check for progress on the discussion where I participate, or don’t check at all, after adding my two cents.
I think it's because forums are asynchronous and low-commitment. If you find a conversation tedious you can just not reply. Harder to do when you're involved in an in-person conversation with someone.
The cited definition from Wikipedia is rather vague and I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. I've always understood introversion vs extraversion as being about where you derive social energy, rather than gratification. I consider myself an introvert. A weekend spent socialising with friends is very gratifying to me, but it is also exhausting, and I am likely to want to spend the next weekend chilling on my own.
You can find streamers who will talk about difficulties going outside due to social anxiety problems, and yet are broadcasting themselves live. It's enough of a barrier for them somehow.
There is no control outside; via the stream they control visibility, access, set, and setting. Streams are also heavily one-sided; nothing to throw you off.
The technique is to control everything, basically.
No doubt because forums are entirely about the individual. The prompts that spark one’s own mental state may technically come from other humans, but that is ultimately immaterial. If those prompts were generated by some kind of GPT-like model nothing would change. For all I know you are a GPT model, but it matters not. The entertainment derived from writing this comment is the same.
Interaction with real people is a shared experience; something very different.
Obtaining gratification from one's own mental life in a significant way, that you do not desire to communicate with others, or that you only like communicating through text where you are free to imagine the personalities of the people you're chatting with, should mean one probably suffers from a personality disorder (paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal etc.).
If you were to have a partner where you still primarily obtain gratification from your own mental life, I can't imagine how this partner could feel any love from you, if your priority is to be alone with your dreams most of the time.
> should mean one probably suffers from a personality disorder (paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal etc.).
It does not.
> If you were to have a partner where you still primarily obtain gratification from your own mental life, I can't imagine how this partner could feel any love from you, if your priority is to be alone with your dreams most of the time.
> If this is true, then why do we find so many introverts in online forums?
I find writing is more cerebral than verbalizing. I can take an idea, interrogate it before putting it in writing - and then read, edit and re-read it before posting.
Also - have you considered the number of introverts not posting in online forums vs those who do?
Introvert is not the same thing as celibate, but completely orthogonal to it. Lots of introverts are happily married, sometimes even to extraverts!
The word he's searching for could also be "asexual". It's recently been added to the increasingly cumbersome LGBTQIA abbreviation, so it's good it's getting some more attention.
Yes, "asexual" is the feeling I got from reading the article. He says that his blog posts almost never mention a partner. But even this post, specifically about relationships, failed to mention a single potential partner. That to me says he just may not be interested enough.
Health maintenance is one I can relate to. I’m at my healthiest weight since my early teenage years, and I regularly visit my dentist, doctor, and ophthalmologist. None of this was the case before my spouse came along.
I’m sorry for your loss. I’m glad she so enriched you. :-)
> "Introversion is the state of primarily obtaining gratification from one's own mental life". There is a considerable popular literature on the benefits and drawbacks of being introverted.
This really got me thinking after recently coming across it:
"The mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled." ~ Plutarch
Your virtual assistant is not going to remind you of things that you did not devote to telling a virtual assistant in the first place. Your spouse is more likely to help fill in the unintentional places you might have missed in your intentional day to day actions.
Marrying another introvert is great until it leads to offspring. Then the kid sucks and sucks your mental energy for dealing with people to the point you barely even want to interact with the spouse or anyone else.
> So my advice to Rosenstock would be to seek another dedicated introvert.
With respect; why? 40 years ago the future looked very different. None of you felt urgency regarding global warming, faced the same cost of living fiasco, spread of drought, fire, mass migrations, political instability, and whatever conspiracy driven idiocy social media will unleash next.
There is no divine mandate humanity carry on a particular way. No reward for sticking it out with these entitled, self aggrandizing creatures.
40 years ago terrorists blew up something almost weekly worldwide, Russia was genociding a neighboring country all the same, cold war was in full swing, a computer glitch almost caused an all out nuclear war, and 4 million people died of hunger in Ethiopia alone.
Personally I feel comfortable and content with who I am. If you feel defeated by my words that says more about your emotionally inflated sense of importance, need to be validated
I'd wonder how many women this guy (and guys who relate to this post) are incidentally meeting every week.
When I was in my mid 20s after uni, it was basically zero. Just women at work, if even that.
If so, this is basically the result you can expect and nothing is going to change until you get those numbers up.
The common thread I see with guys not meeting women is almost never "I meet a lot of women but they never like me". It almost always cashes out into "oh yeah, I don't really meet women anyways." Yet they'll carry around this whole constellation of self-limiting beliefs as if they were living the former scenario.
As someone wiser than me once commented -- nobody is going to knock on your door. If you want to meet people, you have to get out there and do things that put you around people.
If you want those people to like you, you have to be relaxed and confident, which means you have to genuinely enjoy and be good at the thing. I like & am good at a reasonable spread of activities, some of which I can even do with friends, but the only ones that bring me new connections are work or work-adjacent. The activities known for meeting people contain nothing I'd actually do for its own sake.
Maybe nerdy people's choices of solo hobbies are downstream of social anxiety or social skills deficits. I've made a ton of progress there in my twenties, and there's no movement in my desire to go dancing or pottery-making or whatever, so I dunno.
I also think there's also some kind of subconscious relationship between social status and taste, such that most people end up with preferences that feel real and also just so happen to help them connect with their peer group. I mean, how is it that so many teenagers become obsessed with the same music their friends do? Music is between me and Spotify, alone in my room at night. I go to a concert & see people there who look like me, but not a single acquaintance in my Facebook social graph would have the artist in common (even back when that was a thing) so who am I going to invite?
I won't sit here and pretend to have totally authentic and uninfluenced preferences. But the ones I can trace, I trace to like, my dad. Or Hacker News. Seems like that mechanism misfired.
> not a single acquaintance in my Facebook social graph would have the artist in common
Doesn't matter, invite them anyway. Explain your circumstances - that you're looking to get out of the house and you really like the artist and enjoy the vibe of said person you're talking to. Repeat until you get a yes. If you get a rejection, say that you're trying to be more social and just want to get out and meet people as friends, because they have friends. Tell them why you like that artist and that they should give them a listen and see what they think. Some people enjoy discovering new music and will appreciate your introduction to a really awesome band they've never heard of before.
I think that big issue in "nerd" circles is the tendency to believe that everyone who attempts to engage in something they don't have as core hobby, is a beginner, is only dabbling in or is just checking out or purely for socializing is a poser doing something wrong.
So, they avoid trying to engage in other activities and treat newbies with suspicion. Outside of "nerd" circles, it is normal to engage in activities for social reasons only.
> I mean, how is it that so many teenagers become obsessed with the same music their friends do?
Their friends recommend them music and they check it out. They recommend music to friends. They engage with music friends like unless they absolutely hate it. Algorithms show them similar music too.
They go to concerts of artists they know nothing about, just to be there with friends.
> engage in something they don't have as core hobby, is a beginner, is only dabbling in or is just checking out or purely for socializing is a poser doing something wrong.
Have those people forgotten that for literally everything they do now, they started as a clueless newbie just checking it out?
I’ll add a corollary to it: sometimes you have to be the planner. Lots of people are like “yeah, I want to do $ACTIVITY but there’s nobody to it with.” There’s also a ton of people that are like “there’s nothing fun to do this weekend.” Post an event on Meetup / Facebook / etc. Say you’re going to do $ACTIVITY at $DATETIME and chances are pretty good you’ll find someone else interested in doing the thing with you. Good starter choices for $ACTIVITY include pub trivia, karaoke, and comedy nights but could also be things like going for a hike or a nice walk around a pond. It doesn’t have to be at a bar or expensive.
If you do this often enough, you’ll develop a group of regulars who will also want to do fun things and you can get one of them to host.
Off topic, but as an introvert lurking in an introvert thread, I want to say: this is true professionally, too.
My boss's boss's boss put it this way: no one is spinning around in his chair at his desk, twiddling his thumbs, thinking, "_When_ will Tom ask me to meet over coffee?" But if you send him a note, and ask politely, and convey earnestness, odds are good he will meet you for coffee.
Another way of looking at things is "just ask". What's the worst that'll happen? They say no, you lost nothing, gained nothing. But there's a surprising # of yeses out there to be had.
Which reminds me, I once asked this beautiful woman out, not thinking she'd say yes, but she did. We had a good run.
Here is the issue though .. as a man, if I am not interested in clubbing, going to the bar, art class, etc. where do I meet women to ask? This was the conundrum I was in throughout grad school. It is really, really hard. As I have aged, I know there is a flip side of the coin, where women also wonder where the "high quality" men are hiding. But it is way too hard.
I do remember in my younger days approaching someone on the bus .. in a friendly, non-creepy way. It didn't go anywhere but we did become friends for a short period. I just don't think it is okay approaching women generally in places like the bus because it is not okay to make them feel creeped out.
Others have said, but institutionalized settings can be good for getting the "vetting" out of the way. Why do so many romances originate in school? Because each and every participant recognizes everyone else is in the exact same position he is -- a subject of circumstance.
Streets, transportation -- these are low-filter interstices. Maximum wariness is warranted, really regardless of sex.
If you're not interested in going to the club, bar, art class -- what are you interested in? Seriously. It's tough. If your hobbies are sticking your head in the sand / introspective study (mine are), you will need to jump outside your comfort zone or else expect some degree of social resignation.
It depends on how bad you are at following rules #1 (be attractive) and #2 (don't be ugly). If poorly enough, then even a coffee invite will get you fired with a sexual harassment suit following you around for the rest of your life.
I tried skiing through which i met tons of people but very few single women. Tried bjj, no women at all. Hiking and camping groups, again no single women. I still do all of these activities but very few women. I've actually never met a woman ,single or otherwise, mountain biking, which is my main goto in summer.
Truth is that women don't generally do a lots of activities.
Most running clubs I've tried are 50/50. Dance classes/social dancing are usually female-heavy (The SF bay is probably an exception here). No one minds if you're bad at dancing as long as you are friendly and don't injure anyone.
Haha, they just choose different activities. Of the ones I've tried, the top five ones with a high female participation rate were (in order from highest to lowest): sewing, ceramics, fencing, archery, fitness clubs.
I made friends through those clubs, though, and never dated anyone from there.
Most people do things with their existing social circles. In fact most activities are pretexts (or more charitably, venues) for hanging out with people you already know and like. If you are open to new people, and you're a sociable, attractive young woman, you can probably find a more desirable and less creepy mix of suitors in the guests at parties you're invited to, or setups from your friends, than in Meetup.com attendees or bar patrons. So it would not surprise me if there were fewer women, or at least less openness to romantic encounters, in these open-access spaces.
The sort of people that need to improve their strategy of meeting women like this sometimes overthink the motives and behaviour of those they're hoping to meet. In a marketing sense, it's about the funnel. Someone upthread talked about just needing to meet more people. Put yourself in a position where you're meeting more and more people, widening the mouth of the funnel, and you improve your prospects at the results end of the funnel.
Generally as a result of being active and sociable, you become a person people want to be around. You can't give off a 'desperate to meet girls' vibe, so focusing on too many details can work against you.
I met my wife volunteering for a charity. Heavy bias of female to male in the volunteer group. Regular meetings to keeping seeing the same group and getting to know each other.
Single usually means young, so you have to go where the young (adult) women hang out, or do what they like to do. I don’t know what that is though, sorry.
Do volunteer work. I did work for New York Cares for a while and in addition to actually helping a good cause you inevitably meet single women who are also volunteering. I probably averaged about two leads and one actual date per event I volunteered at. Putting together bags of food for food pantries can be boring work, and you inevitably chat with your neighbor.
My cousin who is an underemployed balding middle aged divorcee (at times living with his mother - cue George from Seinfeld) met his current long term girlfriend on a skiing trip.
Granted this was somewhere in the Alps. Also my cousin is awesome at smalltalk and unrealistic business ideas.
Probably not, martial arts classes that are marketed as self defense or exercise rather than as training for combat sports get a significant number of women
Maybe it's just me but it seems tone deaf to go pick up women in a course about kicking harassers butts. It feels like something they would do in Wedding Crashers.
When I was a single, I went to a book club, all women except me, and I couldn't relate or get any small talk in. I am somewhat introverted, so it was very difficult.
I can see this. I am not quite an introvert. They treat me as a bit of a novelty, and that often feels lie it includes more “attention” than anyone else in the group.
In my part of the US, you'll find at least as many women doing these things as men. But perhaps there's a regional difference. Women in your area are certainly doing something. Maybe a little detective work is in order.
Interesting. Maybe each club is different. I’m pretty introverted but I’ve found that people frequently take breaks on the floor and chit chat with strangers in between climbs.
The ski slopes are full of women of all ages? Camping groups are full of women and even families? Plenty of women do hiking ... maybe less then men but if you did not met a single one, it is odd.
The Roman poet Ovid summed up the same sentiment perfectly: "She will not come to you through the shimmering air, you must venture to meet the one you will love".
I'm the guy who wrote the post and I can confirm the number of single women I meet is extremely low - which is what I meant by "lack of opportunities". I do have a somewhat active social life but I would have to actively optimize that for meeting single women, which would require some changes, which I haven't done - "lack of desire". But it's something I want to work on and maybe that's my next blog post :)
I suspect it will just start happening naturally if you get into something that isn't too male-dominated. Not necessarily knitting-club or yoga class levels, but maybe astronomy, gardening, camping/hiking or board games level.
