Basman

You guys are being hyper logical. It is a ritual that solidifies the commitment. It is about how it makes you feel. The point is that the relationship is experienced as more actual once you're married with a social dimension to boot. What is the point of a funeral if the person is already dead? Just chuck grandma's corpse in the compost heap. Of course, there are risks which is why you have to be very selective with who you marry. A bad marriage could ruin your life. I've know someone who literally lost their hair due to stress over a divorce war (kids caught in the crossfire).

Having kids today is largely done for intrinsic reasons since kids are no longer a financial asset compared to before, so you have to be very honest with yourself if kids are for you as they are a sheer burden materially. Married men with kids are slightly more happy than childless married man according to the latter article in my previous, but there is probably some bias there considering they most likely wanted to and chose to have kids. Married men with kids are the happiest and unmarried men with no kids are the unhappiest accordingly. It is a generalization that getting married and having kids will make you happier but you probably need a very rich and meaningful life to beat intimate family connections in terms of happiness, one where a family would be incompatible. That is not most people probably. Or perhaps your just built different where family makes no sense. I have an autistic relative who would not have had kids in hindsight because they live so much in their own little world which they prefer to the bustle of family life.

Could you elaborate on your criticism? What about his political theory or philosophy do you think is bad?

Men tend to have fewer resources for intimacy and emotional connection than women outside of romantic relationships and generally benefit more from them compared to women. Married men are on average twice as happy as unmarried men https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/closer-encounters/202501/men-need-romantic-relationships-more-than-women https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-is-happiest-married-mothers-and-fathers-per-the-latest-general-social-survey I think men are by nature more picky about committing to a relationship so I think it is quiet natural for guys to ask these kind of questions. It is kind of the equivalent of when women say there no good men anymore. It more so a matter of mindset toward the challenge of dating or just an expression of exasperation rather than something objectively wrong with the environment necessarily in my opinion.

Without security guarantees there are no concessions to be made. Russia doesn't respect agreements. Only when they hit a brick wall will they be halted. It is really Europe that is being unrealistic about this situation, not Ukraine. If Europe wants to stabilize the region they need to be willing to commit to the war with flesh and blood. Europe is currently enjoying a situation where they have to do relatively little to not be effected too much. One of the possible consequences if Ukraine can't get their security guarantees is nukes, and the proliferation of nukes isn't exactly ideal.

There's something much more actual about having to negotiate the weather, nature and your body for your daily labor. Nowadays, you just drive to work, the weather is irrelevant, you show up on a rotor and kind of plug into being productive like a machine. It is almost surreal. We've lost that essence of humanity in the modern age I think, for better and for worse. We don't have to feel anymore to survive. In fact, it might be better that you don't. That would make it much easier to put up with the seemingly senseless grind.

We are better at reporting misery today than before, so it is not completely clear if we are actually more miserable now than before. Go back far enough and depression wasn't even a concept that existed like it those today. Another notion is that we are more materially secure so we have more time to fret over how we feel. Less war and starvation. Another factor is that we've eliminated a lot of naturally occurring socialization for the sake of convenience and productivity. For example, Car-centric urban design atomizes communities as you step in and out of your car when going from A to B instead of traveling the road by horse for instance. Car centered urban design is self-reinforcing as the layout changes to adapt to the use of cars (bigger roads, parking lots, more distance between amenities, etc.) which further contributes to the atomization. Or another example, we don't have to barter over goods anymore and trading has been depersonalized. You just buy from X faceless company and the sale is completely scripted ("hi. That'll be 69.99. Goodbye."). Nowadays, you don't even have to leave your house to live your life. You can work from home and you have all the entertainment you could ever want via the internet.

The argument is that women are too picky comparatively and therefor have less option effectively. It equates optionality with availability but those two are completely different things. Having higher standards doesn't mean your availability is actually lower. The argument doesn't recognize either how much more leverage you have with greater availability as well. A conventionally attractive women could ask random strangers for sex and most likely be successful at it while a conventionally attractive man would most likely not be remotely as successful in getting laid. I don't think women appreciate the leverage they quiet have but don't seem to use proactively because they desire a passive experience, and conversely don't seem to appreciate how sex starved men tend to be. Commenting on male availability as a women can easily become a "let them eat cake" situation.

No. People are not fungible like that. It's an overly reductive way of thinking. And this kind of theorizing is just unconstructive and at worst damaging to guys who are struggling. It is almost trolling.

Because all women never actually love the person they are with. All this theorizing just comes off as contrivance and cowardice. Reducing human beings to just an economy as if you never even have to try if your just handsome enough. Some people have certain advantages for sure but but that is not a good reason to not even try. It is not the case at all that mating has been monopolized by a minority of chads or that it is going to. That is ridiculous. A lot of guys tend to see mating only through the male perspective and assume that women are as obsessed with looks as they are. It's a lot of projection, as overused that word is.

Most religious people are religious because they where raised such. Their community/society maintains a bubble of religiosity. Religion is largely cultural. If you are secular, there is very little reason to subscribe to a particular religion. It is kind of like selling your soul, but more like you ability to think and act independently. Make up your own mind about stuff. Insect meat?