I didn't have too much trouble getting girls when I was younger, in my home country... but once I got a bit older, and I mean around early 20's, not 40's, it started getting really difficult, and not for lack of trying... I was pretty much a party animal at the time, and would do pretty much all sort of things to meet girls and hopefully start a serious relationship, which was my real goal for quite a lot of time. I went to university events I knew there would be girls (not in my department, CompSci was almost entirely male). Gym. Festivals. You name it, I did it. I even tried approaching a really geeky girl I knew, as I thought she might be a good partner as she was a bit like me, just more extreme in her introvertness... after a few "dates", she had to told me she's lesbian, and I had no clue :D.
I really hurts to say that I completely failed. I saw lots of friends getting girls so easily while the girls I approached seemed to be offended by me even trying. I did end up having a couple of short relationships with women I was completely unattracted to, unfortunately... but of course, it couldn't last.
I made it my number one priority to find a wife (now I was past 30's already).
So I started online dating, which I found miserable and humiliating. Nothing much came of it. Until I finally went on international sites. Likely, most of it was scam, but basically the first woman I started communicating seriously with became my wife, eventually... funny how things go.
But at the cost of me having to move to another country, something I had no intention of doing... but as my number one priority, I made the sacrifice of moving and leaving everything behind, as she told me from the beginning she would not move for me.
We're still married, more than 10 years later, but I really miss "home", and even though she's quite good to me, I wouldn't say we're a perfect match... I had to give up not just the country where I lived, but things like having children (she doesn't want any) and visiting my family often (she doesn't like them). Everyone knows I moved just because of my wife, and it feels horrible to me because, truth be told, there are so many gorgeous women where I came from and they know it too :(.
I am at least happy I didn't end up alone.
All I am saying is: if you think it'll just happen naturally... well, it won't... but be careful how far you're willing to go to make it happen. Maybe it's not worth it.
He lives in Germany too, where it takes way more effort to turn an incidental encounter into something more.
And I agree with you. I think, for a lot of these guys, if you literally never ever get a good chance, then of course that you go into "monk mode". I only fell in love the first time at 22, because I met a girl who I found amazing. The second time at 28, again because I very randomly met a girl who was amazing.
> He lives in Germany too, where it takes way more effort to turn an incidental encounter into something more.
This is a classic, I've heard people say stuff like this in basically every country that I visited. I don't think it is something that can be measured, it's just something super subjective and a bit of a stereotype.
From my experience, I've noticed that typically individuals will say this of people with their same nationality (or from their own country in general). The same individuals will then argue that "Oh, I've been in country X and girls/boys are way easier to date" but I don't think that is related to the country itself.
… this sort of stuff is not just a “stereotype”. This stuff is real. This is measurable.
I am Portuguese - Brazilian. The gap between meeting and making new friends is gargantuan between the two countries. You can meet Brazilians for an hour or two and they’ll invite you to some gathering at their home. Portuguese people will do this less. And I’ve lived in England where this is even harder to make friends. London is the loneliest city in Europe and where people have the lowest average number of friendships.
It’s not just a stereotype. There are HUGE cultural differences.
I have to agree with this as a Brazilian. More over you can see the differences between countries very easily, it becomes even more apparent when you look to non-western non-eurocentric countries. Each country in Asia has its own way of meeting new people.
BUT there always exceptions (a lot of exceptions actually), and you shouldn't change your country based only on that. It is easy to find exceptions, shy people on Brazil, extroverts on Portugal, people who want something serious, or just date you a few times. The world is very diverse and there is a LOT of people that you can talk too. I can't say that these cultural differences make that big of a difference to be honest
This might be true of Germany though. I did find people aren't really open to meeting / forming friendships there. Not in the way they are in some other countries (well.. from my own travel experience, mainly the U.S. and India).
Having lived in different countries, there are a huge regional differences in how highly people regard the rules of the road and look out for other vehicles and pedestrians.
>He lives in Germany too, where it takes way more effort to turn an incidental encounter into something more.
Hogwash.
You are used to a different culture is all.
As a German it does not take more effort to turn an encounter into "something more", you are just not used to the customs.
It gets increasingly harder as we get old, at least for me. Even doing activities, trying online dating, it's just difficult. I suppose when we're 40+, we haven't adjusted our standards yet, and libido is decreasing too. I reached the point where I almost renounced trying to meet someone.
What the other replies said. But with a couple of clarifications:
You should engage in an activity that you enjoy for its own sake. Don't take up dance class, for instance, if you aren't actually interested in learning to dance.
Don't "go looking for women". That is, don't try to be a pickup artist. Make an effort to be generally social, but don't focus just on the ladies. Be generally social. Talk to the men as well as the women.
I find this to be bad advice. People already do the activities they enjoy and don’t do the activities that don’t enjoy.
Clearly the activities they enjoy do not involve meeting women. For me, this translates to weight lifting (few women lift; if there are women, there is a trope for creepy gym guy and there isn’t much socialization outside of the men’s locker room) or coding (another solo experience).
Try new things. Try things that are social and are uncomfortable for introverts. It’s the only way you can find the results you want.
I think the trick is really that you need to A) notice if you are a person who engages in activities dominated by your own gender or solo activities, B) figure out how to broaden your horizons without whiteknucking it.
I want to stress just how difficult both of these things can be -- especially the second part. It's truly a journey where you end up changing your entire mindset to become a person who is going to make a good partner for another human being. You must not feel pressured to do it, or resentful that you are doing it. You must choose wholeheartedly to do it. It's going to feel awkward and strange along the way.
My comment doesn't mean "don't try new things" at all. Absolutely try them and see if you like them or not. What I'm saying is that whatever things you're doing, you shouldn't be doing just to meet women.
Women can tell when guys are doing that, and it's generally off-putting.
If you don’t try things that you don’t already do then how will you know whether you enjoy them? Most people who don’t enjoy dancing don’t enjoy because they feel uncomfortable at such a low skill level. Learn to dance and then you can enjoy it. Like most things, if you’re good at it then you enjoy it. Both can cause the other.
Same way you meet any type of human. Participate in activities where socialization is a part of the activity, either intentionally or not; and actively socialize when the opportunity presents itself.
As a basic filter for activities, look for things where many people participate in physical proximity, the activity has periods of intense focus and then lulls, and without a taboo on talking. It helps if the activity attracts the type of people you want to meet, and it also interests you.
Don't bring a phone or other distraction for the periods of non-focus, use that time to probe for socialization.
For many men who frequent HN "Participate in activities where socialization is part of the activity" without further qualification would mean many activities where few to no single heterosexual women are present.
First, dress like Harry Styles. Then, go to a Harry Styles concert, where the gender ratio is guaranteed to be in your favor. Then say "hey what's your name?" to any given girl/woman. The girl woman will inevitably interrogate you, it doesn't matter what the question is, the answer is "I admire Harry's fashion sense, i'm a bit obsessed, are you into fashion?"
Boom, match made.
The issue I used to have (and still have) is a yearning for the world to be different and for the female sex to be not so mid.
A huge percent of the women you are interested in have been obsessed with that guy for the last 10 years or more (specifically 2011 when "That's What Makes You Beautiful" song was released) If you can drug or drink yourself into becomig mid, you have nailed the secret strategy that all the guys with cute girls have achieved.
But the most important: Through friends. Trying to make regular friends and expanding your social circle increases the chances of being invited to private gatherings, where you can meet more people and so on.
While I know others for whom church have worked, I often feel that people, especially myself, are not who they really are at church, only showing the good parts of themselves while hiding their unpopular quirks (i.e. the warts and all). This prevents me from being more interested in people I meet at church.
You'll get the most mileage out of anything centered around a personal goal or interest -- the more personal and genuine and less superficial the goal or interest is, the better. As an example, schools (as a student or postgrad) and religious groups (if you're religious) are very good if you're genuine in your involvement.
Also, social events connected in some way to people you already know (both family and friends) provide an incredibly high degree of optionality in all sorts of ways, including potential relationships.
#1 priority is optimizing the city you live in. What you’re looking for:
- population density: the more opportunities to connect with someone, the better. A densely packed city selects (or transforms others into) people who are open to meeting others. This also makes it the natural default to be within talking distance of someone; consider the opposite: you’re sitting in a coffee shop with enough square feet to comfortably fit 30 people, but there’s only you and 3 other people there — you’d have to conspicuously walk 15+ paces over to say hello to someone you’re interested in.
- transience: a city that is full of people who must be outgoing in order to not be alone means that you in turn will fit right in by being similarly outgoing and social. You’re looking for somewhere that people often immigrate to, or has a job market that brings people in from elsewhere, etc. You’ll be able to go out solo, make some friends along the way, and you just doing your thing will eventually attract the attention of someone in the room.
- walking-friendly: the more time you’re sitting in a car, the less time you’re surrounded by people. If you have someone giving you eyes while your walking down the sidewalk, that’s a perfect opportunity for a spontaneous date — but that will only happen if, you know, there are actually people walking around outside.
- social events: are there parks? Flea markets? Food trucks? Outside movie screenings or live performances? Food festivals? Meetups catering to your interests? Anything that gets people out and bumping into each other?
I’ve had fantastic long term relationships with people that I met in line at the airport, or at the coffee shop, and other miscellaneous random encounters. But your choice of city and its culture will determine the probability that you’ll hit off with someone that you randomly meet, and the odds that you’ll randomly bump into anyone at all in the first place.
I’m presently living in Dallas, Texas again (where I was born and raised), after having lived in DC and NY. Would not recommend anything similar: majority of people here have friend groups from their childhood and aren’t really looking to meet new people; coffee shops and other establishments are incredibly spacious (because land is cheap and people here generally want space from others, rather than e.g. communal bench seating); there aren’t many outdoors social events; you have to drive to go anywhere; etc. Only reason I moved back was due to some health stuff that I have since gotten over .
I suppose you could do online dating, but I’m not really a fan. If you have dozens of people lining up for a date with you, I feel that it screws up your perspective at the beginning, as you break prospects down into a matrix of pros and cons and try to prioritize who you go on a date with next — sucks the magic out of meeting someone. Vs bumping into someone, make eye contact briefly, look away for a moment, and then find that you both did a double take at the exact same time: there’s just you and that other person caught up in the chemistry of the moment.
You meet people who like to socialize and that you get along with. They invite you to things and places and you meet more people, some of them single women. This will require stepping out of your comfort zone and perhaps finding new ways to enjoy yourself. Grow as a person and embrace the many different ways of living.
That said, this is borderline navel gazing. Stop thinking about "what it's like to go swimming" and jump in the lake. Yes, you'll get wet, look stupid, and make a mess. There's no way around that. The sooner the better.
If you need to reason yourself into the water, I recommend "The Village Effect." Statistically, humans fair better with a rich tapestry of relationships. Are you ready to bet your life on being the exception? Move over, Pascal.
More pointedly, can you really say you've examined life and lived it fully if you've never shared it intimately with another person? Can someone say they understand the world if they've never left their home? Do you want to be that person?
You will inevitably make yourself look stupid in a relationship or even on a date. Not getting in there now is just delaying the inevitable. However crippling it is, you will have to face it one day. It's not the same as trying to command yourself into feeling better.
Speaking personally, oftentimes I truly want something but am afraid to fail and look stupid in the process. Laboring under a false sense of indifference is terrible, though. It’s inauthentic. Living like that is uncomfortable.
So for the author, and whomever else, I'd ask, are you being honest with yourself or are you turning away from fear?
Either something is worth the risk, galvanizing yourself, and taking your shot whatever the results, or it’s not. If it’s the later, let it go and move on. If you can’t move on, why not? Are you being honest with yourself? Deep down, you know the answer, because it’s a feeling. An intuition.
Ambivalence. Living in between these two states is painful. You’re attached to something but scared to reach out for it. It’s life under tension.
At a certain point, you can't resolve this tension by sitting in place and thinking deeply. You're not just a mind. You have to use your body, too.
I'm over 30. 2 years ago I was drunk, on coke and had a girl naked in front of me saying "Fuck me" and I still managed to botch it. This only happened once I normally manage to run as soon as I sense that a girl may be interested in me. It's not easy for some people.
I've been in some analog situations. Heck, even recently a woman whom I've known from work a few years back emailed me with some nice words, a will to reconnect and her number, and I haven't even replied to her.
On another hand, I feel a bit like the blog post, in that I'm not extra motivated into trying this, maybe also a bit worried to break somebody's heart (this includes, potentially, mine), or to be stuck in a situation I don't really like for too long. If I think through that deeply I'm not sure I even find that much upside. Anyway I really like his wording, it speaks to me quite a bit.
I've been single for all but 5 years of my adult (>20) life. After my 5-year relationship ended, I tried the dating scene for 2-3 years, but it's a lot of work for a gay introvert, and I decided that the effort-to-reward was not worth it for me personally and haven't dated for a long time.
Am I completely happy with this? No. But I don't know any couples who are completely happy either. For me, it's like 2 sides of the same coin: I'm happy most of the time, unhappy sometimes. And I think it would be the same if I was in a relationship.
A big difference is, if I notice I'm unhappy, usually lonesome, it's easy to fix by getting involved in some activity with friends, family or just by myself, like taking a walk outside. But when I was in a relationship, being unhappy, usually because of some relationship issue, was more like misery. And because this other person is part of the unhappiness, it's very difficult/impossible to solve on my own. We were living together, so it's not easy to ignore the issue: it's in your face all the time.
Another way I look at it is having a life with highs and lows vs a life that's more "even", without a lot of ups and downs. To some people, a life without highs and lows may be boring. Or, it can be viewed as basically content.
I do think there's a big difference between never having had a relationship of any kind, and having had one and deciding it's not your thing. Before I was in a relationship, I felt like an alien: everyone around me was dating or in a relationship and I had no idea what that was like. It made me feel defective and isolated from everyone, and I'm not sure that would have gotten better with time. So I'm glad I did get to experience love in a relationship, but as we were both pretty miserable by the end of it, I'm not sorry it ended. We are still friends and still talk/text occasionally.
One thing I believe strongly now, (although I did not always), is that we all very much have the right to be our most charming selves, and ask out people that catch our interest, but then gently let them down gently at any time after 1, 2, or even 10 dates, with no reason needed to be given for why you are breaking up. And if the other person sends the signal of "you are so unkind, for making me like you so much/love you, and then leaving me", you can reject that message; it's not fair or valid.
I hear you when you say you don't want to break anybody's heart. But you have the right to. And sometimes we do it, even though we don't mean to. And sometimes it is the right thing to do.
The vast majority of relationships don't work. That is absolutely not a good reason not to play.
It hurts but folks should be ante-ing anyways. And one of the only ways to make better experiences is with practice & experience. Don't deny that XP gain.
Bella DePaulo is probably the leading scholar on the social prejudice and discrimination on single individuals. The fact that the author of the article introduces the term "incel" to deal with this extremely negative stereotype in the second paragraph highlights this prejudice. If you're interested in learning more about the ways single individuals are treated unfairly in society, Dr. DePaulo has many articles and books published on the topic.
Any chance you could summarize the prejudice single people experience? I believe you, but it coul save hundreds of people from googling it individually.
married people are given unofficial/unspoken priority for promotions at a lot of workplaces. there's a lot of reasons for this, not all of them positive for the employee.
Your post is vulnerable and humble but at the same time your thinking is self centered and overly complicated.
We are all unique snowflakes of course but maybe a good starting point is understanding why humans get into relationships.
The most obvious reason is children. For many of us, the idea of leaving this planet without raising up the next generation is deeply unsatisfying. Is that a factor for you at all? Maybe on a deep level?
The second reason is a desire for partnership - to support and be supported. To be richly enmeshed in another person's life - and the beautiful and painful things this entails.
Those are the deeply meaningful reasons.
Less deep are the desire to explore, to connect with a lot of people, to get to know them inside out so to speak even if you end up moving on.
I suspect most men have these desires whether they are deeply conscious of them or just "pinging" you with a feeling of "maybe I should be doing more than I am as a single guy"
In other words, discover your "why." If you think you might want kids for example, own that you feel this way. If you think a life without a person to be dedicated to is kinda meaningless, own that you feel this way. If you just feel like loser for not having figured this out - and don't want to feel that way - own that. Doesn't matter if your reason is good or bad - just connect to it.
If you discover a reason and feel connected to your why, it all becomes a question of "how". I think it would be good to establish that.
Because the "how" then changes a lot, finding the mother of your children is different than figuring out how to get laid.
I'm the author, and I'd like to thank you for this comment. Yes, I have a tendency for overthinking, so that's maybe why it seems complicated. I have thought about the different reasons for why people get into relationships as well and I think you categorized them well. I'm still unsure about my own "why" and that's what I'm trying to explore now starting with this post. Yes, I'd like to have children, but it's not a "burning desire" and it's difficult for me to imagine being a father without knowing who the mother of your children will be. Partnership sounds wonderful, but I'm not sure if a deep connection with a single person is really better than having a broader network of friends.
Thank you again for your transparency. I don't have a ton of time but want to share a few reactions in case they are helpful.
First, I sense what a psychiatrist would call ambivalence from you. Your behavior makes it clear - on one hand you "want" - eg you say you want to have kids, care enough to make this post but something holding you back from wanting wholeheartedly (or you'd be more certain and have taken more action). You even wrote in your post: "The longer answer might also include some thoughts and attitudes towards dating and relationships in my mind that hold me back" - IMHO that's the first set of things to explore. You can't achieve something you can't allow your self to want.
Second, if you have an opportunity, I strongly advise you to establish a relationship with a good therapist and work though this stuff over a long time. I suspect from what and how you are saying, it would take years to explore and unpack and reshape your emotions and thinking on this. I don't know how old you are but chances are if you could have done this on your own, you would have already.
Third, I encourage you to stay open minded and realize that you don't know what you want, so the rails you are creating for yourself may not be real. For example: "it's difficult for me to imagine being a father without knowing who the mother of your children will be" - I think that's an indication of an area to explore frankly. Most people I know who ended up having families knew they wanted a family first and found a partner to have one with. Also, from your post: "I’m not interested in a relationship for its own sake" - how do you know? Maybe you'll realize that you love being in a relationship and obviously the person has to be right but the relationship could be greater than the two of you.
Personal story. I always knew I wanted to be married and have kids and I was successful at dating but my relationships would always end. From the outside it would appear that I have my shit together and most women I dated were "marriage material" but I inevitably called it quits and started over. I spend a few years in fairly intense therapy (few times per week) and it has helped me deal with my own issues that kept me from going all the way. The other thing, I used to "obsess" about what my ideal person is like and as consequence dated a lot of power women (CEOs, professors, etc.) whom I found super interesting. But the woman I ended up marrying isn't a CEO, what she had to offer me was family - both becoming a member of her great family and the family we have together. I didn't know to look for that but it's what I needed. And although we have fewer natural interests in common, the current project we have of raising two small kids binds us much more than having a lot of hobbies in common etc. The point I am making is that I wouldn't have been able to describe what I actually need until I met her, even though I thought I knew.
Good luck. Mainly, find a therapist and prepare for a lot of work. It will be worth it.
>Also, if it doesn’t work out, I’m scared of leaving a broken heart in another person.
This is a telling statement. It really highlights his inexperience and immaturity with regards to relationships (not that this is in doubt - it is after all the subject of his post).
Being the cause of, and the sufferer of a "broken heart" is a formative experience. There's nothing like healing a broken heart to teach you that actually things get better, and it wasn't right anyway.
There's nothing like the fear of hurting someone else that will trap you in an unhealthy or unfulfilling relationship for far longer than it should have. When you finally summon the courage to end it, knowing it will hurt someone else - you immediately feel the freedom, and the other person's journey to healing begins too.
I find it hard to understand people who make a mountain out of dating. It's a numbers game, and there's a gazillion ways to meet people.
> Being the cause of, and the sufferer of a "broken heart" is a formative experience. There's nothing like healing a broken heart to teach you that actually things get better, and it wasn't right anyway.
I've never understood this, when I was a teen I had fallings out with a person who was a friend but I couldnt read her social signals, I was nowhere near dating her in hindsight and she was too shy tell me what she actually thought of me until it was too late. Combined with a subsequent brutal fallings out with my family lasting for months that caused me to give up any idea of talking to a woman for more than one day
It took 5 more years for me to be diagnosed as autistic. By that point I figured that had been a death sentence for my social life. Lack of success with male counterparts after the social skills sessions and years of therapy solidified that no amount of help would allow me to look past it
Im now going into my thirties and have no friends, still I guess I'm posting on some guys Hn submission about being single so that counts for something, sounds more appropriate a comment on Tumblr though. I'd be willing to believe the only thing keeping me coming back at this point is hormones and the results of evolution. I reject any advance from all genders so nothing is logically inconsistent. I get what I put in. I just want to live a constructed narrative. Some days I wish I could just burn out all my mirror neurons and stop anguishing over it all if I'm really not going to go back again. But even now I guess I still want someone to hear me rant, just so I don't turn insane, its been my one real worry recently
I think to enter into a relationship knowing there will be an expiration date speaks more to your character. Almost sounds like "I'm with them unless something better comes along or their shortcomings become more than I want to deal with".
If you genuinely love someone, you will stand by them, work on any problems, and remember that you chose to build a future together. Given that the divorce rate in my community is less than 1% we're probably doing something right.
You've completely misunderstood my original comment.
The process of meeting new people to establish compatibility is absolutely a numbers game. To expect to meet someone with whom you are compatible enough to spend many many years with just by meeting 3 new people is ridiculous. It's not impossible, but given the number of permutations of personalities it's extremely unlikely.
In order to find a suitable life partner, you need to be exposed to a large number of potential partners. Some people get lucky and hit the jackpot after meeting 5 people, others after 50, others still not after 200.
Also, divorce rate is not at all an indicator of healthy relationships. Religious or cultural taboos massively influence divorce rate, and there is plenty of evidence to show that the result can be people trapped in dreadfully unhappy marriages without any escape.
We live in the US, where the success of a marriage is closer to a coin toss. It's pretty abaurd to try to take the average from across the world in this case.
The simple average hides a lot of differences between demographic groups. If you’re college educated, earn a higher income, white or Asian, and get married later, then your chances of success are much higher than 50/50.
Divorce rate means the percentage of people getting a divorce every year. Your 40-50% figure must be the total percentage of marriages that end in divorce.
Now the GP said "divorce rate", so I take it they meant the former. If it's the latter, then 1% is abnormally low (and can't be simply explained with happy marriages).
It's more that things change, and that one of the things that changes is the "new relationship smell." Also people change with the seasons. Someone who is outgoing and upbeat in the summer may be hell on wheels in the winter simply because of the effect the seasons have on them. You learn more about someone the longer you spend with them.
My spouse wanted to get married after 3 months of dating and I pushed back because we hadn't even been through a whole season together, let alone a year. If you want to spend a lifetime with someone you have to recognize when it's time to be practical and when it's time to throw caution to the wind and commit at any cost.
> Given that the divorce rate in my community is less than 1% we're probably doing something right.
Or something wrong. Low divorce rate doesn't mean low unhappiness rate. I know several men and women in utterly trash relationships, who'd be better off alone, but who stay married because "this is the way".
It's a mix of "must have kids at all costs" (even if that cost is the parents and kids having awful lives because they weren't a good match), and "must be and stay married at all costs if we have a kid".
Hey, I can't know what your community is like. But my guess, it's part of the many communities that have this problem. But that's not to disagree with your first paragraph; when you're with a partner, you do stand by them, you don't just treat them like a phone and upgrade to a newer and shinier model every few months/years. But also, you don't have to put up with them if you find out they're a terrible person.
Yes it did. The assertion was that the more people you date the higher your odds of success, when the reality is totally the opposite. People who date less have a higher success rate in marriage.
> The assertion was that the more people you date the higher your odds of success
Again, no, it is not. It very clearly is talking about being a numbers game in terms of meeting people, rather than dating people. You do not date everyone you meet.
I haven't been single all my life, but the relationships I have had have taught me things that makes it easier to be single. I remember the good times fondly, but the bad times remind me why being single isn't so bad.
I'm a woman and have had long serious relationships and long-ish stretches of being single. Took me a while to filter through all the social pressure BS and realize that, on balance, I have been way (WAY) happier single. Maybe this could change one day? But right now I have no interest in changing it. It'd take someone extraordinary. I'm not 'poly' or 'asexual' or any of that crap, I've just had to give up so much of my time and energy for relationships that ultimately left me worse off in every way. By contrast, on my own I can do what I want with my time and energy, and I'm surrounded by wonderful friends and family.
If we put less social pressure on people to pair bond, some non-zero percentage of the population would be genuinely happier.
I'm a man and I definitely see more pressure on women to pair off, at least at younger ages. With men (particularly driven or ambitious men), there's a societal "he'll settle down eventually" but with women "eventually" is like "late 20s"
It's not just social pressure, it's simply a biological fact. For each year after ~30, the chance of having something wrong with a child during pregnancy goes up. On average in relationships, women's greatest value is their youth and beauty (early/mid 20s), men's greatest value is when they've progressed in their career and are amassing wealth (mid/late 30s). There's nothing wrong about pointing this out, they're just the realities about modern relationships. Yet we can never honestly discuss them because people have a hard time controlling their emotions about it.
Women are not baby machines or objects of beauty, they're people. Their "greatest value" is whatever they decide it to be. They should form relationships in the way that brings them the most happiness.
Reducing women to objects of beauty, saying their value comes from their fertility, and implying that if they disagree with that assessment it's because they're too emotional is almost the dictionary definition of misogyny. I hope you'll reconsider this attitude.
I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but this is the sort of discussion board where many people are literalists. Women literally are baby machines: from the perspective of biology, and as a critical asset in the development of the human race (especially during times of high child mortality).
People get upset when you point this out, but they don't get upset because it's the truth, they get upset because of what they think the consequences of people knowing that truth will be. There are many things which can't be debated in public because it causes people (not just women) to get extremely emotional and retreat to lizard-brain defenses. My hope is that on HN, we can learn to control those responses.
Appeals to literalism or objectivity often serve to create a seemingly objective and seemingly simple veneer over something that's truly subjective and complex.
In this case, "women are baby machines" is obscuring a lot:
- This is conflating being female with being a woman. Being female is a biological fact, being a woman is a distinct concept from being female. Conflating them serves to imply that our ideas about womanhood are objective rather than constructed. But most of our ideas about women have nothing to do with any biological reality - there's nothing about having two X chromosomes that means you wear dresses or engage in girltalk.
- Many women can't have children. However, if a woman has a hysterectomy, we generally don't say she's no longer a woman.
- Many people who can have children don't identify as being a woman.