The main difference then and now is just is that relationships are no longer a sufficient condition for survival like they used to be since women can get jobs now, which means there are going to be less relationships overall. And an age where marriage was a condition for basic survival wasn't about fairness, choice or even love necessarily either. A market theory applies well to online dating but that is also because men heavily outnumber available women and aren't just looking for validation. Reducing mating dynamics to capital also ignores how interpersonal relationships are and how dynamic choice can be that can't be simplistically be reduced to economics. There are more men interested in mating than there are available attractive women. That is the crux of the issue. Statistics don't have to apply to you individually however. This whole quote is crying about things not being easy but they never really have been. Most guys just don't seriously prioritize it in my experience. If you are approaching women in real life you are already doing more than most guys.

The autistic health nuts are not going to be happy with you... That aside, I do eat one snack per week as a rule. You shouldn't feel bad about a little indulgence that makes you happy.

Source: I made it up.

If you don't give the AI specific instructions not to, it will default to glazing you unless you have a politically incorrect opinion.

I'd say this is the most important aspect. You just have to seek out the funny for it's own sake. Comedy is something you do, it doesn't necessarily happen just because your authentic. Also, a lot of humor is in paying out people. Being mean and stereotypes is a goldmine for humor. Make fun of dumb inane women and guys who can't get laid (thots and incels respectively), immigrants and those little african pygmies with the bloated bellies (povcunts).

I agree it looks like a sarcastic joke you'd share with your mates. Not the honey the bees are looking for.

You definitely could be stricter I think. Like, what is this thread about? "I have an enlarged ass and these jawas are groping me but I'm okay with it." No serious inquiry or discussion here, just really waffling about one self. This is an example of a low quality post in my opinion and possibly trolling. I think you could (as in the mods) do more soft warning and time outs, where a user can't post for X amount of time. If a user makes a low-quality post, the user should be put in time-out for 12-48 hours where they can't make any more posts. A good example of a soft warning was the previous post you made in this thread: It acknowledges that there might be tomfoolery about, which might not be tolerated. I think more "soft warnings" in this style could potentially help moderate problematic posting without needing to be overly "letigative". Just like reminders to be civil, etc. If you feel the need to call out a specific user though I think at least a time-out is warranted.

I found this great video by Vlad Vexler (great channel as well, especially his political analysis's) talking about emotional intelligence but from the understanding of it being able to perceive how other's experience reality. He makes distinctions between psychological, aesthetic and intellectual emotional intelligence. He also underscores emotional intelligence being in part genetic (in my words) as an ability that you may or may not intuitively posses and able to cultivate. The bigger takeaway from this video for me is the idea that you might not be able to see things that other's are seeing which then doesn't mean that there is nothing there. A good example is not seeing any aesthetic value in an abstract paining versus someone who genuinely does. If you can't see an abstract painting having any aesthetic value whatsoever then that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't any value there but perhaps you just lack the aesthetic emotional intelligence to recognize the experience that the artist is trying to convey. "You just don't get it". I find it important that we learn to at least appreciate that people can experience realities that are completely different from your own, something which we lack in today's culture in my opinion. For me it's not even a question of haves or have-nots in terms of specific kinds of intelligence but just understanding that A) there are different kinds of intelligence, and B) you might lack a certain kind of intelligence but that doesn't mean that there then isn't any truth or value inherent to a specific thing, like a painting. You might just not "get it". Another great example are economically driven politicians who don't get that unemployed parents still generate value for society even though they don't contribute to direct profits. Or an older parent that doesn't get it when their child wants to become an artist. It's a problem if you become arrogant and dismissive when you don't "get" something because of your lack of a specific kind of intelligence. It makes you a worse person in my opinion.

One of the qualities of this forum is there is a relative diversity in thought. For example, you could admit to being a pedophile on this forum and have a meaningful discussion without getting instantly banned as long as you don't condone abuse. A super progressive and woke forum like Resetera will ban you for way less. Just for not agreeing or talking about the wrong topic. Racial preference is probably not that uncommon. Just ask yourself which races you find the most attractive.

It's not necessarily helpful that AI is overly "nice" to you and your ideas. Ideally, AI should challenge and expand your thinking. Not coddle you and your beliefs.

Fun fact: the diaphragm is asymmetrical with the right diaphragm being situated higher than the left with a stronger connection to the spine due to the left lung being smaller in order to fit the heart and the liver being underneath the right diaphragm. If you shift your weight to one side, you'll breath more with the lung of that side and because the right lung is bigger with a stronger diaphragm we have an unconscious bias to shift towards the right. It is apparently normal to have a slight scoliosis towards the right due to the influence of the right diaphragm. https://pritrainer.com/lateral-pelvic-tilt-cause-fix/

Go on to Twitter and just look at how inanely mean spirited everyone is and tell me they are not crazy. To be fair, this forum could be worse.

I just assume that everyone online is an insane person. Especially people on this forum. Perfectly contextualizing everything that happens online. I'm the exception of course.