- Having the capacity to bear children doesn't imply that this is your "greatest value." This is a normative statement, not a factual one. You can't prove a normative statement from factual statements. [1]
- We don't organize our society around biology. We weren't born with wings, but we fly. A woman's biology shouldn't limit her ability to pursue her own happiness. If she doesn't want to settle down in her 20s, chiding her for letting her biological clock run down is patronizing, moralizing, and unjustified.
People don't get upset because the truth is too hot to handle. They get upset because this is a bad faith line of argumentation used to justify bigotry - getting upset is a reasonable reaction to that.
I think you're getting worked up over nothing. In particular, it's probably likely the person you're arguing probably doesn't think what you think they're thinking.
To say that women's greatest value from a societal perspective is baby-making, a person is not saying or implying: that women who can't have babies aren't valuable. Or that people (for example trans-men) can get pregnant and have babies.
As for your semantic arguments, nobody is "proving" anything here. This is an internet discussion board, we're discussing biology and society. There is no philosophical proof, because the systems we're discussing are not logical.
How about this: "due to its necessity to the continued existence of humanity, the ability of baby-making people to make babies is highly valued, often greatly above other abilities that baby-making people have, and this is strongly considered in mate selection." I think that's all the OP meant to say with the parts you're complaining about rewritten to be less imperative.
I think it's pretty clear we do organize society around biology, not exclusively.
Not so. For one, trans women are women, but are not biologically female. For another, being a woman is primarily about fulfilling a certain role in society, having a certain relationship to people based on your gender and theirs. That's got very little to do with biological sex. Like I said, there's nothing biological about wearing dresses. Kilts and skirts are virtually identical, but one of them is seen as very masculine and one of them is seen as very feminine.
Nops. Trans "women" are not women. They don't meet any biological criteria for that, they can't operate functionally as woman. There are not trans-females in any other species, as this is exclusivelly a cultural and psychological phenomena in humans. As you said yourself, there's nothing biological about wearing dresses, thus, using a dress doesn't make you a woman.
As human beings, trans people deserve care and respect and the full set of human rights, yet, this doesn't include that we bend reality based on imaginary constructs.
Trans women are women. No other species may have trans individuals, but no other species has men or women either, or if they do, it's beyond our understanding (in the same way our understanding of their vocalizations or the way they think or experience is limited). Wearing a dress doesn't make you a woman, identifying as a woman and fulfilling that role in society does (which does often involve wearing dresses).
If you support trans people's right to exist as humans, maybe it behooves you to educate yourself about the difference between gender and sex, so that you don't repeat transphobic talking points.
Obviously we disagree on the fundamental point, but I appreciate that you took your time to have a civil discussion with me, and this makes me appreciate your point of view more rationally. I will definitelly think more about it. Who knows? maybe I'm wrong.
> If you support trans people's right to exist as humans
Absolutist statements like this ("if you don't agree with my point of view, that means your viewpoint is the worst of the worst") make people not want to look further into or agree with your ideology, and are ironically binary.
Those distingushing between trans women and women and those thinking trans people have no right to exist as humans are not the same group. You've bent this entire discussion to try and make it about the talking point you wanted to make, so hopefully you're pleased you did it.
> from the perspective of biology, and as a critical asset in the development of the human race (especially during times of high child mortality)
There are many things that may be true from the perspective of biology, but we collectively as a humanity choose to ignore or fight them. I think most people will disagree with the opinion that reproduction is the only goal of human life. Because that's it - an opinion (that you seem to share).
For example, there are many people of both sexes that consciously decide not to have children. In this context, reducing women (and women only) to "literally baby machines" is not really logically defensible in my opinion. Unless I misunderstood your point?
Nobody said reproduction was the only goal of human life. Although, one imagines, since it's the only reason that any human existed ever, it's a pretty important one. Probably the most important one!
I think you're imputing reduction when it wasn't implied or intended.
> People get upset when you point this out, but they don't get upset because it's the truth, they get upset because of what they think the consequences of people knowing that truth will be.
Or they get upset because they aren't Nihilists and believe in some form of personal meaning besides perpetuating the species?
I mean when the person who made the "literally baby machines" comment, they did qualify it was from a biological (explicitly) and social ("a critical asset in the development of the human race") perspective, they later said that reproduction was probably the most important goal of human life[1], so I think people are properly conflating these statements...
This is not being literalist or objective. That is having very specific ideological opinion about value and purpose of women. As in, nothing about us matters except our ability to have babies.
This would be like saying that men are nothing but insemination machines. And yet, analysis of what men want or do on this forum is way more complex, because men are actually more then that.
From the perspective of biology, all that non-baby related aspirations and wants are also part of our biology. You are ignoring them because of ideology, not because women would lack these for biological reasons.
Women are not baby machines or objects of beauty, they're people.
Never said they were, that's you putting words in my mouth. However I think it's fair to say that most people form relationships to have children with people they find attractive. I know you r/childfree types are a vocal minority, but you are just that: a minority. There's plenty of analyses that does deep dives on the data out there. Check out the OkTrends blog that the OkCupid founders ran. You may have to dig for it a little; they deleted it since the facts they uncovered upset a lot of people.
I do actually want children. I think it rather undermines your claim that I was putting words in your mouth when you first put words in mine, and then immediately transition to a justification of your view that relationships are principly about raising children.
What you said was that social pressure for women to get married young was justified because that was when they had the best chance of giving birth to healthy children, and that their "greatest value" was their youth and beauty. "Baby machine" is a fair summary of what you've expressed - you're deemphasizing their agency in making decisions about their lives and emphasizing their beauty and fertility, describing them as if they were an object which suited a purpose.
FWIW, I didn’t read what GP wrote as being prescriptive nor “justification”, but rather an observation of the statistics involved in heterosexual males selection of dating/marriage prospects.
I hate the idea of anyone feeling inferior or less worthy due to not being chosen by someone else.
At the same time, we can speak objectively about what one group of people statistically find desirable in another group. I mean, we could also choose to not speak of it — but for many there is utility in understanding (and thus speaking of) what is desired by others: if you know what they want, you can decide if it’s worth making choices that would satisfy those desires, and you can also be realistic about how likely you are to satisfy those desires as a function of time and other variables.
As a heterosexual man, I can speak of the opposite side of the coin: over 99% of women I have seen on online dating apps clearly state that having kids is a must — my not wanting kids by that logic makes me unsuitable as a dating prospect. I could be upset: “how dare they see me as some sort of sperm dispensing machine?!” But the reality is that they don’t harbor any ill intent, they just simply want kids and that means I’m not a good choice to satisfy that desire.
Certainly it is normal & healthy to communicate what you're looking for in a relationship upfront, and to respond to that blamelessly as you suggest. I'm not convinced in the utility of using statistics to derive dating advice, I think by and large there's a huge diversity in what people are looking for and the best advice is to work on being a healthy and realized person and being patient with finding a partner, but I wouldn't suggest it simply shouldn't be discussed.
I don't understand how you can read the comment as being purely descriptive, when it makes categorical statements about people's "value" with a postscript about how these "truths" are too hot to handle. If it were simply about following the facts wherever they lead, surely there wouldn't be a need to preemptively declare that anyone who disagreed did so irrationally, and surely it wouldn't have been categorical without making room for nuance or disagreement.
In my mind, if you feel moved to discredit anyone who might disagree with you before they've had a chance to join the discussion, you're probably not neutrally sharing a simple factual observation. That's a strong indication that you're making a statement about how you think things should be, not how they are objectively. It doesn't matter so much when people disagree with you about something objective, they're simply wrong and the truth will win out. It's when you want them to behave in a certain way that disagreement is difficult to tolerate.
> I don't understand how you can read the comment as being purely descriptive, when it makes categorical statements about people's "value" [...]
I touched on this in a later response under your initial comment in this thread, but the tl;dr was that I interpreted their use of the word "value" being the same as its use in economics: something is said to be "valued" if it is desired/sought after, and whether that should be the case or how we feel about it is an orthogonal concern (though certainly not any less deserving of discussion itself).
> [...] with a postscript about how these "truths" are too hot to handle. If it were simply about following the facts wherever they lead, surely there wouldn't be a need to preemptively declare that anyone who disagreed did so irrationally, and surely it wouldn't have been categorical without making room for nuance or disagreement.
I think I see where you're coming from now. I suspect difference in interpretation is a consequence of differences in our individual priors: I have seen countless times that people will conflate mentioning of a statistic with support for that statistic being what it is -- there is, after all, the proverbial saying "don't shoot the messenger". So I can sympathize with (what I interpret to be) a preemptive "I know some of you are going to take what I've written uncharitably and/or irrationally, so fire away" -- which isn't to say that I think that's a productive way of communicating, but I see the rationale behind that (as misguided as it may be) just as much as I can see the rationale behind giving someone the finger, or cussing someone out, letting out a frustrated sigh, or any other emotionally motivated outburst. (I didn't take what was originally written to mean "if you disagree, it's because you're being irrational")
Their greatest value to themselves can be decided by themselves. But if they want to date other people then their value can be calculated the same way a market of buyers and sellers of items calculate value. Its no secret men prefer younger and prettier girls. Its no secret women like accomplished men.
People are free to have whatever preferences they wish, but preferences are diverse (rather than being monolithic as you imply), and aggregate preferences are largely irrelevant - if my partner values my ability to do handstands, I need not concern myself with the popularity of handstands.
Handstands wont win you any marriage material partners, though maybe it can win you 1 or 2 numbers in a mall in Vegas. Preferences are diverse, but the same biological needs drive humanity since hundreds of thousands of years ago. Beauty and ambition have both evolved as a result of procreation.
I think your response is resulting in so much disagreement in the comments due to differences in how this quote is parsed:
> On average in relationships, women's greatest value is their youth and beauty (early/mid 20s), men's greatest value is when they've progressed in their career and are amassing wealth (mid/late 30s).
Particularly what the word “value” means in this context.
I suspect you take “value” to mean something like “is deserving of positive self esteem; worthy of positive sentiment/respect/love”.
I, and I suspect most others here in the comments, take “value” to mean something very different; roughly: “that which is statistically pursued and/or desired by others”. In this sense, it can be said that (within certain circles) sticking a needle in your arm and checking out of your life is valued. That says nothing of how you and I feel about others doing that, whether that’s healthy/moral/ethical/whatever behavior, etc. The statistics regarding the pursuit of a thing and the sentiment regarding the former are orthogonal. This is, for example, what is meant by “value” when speaking of supply/demand.
If you look at what men want (and in my experience as a heterosexual male looking at dating prospects, what women also want — much to my detriment as a man who is uninterested in having children), it usually includes having healthy, well supported (financially and emotionally) children. While I am kind, giving, ambitious, funny, etc, I am reduced to zero “value” (i.e. they have no point in pursuing me because I won’t ever give them what they want) in the eyes of 99% of the single women where I live. And that’s fine to me, as we all have things that we want, and there’s no one in existence that will check the boxes off for everyone else in the universe. That doesn’t mean that my own self esteem should be diminished, and I don’t think most people would want me to have any less self esteem.
I think supply and demand is a bad way to look at it. Dating isn't a "market" in the sense that an auction is conducted to discover the value of goods. If you find someone you're happy with, you can't leverage that to find someone you're even more happy with, in the way that if you made a good trade in a market you'd have capital to conduct more trades with.
This model of dating relies on flattening people so that they can be considered fungible, but dating is about how someone's idiosyncracies complement your own. Markets rely on there being a ground truth of how valuable something is, and for every participant to bring their information about that to the marketplace. But in dating, one pair of people might be toxic and horrible, and those same people might do great with other partners - it's far too murky and subjective to be reduced to a market.
> If you find someone you're happy with, you can't leverage that to find someone you're even more happy with, in the way that if you made a good trade in a market you'd have capital to conduct more trades with.
I agree with this.
Though I also don't think anyone is really trying to suggest (express or implied) that there's a general, natural analogy to be made between dating and markets; I solely think the word "value" was being used in the economical sense, without implying any further connection to economic theory. I realize that, when I suggested that "value" was probably meant in the sense of supply/demand, I may have conveyed something I wasn't trying to; sorry about that.
At any rate, this is how I and most people within both my family and social circles have used "value" in conversation: not an expression of sentiment, but merely an observation of what others want. Given this meaning, it's actually nonsensical to speak of a person's value without any supporting context -- people don't have value any more than the color green has smoothness/roughness, or the a note played on a piano is righteous/unjust -- these descriptors just don't apply. I could say that my skills within my career field are valued, and I suppose I could restate that as "I am a valuable employee", but I myself have no intrinsic value. If you read that with "value" replaced with "self worth" (by which people generally would mean something like "self esteem"), then it sounds pretty bad -- but that's not what's meant. I suspect most people in the HN demographic also use "value" pretty consistently in the way I've suggested -- not that I'm trying to make the argument that "value" should be interpreted this way or that way, but just pointing out what I think I've seen in practice.
I think what was originally suggested upstream in the comments was that there are qualities that most men happen to be looking for (are "valued"/"valuable"), and that those qualities give rise to pressures (as unfortunate as they may be) on women to find a long term / life partner sooner than later.
That's not the point. Lots of of people want kids. If you're a man, you have the luxury of waiting much longer. Women don't have that luxury, it becomes increasingly difficult to have a successful pregnancy after one's early 30s.
I would think that self control would include avoiding, or at least not being moved by, any emotional response that leads one to making absurd straw men, but that could just be me, but the responses you’re getting indicate otherwise.
You can't make blanket statements about the "value" of a person's life in one breath and then ask people to eschew emotional reactions in the next breath. Value and emotion go hand in hand and you have to let how you feel lead what you value at times.
Unless these people are in your Dunbar Circle, those honest discussions you're looking for won't matter and won't provide value to your life. Craft your life how you see fit and let the results speak for themselves.
Besides, this problem we're in is just about ready to wrap itself up.
Masculinity can be quite isolating/toxic but it's emphasis on your intra-tionship, your living with yourself, on relying on yourself, has arisen in my mind in the past couple years as a kind of interesting aspect that feels undersocialized, out shadowed by other discussions of the male gender norms. I hope it wouldn't be too unfair to say that women are regarded as more social, as relying more on their friends & community. It's a complex issue with all kinds of problems wrapped in it, but there's a thread here that doesn't have the discourse or discussion that I think could help people somewhat identify with self focusing. That said, it absolutely does not have to be a gendered discussion either! But it does seem like there's so many examples walking around of a kind of neat way of living & modest not a-sociality, but kind of less compromising prioritizing of what is good for oneself in how we make & navivate our social arrangements.
And I'm shifting focus here some, trying to get a more macro view than just the question of partnership. But hopefully this idea of social temperament/directivity makes sense as being a broader difference in how we are nurtured or natured.
> Masculinity can be quite isolating/toxic but it's emphasis on your intra-tionship, your living with yourself, on relying on yourself, has arisen in my mind in the past couple years as a kind of interesting aspect that feels undersocialized, out shadowed by other discussions of the male gender norms.
I think somewhere along the line "self-reliance" became conflated with "anti-social". I've had to put in concerted effort to build my social network of men I can lean on for social activities and accountability. Being by oneself can make almost any task seem insurmountable. Couple that with being self-reliant and you have a recipe for disaster. It is no wonder so many men are committing suicide.
I think it might be because that self-reliance often comes with defensive language/attitude? It's one thing to be self-reliant and another to ooze a miserable attitude about it (e.g., "World's never done shit for me, guess I'll have to just look out for myself."). Without that outward expression, you don't notice that some people appreciate the importance of self-reliance without it feeling anti-social.
Yeah I had something similar and took a looong break from like 30-37 because I just couldn't deal with all the stress of someone else's expectations and issues while I was working on some personal and professional stuff. Eventually I was like, I don't want to be alone, I'm going to actually try dating again, got married and had a baby at 41 :) But it could have easily gone another way and I was mostly fine with it.
Fully agree. I'm male, and all of my relationships that progressed to the "serious" stage ended in heartbreak (for me). After those experiences, it's just not worth it. And casual hookups have never been a thing for me. So I'm done with romantic relationships, and fine with that.
Why does someone have to appreciate other sexual orientations? I dont run around demanding somebody be forced to appreciate mine. Grumpily ignoring other peoples choices to life and let life is good enough for society to work. The world is not there to be a comfy blanket..
Comparing somebody (or an important part of their personality) with excrements in a public forum is not "grumpily ignoring". I am all for civility, but this is not it.
How many years has it been since your last bad experience?
Because I used to relate to this sentiment, but with time (a decade), it all disappears, and whilst not on speaking terms, all is forgiven from my end. People talk about "personal growth", and whilst I wrote it off as hogwash, actually, no, letting go of the past is a huge part of that. It can be done.
The big one was about 10 years ago and I agree with you about letting go of the past. I'm no longer angry or bitter. I got into another serious relationship a few years ago and it didn't end well either but not as bad. I found myself not as affected by it. Both taught me a lot. Where I am now I'm happy to be single, I can do what I want. Nobody to argue with or plan my weekend for me. I'm open to another relationship in the future but I'm not really looking for one and I see things in potential relationships differently and with more skepticism.
I've been single all my life as well, heading into my 30's and it's getting to the point where I feel like the crippling loneliness is absolutely killing me on the inside, likely going to lead me to an early death. Trying not to seem "needy" or come off as desperate is hard and is definitely a turn-off.
I avoided social situations all my life because I was (and still am) afraid of rejection. I minimized the amount of time I socialized with people because I felt inherently different, that I didn't belong, that somehow my presence was offensive/offending to people - likely due to the constant emotional manipulation and abuse from both my parents growing up.
After going to therapy for almost a decade and finally getting the courage to leave my abusive family, I feel like the "social" parts of my brain that should have developed years ago have now atrophied/cemented themselves into place, unable to experience the emotions, unable to mentally process social cues and understand the "hidden meaning" the things people say.
I don't feel like the label "incel" or "volcel" applies to me, I feel like I'm stuck in this persistent state of limbo where I know I could might be in a relationship if I tried, but why bother if it's likely just going to end up in regret/rejection/heartbreak/etc? The pros/cons don't seem to weigh out - but then again, how would I know if I've never been in a relationship? Doesn't help that I feel like I'm scared of women for some reason either.
I'm incredibly embarrassed to admit I've never been on a date of any kind or talked with women my age in any capacity other than small talk. It kills me inside every day I look at myself and scream internally at why and how I feel so broken socially and mentally. Doesn't help now that the hairline's receding.
I know this doesn't really relate to the authors' article at all, just looking to see if anybody else feels this way or have felt this way. I think people in the tech industry can relate to it more considering I'm sure a lot of people here have been glued to their computers like I have for long periods of their lives.
Online dating doesn't make things easier either...
I minimized the amount of time I socialized with people because I felt inherently different, that I didn't belong, that somehow my presence was offensive/offending to people
try traveling to places where you clearly do not fit in.
i have made similar experiences, not as strong, but i always felt like an outsider in school and in my environment mainly because i didn't want to fit in.
living in a different country made this a lot easier to deal with. i changed from being an outsider to being a foreigner, which the locals were curious about and i felt more accepted because there is no expectation for a foreigner to fit in.
Travelling changed the perspective so much of me, I realised that a lot of things I was hesitant to do or even thinking was directed by the unpalatable attachment to the static environment.
> I avoided social situations all my life because I was (and still am) afraid of rejection.
You've acknowledged this is a problem. What are you going to do to fix it?
> I feel like the "social" parts of my brain that should have developed years ago have now atrophied/cemented themselves into place, unable to experience the emotions, unable to mentally process social cues and understand the "hidden meaning" the things people say.
Fortunately for you, your feeling is incorrect. Those parts of your brain may be underdeveloped, but the brain is plastic and can be changed.
> but why bother if it's likely just going to end up in regret/rejection/heartbreak/etc? The pros/cons don't seem to weigh out - but then again, how would I know if I've never been in a relationship?
If you don't try, you'll never go anywhere. Have the courage to get hurt. If you get hurt, keep moving.
> I'm incredibly embarrassed to admit I've never been on a date of any kind
Don't sweat it. Many men are in this same position.
> It kills me inside every day I look at myself and scream internally at why and how I feel so broken socially and mentally.
So what are you going to do about it?
> Doesn't help now that the hairline's receding.
Take a look at the work of Derek from More Plates, More Dates. He had a receding hairline as well, and managed to reverse it with a combination of select shampoos, microneedling, and some other things.
> just looking to see if anybody else feels this way or have felt this way
Yes. I looked in the mirror for many years and hated what I saw. I still feel that way sometimes. There are many just like us.
Play (e.g. board) games with highly sensitive people that have the (social) skills you want to develop, hang around with them, try social dancing classes. Most people will pickup skills when it is necessary in context -- give it enough time and activity and it'll probably develop. Practice!
> The obvious course of action when you are unsure about something is experimentation. However, a relationship isn’t an activity (like a job, hobby, or sport) to try and quit when you don’t like it. It requires two people, and you must find a second person willing to try. Finding someone is hard, though. This brings me back to what I said a few paragraphs ago; I don’t see myself ready to invest much in something I’m not even sure I want. Also, if it doesn’t work out, I’m scared of leaving a broken heart in another person.
It doesn't have to be this way to start out. A relationship can be something that happens as a result of a friendship. It doesn't have to be an expectation from the moment you first meet someone. Take things slow, and you'll have a minimum amount of investment and a minimum risk of broken hearts. Don't think of it as "starting a relationship", think of it as "meeting new people". A relationship isn't something you choose, it's something that sometimes happens if the right circumstances align. If it is the right thing for you, the time and emotional investment will come naturally.
Even if you take the "starting a relationship" path (e.g. online dating to meet people) you really shouldn't be afraid of breaking someone else's heart.
Assuming you don't break someone's heart by betraying them or some other awful action, taking responsibility for a broken heart is putting way too much responsibility on yourself, and not respecting other people's agency.
It's also going to probably sabotage your attempts to learn-by-experimentation in relationships. Most likely the person on the other side of the relationship isn't going to know where it's going from day 1, it could be love, it could be something less but still fun, it could just be one or two dates. None of those are necessarily bad outcomes, but if you're weighing yourself down with all that pressure, you're going to make it harder for yourself to be open and honest and have fun.
You have some catching up to do - others may have learned some basic relationship skills in school, say, where the stakes were obviously lower and few people were getting married or anything anyway - but IME step one on getting that practice in is to take away that pressure and take it easy. One good thing to help with that, I think, is not to be too picky - if you haven't dated much, you probably don't know what your "perfect match" is like, so go out there and find out, versus waiting for one person who you build up so much in your mind you sabotage yourself with the anxiety of screwing it up.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. I'm incapable of relationships, but even if it were, my background makes puts me at a elevated probability of becoming abusive towards towards an intimate partner.
Would you not say that most if not all people would not want an abusive partner? If so, then even if it were possible, would not choosing to remain unattached out of concern for others be the more... Correct? Ethical? Moral? In any case, the better choice then to unnecessarily subject them to that elevated risk?
I regret that I have only one upvote for this comment. Unless you are either highly abusive or dating someone with significant mental/emotional impairment then assigning the fault to yourself in advance of any actual problems is beyond unhealthy
I agree, I just wanted to give an "easy option" for someone who sounds like their fear of the process is keeping them from trying at all.
I didn’t read it as someone who is not respectful of others agency as much as it might just be someone who is comfortable being alone and avoidant of inconvenient social situations.
That paragraph struck me as well and I was going to make a similar comment. The idea of investment and fear of things 10 steps down the road is paralyzing. Even using the term "relationship" is this fashion makes it seem like an activity like a job, hobby, or sport.
It's much easier than all that. You meet someone. You connect. You want to spend more time with them. Things happen organically and you might have to make difficult decisions at some point but by then you'll actually have information and a reason.
Being in a relationship is part of the human condition. It's not for everyone and won't happen for everyone. But I think it's important to try. But not try and have a "relationship" but to try and meet new people of the gender(s) you're attracted to and open to whatever happens.
TFA mentions, and I've encountered this in friends as well: fear of hurting others as a very common reason for not dating. My only advice is "You are guaranteed to hurt someone you get into a relationship with; them entering into a relationship with you means they think it is worth it."
That doesn't mean there aren't wrong ways to go about relationships (abusers keep people in unhealthy relationships with a combination of manipulation and picking their victims well), but if you're legit hesitant to date someone because you are worried about hurting them, then that's probably not you.
> I don’t think women’s rights should be up for discussion just because some men don’t get laid
That’s not the point. The places of men and women were clear before, now the current narrative is that women were oppressed and men were oppressor. That is a false reading of history.
The biggest difficulties were put on men to sacrifice themselves for their family, country, society.
Now we find ourselves in a culture that is completely dysfunctional with relationships. If a couple form at all and manage to have a few kids it’s not often that they will stay together long enough to bring the kids into adulthood. This is disastrous for everyone.
So my advice is: reject the modern men ideal that you are used to, it’s wrong and broken, go toward traditional value, get muscular, confident and go to places were women are that mesh with your interests.
And before someone call this misogynic, it’s not it’s simply the reconnaissance that men and women are different and complementary.
This is a good example on how the culture is trying to destroy the masculine, it’s everywhere even in kids movies.
https://youtu.be/ZT6Qo146Ncs
What do you think of having to go to war and get killed, going down in a shipwreck saving women and kids, etc.
The lives of men were brutal back then.
If I look at history that is a bit closer, grandfather and great grandfather those were the opposite of oppressors. At least the mens that were honored were the ones that created the most and helped people around the most.
Women back then had they hands full with kids, house to keep and probably older parent around.
I think it was seen as a duty and pride of men to make her wife life as easy and comfortable as possible.
basic Historian's fallacy, socioeconomics dinamics were a little bit different that we comprend. Most of drowries, bride prices, etc... were in most cases capital for the sustainment of the wife as she couldnt work as (much) men due to intensive child-rearing, not existing job opportunities, social obligations, etc... .
most of "feminism" qualms came from upperclass enviroments of the early 20th century, and those are a limited worldview of gender dynamics. For example, poorer women didnt have the limitation to work as burgeuosie women declared,(as the social dogma shamed men who needed to make their wife to work) they couldnt afford to live on a single meager salary
> However, a relationship isn’t an activity (like a job, hobby, or sport) to try and quit when you don’t like it.
This actually isn't true. You can quit a relationship if you don't like it for any reason. However: it does require communication, which i know some people find extremely difficult, especially communicating bad news. Basically what he is describing here is "dating."
Also: I would argue being unwilling to put yourself out there because you fear communication and delivering bad news is not as good or reasonable as the author describes.
This should not be roped into the "haha, I'm an introvert" classification, and should be considered a dangerous compulsion. And if you are self-isolating and structuring your life around it, one could even say it is an obsessive compulsion. As in OCD. As in please see a doctor, because you are already self-isolating because of this compulsion.
Loneliness kills. Isolation is literal torture for most humans. We can't let the software glitches in our brain control our entire lives.
I was happily single until my mid-thirties and wasn't even really looking for a relationship. I realize now that getting married probably saved my life. Married men life much longer than single men because they have someone to tell them to go to the doctor.
So yeah, stay single if you want, but get a good doctor and don't skip the annual physicals.
Yeah it's a pretty US centric thing. People here run to the doctor for every little thing and then complain about the price of healthcare and how it's so hard to get in to see a doctor.
As a professor in office hours last night, my students were expressing anxiety about age thirty, as if that was old. Was I really saying people kept getting smarter past thirty?
"Perhaps, wiser. And at least you can go more than forty seconds without thinking about sex."
> I don’t think women’s rights should be up for discussion just because some men don’t get laid
Excellent quote re incel culture.
This is a great piece of writing. It provoked a possibly-random thought. I cant afford to own a home in San Francisco. I want to because I was born there and always assumed I would. But sometimes it seems clear that no matter how bad I want that I'll never have it and that starts to make me feel crazy and hopeless and terrible about myself. Most days though I don't really think about it and am able to focus on the fact that I'm generally leading a very content and happy life. Sub out SF-home-ownership for being a millionaire, climbing mount everest, being taller etc. Not sure it's applicable but just a thought.
Also might I suggest the term mehcels or m-cels? As in "meh".
As an unhappy single with two past relationships, lots of experience in many crazy things including most drugs, let me tell you that times where you truly love someone while knowing they truly love you back, in other words true mutual love, are probably the most beautiful times in the world one can experience: Holding someone in your arms wishing you‘d die right then and there because you know you have peaked in non-drug-induced happiness.
And nothing is worse than the fear of never experiencing it ever again.
It took 6 years of active searching to find my first love and 3 for the second. Those despair inducing time frames and the acquired knowledge about how hard it really is to nurture and maintain relationships beyond the love, as a hypersensitive loner on the spectrum with mental illness makes me despair.
Probably! Applying some reductio ad absurdum, isn‘t everything just bioelectric chemistry in our brain?
I just wanted to point out that I consider that feeling as even more pleasant than drugs that technically set the level of "pleasant feeling" beyond what‘s naturally possible.
Maybe I tried the wrong drugs, but they never made me cry from happiness, when having my first partner fall asleep with his head on my lap did.
I am a 30 year old gay man living in a city of 2 million. By now, to some degree at least, I personally know every single gay man that passes my requirements regarding socioeconomic status, personality and physical attractivity. It didn‘t work out because they didn‘t want me, I didn‘t want them or chatting with them was so uninspiring, we didn‘t even meet. But to answer your question more concretely, generally it didn‘t work out because my lack of physical attraction or the lack of the spark, the click, the compatibility in conversation.
I have literally played through the video games called Tinder and Grindr. I was on OkCupid and I had phases where I went out a lot.
The only chances I have are men leaving long term relationships or men that move here. Though dating anyone whose native language isn‘t German is frustrating to me, because others fluency and eloquence in English is usually even more limited than mine.
Desiring someone with abs and a penis that doesn‘t turn me off in the upper 20% income bracket, who is much more bottom than top, doesn‘t need my help to get stuff from shelves and has a sharp mind leaves me very little choice to begin with.
The one and only realistic thing to increase my chances would be to move to Switzerland or Germany, where I would get a whole new dating pool.
My difficult standards are out of my control and I really tried! My second partner was a great man, totally "marriage material", but his reluctance to turn his pear shaped dough body into a more chiseled form while at the same time enjoying my pornstar body ultimately made me resent him to the point where I ended things. I am either physically turned on by someone or not and loving them or not has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Imagine you yourself no longer meet these standards. What happens if you’re in a car crash and you’re seriously injured for years and lose your socioeconomic status and your chiselled abs? Do you think your husband should leave you because you no longer live up to his achievement standards?
I can’t help but read this and think that the real reason you’re single is because you dislike yourself and you’re basing your entire life around achievement in an effort to make you like yourself. Perhaps when others fail to meet those standards and are happy regardless it makes you feel resentful. And perhaps your self hatred is the driving force in your life and you’re scared of what it means if you step off the gas.
Statistically, you’re most likely going to be dead within the next 60 years. When you’re on your death bed, do you want to look back on how chiselled your abs were when you were 30 and how big your bank account was or do you want to remember the times you spent laughing and having fun with someone?
Relax, morality does not need to enter the equation here and I am not judging you.
But you are definitely very demanding, and even if you are in the top 1%, at that point it just becomes hard to meet a suitable partner if you restrict yourself to the top 1%, which is why you notice a lot of celebrities dating and marrying partners who are technically way below them in terms of looks and status.
The author says, "I can’t even say whether I’m voluntarily or involuntarily single," and I think this is telling. When you're dealing with anxiety and overthinking, it's easy to lose touch with your feelings and become unsure of why you do things the way you do. I know that's how it's been for me to some extent.
You've got to push past it, though, and take the plunge to ask people out even if they might reject you or even if it might break some social norms. I just got out of a long-term relationship and am also approaching my thirties. When I met her, she was my housemate during university years. My other housemates and friends said it would be inappropriate to make a move, but I went for it anyway, and it gave me 9 years of happiness.
I don't think the author indicates that they're feeling anxiety at all. Overall, they seem to indicate happiness and content in singleness, and even give themselves a call-to-action at the end of the piece:
> Why am I writing about this deeply personal subject? The clock is ticking, and figuring myself out and finding a partner won’t get easier as I get older. By talking about these things in public, I want to make myself accountable for taking these personal matters more seriously. As a friend told me recently, I should “whole-ass” it, not “half-ass” it, if I want to progress. I hope to figure some things out, and I want to document my thoughts here. This is a good starting point to show where I’m coming from if I get involved in the online dating discourse.
In fact, I can relate to this feeling of realizing that I'm never going to have a "meet-cute" moment, and that I need to intentionally seek out relationships. Especially given remote work, on the average day, I will speak to 0 people who I don't work with. That doesn't leave a lot of room for starting relationships.
I've been single for a couple years now. I don't have any trouble meeting women, its just that my standards are a lot higher than they used to be. Though I am moving to another part of the world in less than 6 months, so that may be contributing to my hesitancy. I just can't do casual sex unless I'm paying for it. If I fuck a girl after a date, I practically hear wedding bells when I cum.
The OP reminds me of some of the aromantic and asexual folk I've known. Not necessarily prescribing any label on his account. Just merely a thought based on a particular line is one I've heard a number times;
> my general reply is the combination of a lack of opportunities and a lack of desire
That said, I am very interested in hearing him extrapolate his thoughts further. I do use the aromantic and asexual label myself (in particular the gray aroace label), though I always find the little nuances in how different people express themselves incredibly fascinating.
This might get a little weird... but I think some people might be interested in my perspective on intimacy and relationships.
I'm asexual, but not aromantic (or adverse to sex). "Relationships" aren't high on my priority list. All of my friendships are platonic and I'm quite happy with that. Where it gets weird for people is several of them are emotionally intimate and physically tactile.
For men in the US, touch is wrapped up in sex and relationships. The idea of cuddling with someone else without any sexual relationship is strange. It's one of the reasons I'm drawn to the furry fandom. For the most part, furries know some people have a need for touch without a need relationships or sex and don't consider it weird. (Whether or not a given furry will respect that boundary that is a very different thing.)
If it's hard to imagine what this is, think of how a dog or cat curls up on your lap. That's basically how I feel about physical closeness. It has nothing to do with the deep of my friendship and everything to do with how my friend feels about it.
So... relationships.
All of my emotional needs are fulfilled by my friends. Living with someone else seems like too much effort for not enough reward. I don't need sex... I have people I can touch... I have people I can call if I need help... If housework or rent was an issue, I could get a roommate. What's left? :)
The furry fandom is honestly the easiest way to meet people imo. I recently moved city and the first thing I did is locate the local group and see what the events are. See there is a weekly bar meet so I show up and everyone immediately treats you like a long time friend. People are pretty respectful of your boundaries but you can almost use it like a dating scene if you want. So much better than apps.
Honestly, I very much relate to how you've described yourself. And honestly I feel like this correlates to how a lot of relationships work within queer communities as well (which isn't surprising considering the overlap in furry and queer circles). Where you have friends, partners, and folks in the weird grey in-between areas whom may be equally important in your life; regardless of whether you're dating, having sex, or just people you want to be around.
Which brings me to noticing how weird a lot of the folks in this thread are about relationships that aren't the typical "man and woman dating and having sex". And casting a lot of assumptions and negative connotations with the OP not fully diving in and desiring such a relationship.
I found it quite telling that he seems sure he's not aromantic because of experiencing romantic love, but is not sure whether he's asexual. That seems to me like a strong signal that he is asexual, or at least much closer to it than most people.
It's sort of surprising that someone would write a whole blog post like this in 2023 and not even mention the terms aromantic or asexual even if to just say that he rejects those labels. But maybe most people on HN aren't aware of those terms either?
There's no algorithm for relationships, or entering one, or leaving one. It's a series of choices and actions with unpredictable results.
This makes some people so uncomfortable that they blame a mythological algorithm ('oh, haven't had any opportunities', 'oh, I just don't want to settle') instead of just making choices and taking actions. This is why dating apps are popular, because they promote the idea that relationships can be reduced to algorithms of trait selection and numeric increase in 'opportunities'.
I guess I've been a "volcel" for almost 4 years now after an almost 20 year relationship.
I have pretty mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I get lonely, intensely lonely at times. And I miss the companionship I had (before it got awful.)
On the other hand, I have so much time now to just focus on myself and my kids and my career and hobbies and my mental well being. I've increased my income a lot in the last year and re-sparked hobbies from my youth.
But frankly, I am miserable. I don't know if meeting someone else would solve it, or whether it would just be me escaping (again) from my own demons.
Being alone is one of the toughest things I've experienced. You're forced to be with yourself, all the time! There is no escape, where you can go hug or chat with your significant other. If you don't like yourself, or you have some underlying issues, you have to face it head on - and it's brutal.
I'm trying to be comfortable, even happy, on my own. But it's a slow, grueling process of self awareness and conscious self care.
Dating seems dire these days as well. Tech is a terrible industry for meeting someone. And online dating, which I've tried a few times, I found incredibly tiring and frustrating.
I feel like there is a rise of apathy towards dating and relationships in general. I know many people who are single and sick of it all. It's all kind of depressing and I don't have an answer.
If you get on a train, you are statistically more likely to reach your destination than just sitting on your ass. Yes, you may die in a fiery trainwreck, but getting on the train will lead you in the direction to where you intend to go.
If you do nothing, expect nothing.
If you attempt to work on your personal problems, be they psychological, physical, financial, whatever, you are more likely to make a change in your life than just accepting that this is your life.
Struggling with autism, I not infrequently get on the wrong literal non-metaphorical train, stand on the wrong platform for an hour, pass the station I'm meant to disembark. It's rough. But you can extrapolate that idea to working on yourself too—sometimes we forget to get off the metaphorical train, don't know which train we're meant to be getting, not even sure how to get somewhere, but as long as someone is trying to get somewhere rather than just being content with where they are, I think that's beneficial in most scenarios.
I've also struggled with depression, hence the "sitting on your ass", wallowed for many years and just tread water. Execute on intent—do something—carpe diem—make a change—you can always make another—just don't accept your life as-is if you're unhappy with it.
I have to thank you for the positive mindset you're trying to teach us here!
Also, as you say, it is very important to not accept bad state -- this is so important I can't stress it enough. Even more, because of how some generic people mindset can easily get you into "learned helplessness" state.
A relationship can end like that after 20 years? Oh my god. That's basically my whole life. I can't imagine sharing that much of my life, that much time, with another person and then the relationship ending on our terms. Like, they didn't die, or they didn't drink a vial of cancer serum accidentally and whoops I have cancer now I'm dying bye. It ended because you started hating each other? After all that time? That's insane for me to even fathom.
I can't even imagine the growth, personally, and in the other person to happen through all that time and to share that time together in a relationship. And then, after all that, it can end because the relationships sours? That almost black pills me on all relationships lmao
Luckily, I also can't fathom how people have trouble being with themselves. I'm grateful that I feel as though I'm my own best friend in a way. I like who I am, even with vast room for improvement, and I feel like I do a pretty good job of guiding myself through life to make it a reasonably fulfilling adventure while helping myself become a better person (mostly). From where I'm at now, working on myself and pursuing my hobbies is all I want to do. Introducing the noise of a relationship into it seems... messy.
One thing I have figured out, though, is that I’m not interested in a relationship for its own sake.
This is actually surprisingly healthy. People in dysfunctional relationships tend to dread being alone and seem to frequently make bad decisions rooted in trying to avoid being alone.
I am recently divorced and I don't see myself ever in another relationship. I would consider a partner where we live in different homes and don't share any expenses or responsibilities but I doubt any woman would accept that as a permanent arrangement.
This resonates with me and I'm in a similar stage.
I'd like something between hooking up with a stranger and recreating my life (again) around a new person. It's hard to do that once you're older and I'm actively avoiding being financially intertwined with another person.
Besides having a lot to lose, I also question if I'm desired because of what I can financially bring to the table and as a labor source. Maybe I'm cynical, but this seems to be the calculus of a lot of single parents. I'm not looking to be the solution to someone else's life problems.
That's pretty much what having a boyfriend or girlfriend sounds like. Many people do it without even living in the same city. I don't get what would be controversial about it, perhaps the expectation that it has to evolve to something different?
Many people have an expectation that boyfriend/girlfriend status is essentially a trial period for marriage. If it's not "going anywhere" it's a waste of time.
As people age, if they have this perspective, they tend to become significantly less patient.
People that choose to live primarily in the world of logic and reason sometimes forget to nurture their emotions and feelings, and that side of them can atrophy. I suspect this guy has hidden and suppressed his desires due to some fears about relationships.
Or maybe he doesn't see emotions just as Aphantasia people don't see images in the mind. As Temple Grandin would say, "The world needs all kinds of minds."
I don't see what the problem is or why being single is such a tragedy. Single doesn't mean being alone. Not everyone wants serious long term relationships and monogamy is on a serious decline.
People used to aspire to have the single lifestyle we now pretend is so sad and lonely. Sounds like propaganda to me. We're overpopulated. Can't the prole have this one thing and thin out in style?
> Why are there so many articles about this lately?
If nothing else, it is garnering attention. Looking at it from a purely cynical perspective, it resonates enough to generate views from the readers; certainly from this crowd at least. And engagement is the life blood of social media.
More literally speaking; I don't know. Perhaps it's because that dream of a 'single' life style is becoming more and more inaccessible. How many have the financial freedom to be able to comfortably support a 'single life style' nowadays that isn't to just stay at home and play on the computer?
> How many have the financial freedom to be able to comfortably support a 'single life style' nowadays that isn't to just stay at home and play on the computer?
That's what fascinates me the most. Why is it engaging anyone on HN?
Most people here are tech workers so if they stay single then they definitely make enough to have nice things, vacation almost anywhere, enjoy night life a few times week, etc.
In all those interactions there are people to meet and you don't have to meet very many people to find someone who likes you. Many prefer to keep things casual at first. This is not a "bad thing" unless you are more in love with the idea of a relationship than the person. Unpack where that expectation is coming from and then no more tears. As the saying goes: "if you have to force it, it's probably shit". It really is that simple and of course it doesn't take very many casual relationships to find someone who wants to try being serious after getting to know you. The "pain" I see most people experiencing is just indecision and impatience, not true loneliness.
It seems like this quote gets to to heart of the issue:
> a relationship isn’t an activity (like a job, hobby, or sport) to try and quit when you don’t like it. It requires two people, and you must find a second person willing to try. Finding someone is hard, though. This brings me back to what I said a few paragraphs ago; I don’t see myself ready to invest much in something I’m not even sure I want. Also, if it doesn’t work out, I’m scared of leaving a broken heart in another person.
I would say that for many people a relationship are something to try and quit when you don't like it. It is easy to get caught up in what-ifs and commitment fears, but stakes are extremely low for starting one.
This reminds me of people who build up a first kiss or first sex into some monumental event. It seems important or daunting for someone who hasn't done it, but once it has happened, most of that importance instantly evaporates.
I also find the last fear of breaking the someone's heart infantilizing. You can't take ownership of other people's choices. Treat them as adults and let them take the risks they choose to.
I have been single all my life (I'm in my early 20s). I don't know if I have any desire to be in a relationship with anyone at this time.
It may be selfish, but there are so many things I want to do with my limited time and I feel like a relationship will just hold me back from doing what I want to do.
I guess it is a fear of being tied down to something and impose on my current, practically unlimited, freedom.
It's all about tradeoffs. Sometime soon you should plan really far then take those requirements back to hit whatever soft deadlines (although there are few or no hard deadlines, so don't sweat it).
I'm in my late 20s and honestly its just sort of hard to care about this anymore.
I fully acknowledge I'm not attractive and generally weird people out. I'm over it.
That said, since I'm very interested in keeping my health in good shape I'm not interested in anyone who isn't at the very least in half decent shape or doesn't have some kind of baseline college education.
Fortunately, I've still been able to date about ten people in my twenties and I've learned from each relationship but nothing has necessarily been "long term". Fortunately, in these cases I didn't really compromise standards and enjoyed my time dating.
To be frank, I have no idea how people who constantly have girlfriends do it? My best guess is they have way more energy to socialize or are just way more attractive than I am.
You're not alone (pun intended). Record numbers of Americans, men and women alike, are single.
> Nearly 118 million Americans, or about 46% of those over 18 years old, are single, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. But that percent is actually much higher for women—a record-breaking 52% of them are unmarried or separated as of 2021, according to a recent report from Wells Fargo Economics.
An equal share of men and women are single (31%), but among 18-29 year olds, 51% of men are single, while only 32% of women are. What gives? People don't necessarily partner with people in their age group (e.g. a 27 yo woman partnered with a 31 yo man), but that's not enough to explain the gap, is it?
Over a 12-year age cohort, 19% more men are single. That could be explained by women in relationships being 2.28 years younger on average. Seems about right to me. Of course, older women are more likely to be single (widowed, divorced, or separated) but many of those are in same-sex relationships which are becoming more common.
Can't read the article due to their paywall but your quote makes it sound like unmarried and single is the same thing, which strikes me as an outlandish assumption in this day and age. Surely there are lots and lots of unmarried couples as well?
I can’t say I resonate with this article beyond the headline. I’m almost 33 and I’m single. Out of those years, I’ve spent over 27 of them completely single.
When I say I’ve been married and had a five year relationship - it sounds quite accomplished. But if you reframe it as - I’ve been single for over 27 years… it doesn’t sound very pleasant at all. And it hasn’t been. It’s been brutal. I’ve traveled all over the world looking for someone who would love me for who I am and would be a good person to start a family with - I’ve wound up empty handed. I’ve tried harder than 99% of men, I can guarantee that. I go out hundreds of times a year, travel extensively to meet people anywhere I can, and have used all kinds of services - all to a great lack of success.
It is incredibly brutal for men like myself. For those wondering what the biggest hurdle is - I’m not physically attractive facially. This is my biggest flaw and it is alarmingly impossible to fix. I’ve had cosmetic surgery for my face to improve it but it’s incredibly minor improvements. Anything that would lead to more dramatic changes is quite risky in terms of effects (would I look better) and complications.
It’s rough to work so hard your entire life for no one to deem you worthy of love just because you were born with a shit face. Life is cruel. I wasn’t meant to leave the shit region I grew up in. My genetics were never meant to get where I ended up. I brute forced my way to an incredibly successful position - and it’s clear that wasn’t supposed to happen.
I’m on the opposite side of the spectrum. I’m 23 and have experienced a solid number of partners and committed relationships.
After my last long-term relationship however, I realized how much time and energy these commitments take. I’ve noticed that after a while, I tend to lose myself in long term R’s, and I hate the feeling.
This ends my relationships. It starts out fine, with healthy and strong boundaries with regards to personal time and energy. Over time, the compromises eat away at me, and I find myself with very little time for my own pursuits and personal growth.
It’s odd too, because I’m quite aware of my boundaries and strong with them. Something about relationships or my partners slowly erodes them.
Near the end, I feel so suffocated that I’m usually becoming distant and breaking things off.
Singlehood is liberating, but I hate that I love my partners and I can’t figure out a way to stop repeating this harmful pattern. It’s either something wrong with me, or something wrong with how I pick my partners.
i haven't made this experience as strongly as i was able to find time for my own things in my work (being selfemployed at times and having a partner that had a well paid job too which lessened the pressure on me to focus on income helped) but what i realized is important is support from my partner for my interests and goals (and of course i should equally support my partners goals)
without that support, compromises meant that i would have to give up my goals in favor of a happy relationship. and maybe this is what you are experiencing. find a partner that actually supports your goals and interests (that doesn't mean that they need to have the same goals and interests, but only that they should not be conflicting, as well as they should have goals you are willing to support)
> Something about relationships or my partners slowly erodes them.
Simply put: fear of losing access to sex will make many men compromise a lot. There are other things that can contribute to this, such as "wanting her to be happy" being conflated with "she will only be happy if she gets her way".
I recommend you read No More Mr. Nice Guy and see if it rings any bells for you.
A strong commitment to boundaries doesn't do a lot for you if you capitulate every time.
As for the reasoning behind my actions, I often feel it’s not only about sex, but a deeper need to avoid confrontation and keep a relative peace in the relationship.
In one of my last relationships, part of the problem was a constant war over my personal boundaries. My partner was requiring too much of my attention and energy, pushing things, moving fast at every turn. This eventually eroded the lines I set.
This situation is something I need to keep an eye out for future relationships!
> Also, if it doesn’t work out, I’m scared of leaving a broken heart in another person.
I used to have the same worry when I was younger. I think it came from overestimating the fragility of the average person, and underestimating their ability to deal with it. People can cope with more than you think. And so can you.
>I am not comfortable using either of those terms. Firstly, the choice of the word “celibacy” emphasizes sexuality over other aspects of a romantic relationship. I don’t think of it that way. Secondly, the incel culture turns me off. I have never blamed anyone for my situation, and I don’t think women’s rights should be up for discussion just because some men don’t get laid. Thirdly, and most importantly, at this point, I can’t even say whether I’m voluntarily or involuntarily single.
It's... an interesting view point. I've used the incel label for myself for lack of a better term, but it's more inability to form any sort of emotional attachment to people in general. But must that label absolutely carry with it with a mindset of misplaced anger at the world? And if so, if I have no such fury against imagined or real slights, then what does that make me?
Incel exists both as a descriptive term and the name of a kind of subculture. So, I’d recommend not using it to simply describe someone who just hasn’t consummated a relationship.
Incel ‘culture’ usually encapsulates the online subculture that talks about evolutionary attractiveness, how they are beyond fixing and, at its worst, why women should be morally/legally obligated to couple with them as a service. It has its own body of jargon, archetypes and memes, and they generally self-identify with the term.
I do think it can be especially hard in this industry, being male-dominated, with less social interaction, and not masculine in any traditional sense. I think of careers as containers, or vases, that we eventually grow to fit. Some vases are particularly odd-shaped and hard for potential partners to evaluate.
FYI This guy isn't ugly, actually average looking 30yr old white guy, isn't short, is socially active. I honestly have no idea why this guy is still a virgin, im pretty sure he could find someone on a dating app if he got in shape.
>He isn't ugly, short, or awkward so shouldn't be a virgin
I've noticed this a lot: whenever a non-ugly person notes that they're perpetually single, the first thing people say is "What? But you're so handsome/tall". This strongly implies that one's physical attributes are the biggest predictor of sexual success. However when people complain that their lack of physical attractiveness is keeping them perpetually single, they'll be assuaged that looks have very little to do with it, and it's probably a personality/circumstantial problem.
Not saying that you'd be saying it, but it's something I noticed: maybe a societal-scale sort of euphemistic tactic to make people feel better. The importance of physical attractiveness, with respect to common reasoning, seems to shift to one extreme or the other depending on whether the person one is talking to is ugly or attractive.
Once an unattractive person realizes this rhetorical shift everyone performs, how could they ever believe anyone who tries to make them feel better about their looks?
> something I noticed: maybe a societal-scale sort of euphemistic tactic to make people feel better.
I’ve noticed this pattern since I was an adolescent. In my opinion, the behavior is aimed at making the reassuring party feel better about the situation.
Individuals who recognize their unattractiveness and its negative consequences are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior, which is threatening to others. Hence, reassurances aimed at preventing such people from breaking with the group are part of the social script. Taboos on suicide serve a similar function — they deter antisocial individuals from depriving the group of resources (mainly labor, in the case of those who are secretly held to be nonviable for reproductive purposes). The gross inferiority of the reassured party can never be admitted, no matter how obvious, because doing so could justify behavior that the reassuring party finds undesirable.
This dynamic is the single biggest reason for the emergence and persistence of online “incel” communities. These communities provide a safe space for alienated individuals to refute the social script without facing ostracism from one another.
I once read that the Outsider (as defined by Colin Wilson) lives their live in the pursuit of truth. I think that may partially explain why such a tactic is so ineffective for those people. They are concerned with what they think is the truth behind the words above what the words makes them feel, when the latter is supposed to be more important to the speaker of the words. The words are a tool to get someone to clean up their act, get off the couch and get employed again, and after they're said they've served their purpose they're forgotten about. The Outsider seeks that obvious admittance that never comes
I can understand the purpose of self-help statements like "if it frightens you then do it." The point is for the consumer of the help to do things they wouldn't. But I'm tempted to say "I'm frightened of punching people out of the blue, vividly imagine myself doing so out in public every day and have to constantly repress my urge to do so." The author says "thats not what I meant." Then I'd say "then say what you mean." But the point has been lost in a mishmash of semantics. And in the end I'm still frightened of punching people
Im in the habit of peeling back the ulterior motives behind such tactics. Its more concerned with what the people are trying to get me to do if they're making a subjective statement more than the content of the statement. I call that kind of act 'positive gaslighting'. The term gaslighting is almost a universally negative connotation but nobody really talks about the flip side, when you have to look to faith instead of working with truth to feel better. Honestly Id let myself be stoned to death than accept such words uncritically just because it makes me "feel better". I have to twist them into a narrative that makes sense with my worldview
(The irony is that blackpilled incel culture is just another tribe that you can't cross with the wrong words ("maybe I have a chance") or youll get decapitated, I want to remain outside of any tribe for the rest of my life if it kills me)
Your reasoning sounds a little over-binary; both things can be simultaneously true:
1: Attractive people will find dating and securing a relationship easier than unattractive people
2: Physically unattractive people can still be very successful in dating and securing relationships, because there are many other impactful factors besides physical looks
So you can say without lying or deception "it's surprising that [incredibly good looking person] is perpetually single, it should be easy to leverage their looks into a relationship" and also "don't give up just because you're ugly, there are far more important factors to finding a relationship than just your looks".
The surprise at someone being single seems to be exclusively about looks. I've never heard something about someone being single and being being shocked and saying "but he's so interesting/charming/charismatic", the surprise factor seems to be almost exclusively about physical appearance. If someone is ugly but very charming, and it is revealed he is perpetually single, it never really seems to be a surprise to most people.
This seems to support the commonly, tacitly understood notion that looks are the most important factor, everything else is of relatively ancillary importance. I'm not implying that other factors aren't commonly regarded as also important, but they're never given the primacy of deterministic impact that it seems that physical appearance is.
Attractive doesn’t mean you are somehow born attractive or unattractive. Sure, people win the lottery and get a bit of a head start, but most of it is charisma, how you dress, if you’re in shape, if you wear deodorant, etc. Attractiveness is a thing anyone can change by putting in effort.
There are two problems I see with just saying this
- "working on yourself" is left unclearly defined
- the assumption that you have to "work on yourself" before you can get in front of other people (apologies if that wasn't what you were insinuating but I've been given this advice by others)
Addressing the first the most obvious way that society deems "working on yourself" if I had to guess is going to therapy. Well I have troubles going to therapy because evidently some part of my brain related to forming any sort of human relationship (romantic friendly business or therapeutic) is stunted. For me the interest you speak of and work ethic for dealing with humans over objects just fades. They can be as enthusiastic as possible and I can completely forget they exist after a week if they aren't physically in front of my face by then. And there are plenty of states of apathy in between. So therapy doesn't work out that well. I go back to those people who recommended therapy for advice. They say "well go to therapy again, wrong therapist." At that point Im willing to believe theyre telling me that because they have no idea how to deal with me and want me out of their sights asap so a professional can take the brunt of my miasma. And that is a legitimate tactic when dealing with severely depressed people, see "codependence", it is just the truth. At that point I cant bear to be around them any more
Addressing the second, I think that would contribute to more alone time for someone seeking self help, whereas experience by doing is better for learning. Though, by now Ive learned the hard way that dragging my clearance-shelf mind into someone elses good time feels like it would be selfish to them and unfulfilling for me, but thats me personally
So my new idea of working on myself is just trying to stay employed as a single living thing and hoping I can retire without any more mental defects forming. Sometimes I feel empty. Maybe I got the wrong idea.
The things people have been talking about in this thread. Get in shape. Consider improvements to other aspects of your appearance like hair, skincare, and clothing. Work on your personality by developing hobbies that get you around the kind of people you want to meet, make conscious effort to improve social skills.
> the assumption that you have to "work on yourself" before you can get in front of other people (apologies if that wasn't what you were insinuating but I've been given this advice by others)
Sometimes getting in front of other people is all that is needed. But if your current practices aren’t seeing the results you expect after the passage of time, then it’s worth considering whether an adjustment is needed.
> Addressing the first the most obvious way that society deems "working on yourself" if I had to guess is going to therapy. Well I have troubles going to therapy because evidently some part of my brain related to forming any sort of human relationship (romantic friendly business or therapeutic) is stunted.
Not necessarily but in many cases therapists can point you in the right direction! Also, if you’ve had a go with therapy a few times with no results, it’s possible that garden variety therapy practices aren’t for you and you need more specialized expertise. You might want to check out any university medical centers in your area that offer psychotherapy. The intake can take longer and there’s more bureaucracy but the quality can be a lot higher.
> Addressing the second, I think that would contribute to more alone time for someone seeking self help, whereas experience by doing is better for learning. Though, by now Ive learned the hard way that dragging my clearance-shelf mind into someone elses good time feels like it would be selfish to them and unfulfilling for me, but thats me personally
IDK where you live, but living on the West Coast I know exactly what you mean, the “positive vibes only” culture can be incredibly draining. I would say two things.
1. Not everywhere is like this, and if you can move, you might find the social environment in another place more to your liking. Midwesterners and New Yorkers famously love to complain.
2. There’s also an element where you have to learn to suppress negativity around new people. As your friendship becomes deeper - it doesn’t have to be all that deep - you can drop the mask and reveal how you really think. You will likely find that more people think like you than you might imagine, they’re just more practiced at masking.
Anecdotal, but dating apps have to be the worst way to meet someone. Everybody I ever met through them has major problems and that's why they have to meet people through an app dedicated to meeting people for relationships. It's such an unnatural and strange concept.
Hard disagree. My last "n" relationships over more than a decade came from dating apps. It's also a high-percentage source of relationships these days.
Dating apps can be where people go shopping, but it can also just be a way to filter for people you wouldn't ordinarily encounter doing the things you do day to day. In that respect, they're great.
Anecdote v anecdote, matey. As with anything, if they work for you and others, that's great. I have a feeling that it may be a demographic thing related to geographic area, that and the times have of course changed and dating apps are far more mainstream than they were a decade ago.
An additional anecdote though as an in-between of both of ours: my mother in the UK met a man from Canada in a chatroom over twenty years ago, divorced my father, and they're still married. Not to say that it has always been smooth sailing at times for them (he's got paranoid schizophrenia, she's physically disabled now), but they're happy, so meeting people via software evidently does work for some people.
I mean, look at us, we don't know each other, but we're having a conversation, so if that idea is extrapolated to a dating app, sure, I can buy into the idea that they can be effective for some people.
one thing i think where dating apps help (or being introduced by someone as potential partners) is that you can discuss relationship goals very early. that helps weeding out unsuitable candidates quickly.
Maybe he has psychological issues. For example, people with schizoid personality disorder tend to be single because they have trouble connecting with people.
Thats what I was thinking, I really doubt it, he seems like a really nice guy and he speaks/ posts online in a "neurotypical" manner, however neurotypical people usually don't talk about their virginity on a blogpost lol
Still baffled that he is a virgin, especially at his age, maybe someone in a relationship can give him advice, he has a twitter
You're getting downvoted, but I'm not entirely sure why. It's not some toxic Andrew-Tate-esque take to consider low testosterone as a possibility for the lack of drive the author mentions.
Personally, I plan on doing it soon, there's no harm in it.
T levels aren't everything, though. Get a full hormone panel. I got one and found my adrenals weren't producing enough DHEA.
Also note that HRT, and specifically testosterone supplementation may not address core issues. I was a candidate for test, but this would have allowed my adrenals to stay suppressed and ruined my balls.
Could also be a consequence of just not having much desire to "mate". It's not unheard of for people to not want to "mate"; there's a reason why asexual is a term that people use to describe themselves.
Online dating is traumatizing. It's nearly impossible to meet people in real life due to the gender ratio in my city. I would like to get married/have kids but I don't see that happening in this world/generation.
what's outrageous is that it has become acceptable to attack men, especially younger men, who are literal incels, on the basis that they haven't managed for some reason to secure any partners
it's borderline psychopathic to demean people on that basis, to the point they become defensive of the fact because of the added stigma, and like in this blog they try to carve a space for themselves out of the label rather than denouncing the injustice of its usage
"The clock is ticking, and figuring myself out and finding a partner won’t get easier as I get older."
Why is the clock ticking? If you want offspring then there's a limited timeframe, but for all other things i doubt there's a distinct timeframe. I've read about 70 year olds dating and enjoying live.
They don't know even half of what they're missing but it's like they want a reward and approval for this bold, uninformed proclamation they want to lash their identity to.
Maybe it's just me, but: love, romantic sexual relationships, and some indescribable things between make life worth living. That's the good shit.
Life is so goddamn short: spend it with interesting, cool, reliable people.
And fuck around while you can because there will be a time when you can't.
You don't have to be clever, smooth, a genius, or perfect.. just treat others as human and be real. An interest in someone other than oneself. If that someone else doesn't reciprocate, move on. With age and practice, it gets as easy and natural as walking.
Regret at the end of life for a path not traveled is a living hell that cannot be undone. The goal in life should be to die happy having done everything and having dented the universe a bit.
The bits of the universe you dented were your kids, and they have the problems now the guy above has. Nice for you that the world worked out for you from the get go, but if its happier for your box, no need to rub it into everyones face. Seems to me, the default for developers in not your experience. Guess its sort of self selected for, with the job filtering for the neuros who make it to it.
I have a variety of stumbling blocks, handicaps if you will, to dating, including actually being handicapped. It's no one thing that is a deal breaker but there are enough of them, and each is quite large on its own, well ... I mentioned being handicapped. I have been on a rather intense regime of opioids for some time so I can control the pain and do things like "sleep" and "not scream into pillows." Yet if someone were to offer me the choice between keeping the painkillers or giving them up, but not feeling loneliness any more, I genuinely would not know which I would pick.
Loneliness comes in many, many forms. It exists along multiple axes and, as always, the blessed can discount the sufferings of the cursed, even if they are themselves impoverished along another dimension. I consider loneliness to be one of the great problems of society: loneliness for peers, loneliness for romance, loneliness for someone who might enjoy your company sexually. Loneliness for another person who might understand where you come from on some topic of importance to you. Some might search for others who have similar tastes in music, or film, or some other passion. Different people feel different forms of it to different degrees, but so much of it revolves around a simple concept: is there someone else who feels the same as I, who has the same thoughts about this thing? Can I really be the only one in this?
Think back and ask, when was the last time you had the response "yes, yes, exactly! Exactly like that! You've summed up what I have been trying to express"?
Relationships are only the most obvious form of this, and relief from this kind of unanswered question of the soul is balanced by the uncertainties of the trek to find someone "like." Will it take long? Will I find anyone at all? Or will I simply stagger about the landscape, a random walk of rejection, percolation theory with the personal pain of being, kindly put, unsuitable? Will I find myself utterly lost, like a penguin in a Herzog documentary pursuing some mountain I haven't the reserves to reach? Do I even begin the climb down off of the local maxima at all, knowing that descent is so often treacherous?
One of the more galling aspects is that just bringing up the topic invites advice given, all too freely, by those with no skin in the game. They will not suffer if their advice is incorrect. The person who glibly suggests you "get out there" will not experience the pain of rejection, the inner flinch as just one more sliver of your self-esteem is pared away as you recognize the suppressed flinch of revulsion on the face of another. And in this you discover, in a fractal nature, another kind of loneliness -- a person who does not care about your loneliness, making suggestions whether or not you would take them, only there to simply move the conversation to something more pleasant.
Agreed, there is a lot wrong with this world ;) But what do you mean or how relating to the article? That you are in that stance? Or expectations of others? Please explain.
I have experienced a major schizophrenia for 5 years starting in 2015 and since that I never attempted dating or having interpersonal relationships. Now it's a part of my personality.
I won't go in detail though. I don't feel any negative emotions or have any thoughts about that as I'm using antidepressants to shut down the libido.
After some biohacking I feel a competitive advantage in social realm and view this as a gift. There's non-compete for women, no social racing for status, and it all boils down to fundamental values. That's super christian catholic way of life, and I'm fine with it now.
What I was expecting initially is that someone will check on me, but that never happened.
I was like the author, except I have had a burning desire to have family and children since I was a boy. I started thinking about fatherhood when I was maybe 12.
After a failed long term relationship, and three or four girlfriends I finally settled with the fact that my drive to fulfill this desire overrides pretty much any degree of pain or dissatisfaction from prior relationships. I've prayed plenty of times to have this desire taken from me because it screwed with my head to be single. As if this one thing was a gateway to the rest of my life. I know that's not fundamentally true, and I haven't put my life on hold just because I lack a romantic relationship.
I generally advise even hesitant men to "go for it" because they won't make any progress towards a goal if they don't get over themselves and try. To the guys who have tried and failed, I say "take damage, keep moving".
There are whole groups of men on the other side of failed relationships that are utter poison to everyone around them.
If anyone needs a cheerleader or someone to keep them accountable, let me know.
If you do not wish to participate, that's fine. But actively wanting other people not to participate is strange. Why oughtn't people who want to talk about this with one another do so?
The sentiment is lopsided if you actually care about positive outcome and the audience on HN. "Being single" is not HN worthy. There are no learnings in this blog post a technical audience could learn from unless you want stereotypes to succeed.
They’re single because they’re too scared to attempt to pursue a relationship. There is no mystery here, they outline it explicitly:
> The obvious course of action when you are unsure about something is experimentation. However, a relationship isn’t an activity (like a job, hobby, or sport) to try and quit when you don’t like it.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Naïve, self-defeating. every relationship is an experiment. and if you try it and don’t like it then you can quit any time.
> Also, if it doesn’t work out, I’m scared of leaving a broken heart in another person.
Yes. That’s the real problem, fear of the unknown.
Better to love and to lose, than to live and to never have found love.
See that's the problem. Either party can just quit at any time.
Get a house, couple kids and a retirement fund. Then have her watch sex in the city and have girls nights out. To divorce papers, child support, demestic abuse and losing your family.
Sounds great casually but let's be real here. Someone's heart will get broken eventually. Unless you're going to marry a God fearing feminine unicorn. You have to agree there's a large risk here.
Once you see your father, extended family and friends go through this pain. You can admit it isn't for everyone. Loneliness is less painful.
You can look at the bright side though. You as a man can do whatever you want. Focus on yourself instead. And spend all your own money.
