If the dating market is a market, then why it's not regulated,at least online dating

[Applegarden8]

15 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Yeah, the framing of women as a ‘resource’ is certainly disturbing... but also unfortunately very common.

I get the response as it’s how I (and other women) feel about these kinds of posts.

But unfortunately they’re just going to turn it back on you for picking up on the ‘woman as commodity’ implication and say that you’re straw manning and misreading.

But really you’re just noticing the underlying meaning of the post... and responding to the dog whistle.

It is quite incredible how consistently and with how much tought and effort you try to dismantle such posts.

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, Applegarden8 said:

It is quite incredible how consistently and with how much tought and effort you try to dismantle such posts.

[Karmadhi]

@Emerald Ironically you women reward guys that see you as a conquest and trophy instead of seeing you as human beings. The most successful guys with girls are far from treating them with respect, they just see them as an ego validation trophy.

[Hardkill]

20 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Men are also treated as objects and commodities in their own way. Men are certainly used for their finances, status, and other kinds of resources. How about all of the women out there that use men as their boy toys for sex?

[Karmadhi]

@WaveInTheOcean Please read my post properly before making it personal. 

@Peter Miklis Because in modern days that is the shit society pushes down your throat. What i was saying is for this shit to be debunked. I was stuck in the frame look for years, it fucking sucks. Many many guys i know were too. It would be okay if it was the actual truth but it is not reality.

[TK2021]

13 hours ago, Harlen Kelly said:

What solution do you propose?

The thing is that we cannot even honestly think of a solution if we are not empathizing with the situation. And we won't be able to accept any given solution, for it will undoubtedly be a compromise in a direction, which is against the ego of the person not able to empathize.

@Peter Miklis

Don't write me these paragraphs before understanding or even reading my post.

@Leo Gura

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

And how about empathy for women struggling to find stable long-term male providers?

 

This is a much easier problem, and slightly derailing the topic at hand. The moment women stop confusing their sexual market value with their relationship market value is the moment when this "struggling" greatly reduces. The problem here is that women are delusional about their relationship market value, confusing it with their sexual market value which is much higher, hence disappointment and suffering.

And if you had any empathy towards these struggling women, perhaps you wouldn't peddle pick-up advice so willy-nilly, since all the ideologies behind it promote more casual sex - which of course lowers the relationship market value of women. And men to some extent also. I'm not saying it cannot be used for relationship purposes - but be honest. The more casual sex a woman has had, the vast majority of men will see them as having lower relationship value. An easy girl seems to have the same relationship value as a wimp guy has sexual value. Because the easy girl is a threat to his reproductive and survival purposes, just as the wimp guy is a threat to the girls reproductive and survival purposes. 

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The excuses you guys invent are truly crafty. Anything to not talk to a girl.

This is not some excuse not to talk to girls, what in the world? This is a big issue, which is getting bigger and bigger, which requires seriousness. It might be that you have been so deeply conditioned by pick-up and stage orange culture, that you can't really see clearly here. Just because you have invested so much time in this thinking doesn't mean it is the right way to go. At least stay open to further possibilities instead of doubling down, or mocking everyone trying to talk about this issue. 

@Emerald

You are making assumptions about the post and the poster according to your own egoic biases. I personally don't have a cat in the fight. I'm in a long term, well functioning relationship.

Socializing is good - but you are ignoring the fact that outside your anecdotal experience, women will not choose some non-attractive guy for sex or a relationship. And the standards for an attractive guy is always rising. Once upon a time a caveman was attractive, because women's sexual nature works in relation to its surrounding. The disgusting caveman just had to be less disgusting than the majority of the other cavemen and he was good. Today, if you are a caveman - good luck. You have to be more attractive than the majority, in the majority of the cases. Of course there will be some anecdotes of bottom of the barrel guys succeeding sometimes(the bottom of the barrel is surprisingly getting bigger and bigger), but that proves nothing. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Edited May 27, 2021 by TK2021

[Emerald]

8 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

@Emerald Ironically you women reward guys that see you as a conquest and trophy instead of seeing you as human beings. The most successful guys with girls are far from treating them with respect, they just see them as an ego validation trophy.

First off, I do not “reward” anyone with my love. I just do what feels good to me and follow my intuition and instincts. There is no concept of reward... just magnetism and feeling and love.

That “reward” idea is a male projection onto women’s sexuality. Female sexuality has nothing to do with the reward/punishment dichotomy because female sexual attraction is non-objective.

Also, I personally am not interested in men who are out of touch with their emotions. A man who is callous, who sees me as an object is simply incapable of going into the depths with me.

And men who can’t dive deep and meet me in my depths are boring to me from both a sexual standpoint and relationship standpoint. Not enough juice to keep the mind stimulated and the blood flowing. 

But you’d also be wise to recognize that you are projecting the tendency to objectify women onto these conquesting men... which do exist. But you seem to fail to see your own objectifying tendencies. You did after all refer to women as a resource.

So a man who gets laid who objectifies women and a man who does get laid who objectifies women are cut from the same cloth in my eyes. Equally lukewarm and not energetically magnetic.

[Emerald]

21 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Men are also treated as objects and commodities in their own way. Men are certainly used for their finances, status, and other kinds of resources. How about all of the women out there that use men as their boy toys for sex?

Obviously not a good thing. But look around and you’ll see that this dynamic is less common. 

Men are mostly seen as subjects where women are often viewed as objects. Hence the underlying assumption of this post of ‘woman as resource’.

[RendHeaven]

13 minutes ago, Emerald said:

So a man who gets laid who objectifies women and a man who does get laid who objectifies women are cut from the same cloth in my eyes. Equally lukewarm and not energetically magnetic.

*and a man who does not get laid(?)

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, TK2021 said:

@Emerald

You are making assumptions about the post and the poster according to your own egoic biases. I personally don't have a cat in the fight. I'm in a long term, well functioning relationship.

Socializing is good - but you are ignoring the fact that outside your anecdotal experience, women will not choose some non-attractive guy for sex or a relationship. And the standards for an attractive guy is always rising. Once upon a time a caveman was attractive, because women's sexual nature works in relation to its surrounding. The disgusting caveman just had to be less disgusting than the majority of the other cavemen and he was good. Today, if you are a caveman - good luck. You have to be more attractive than the majority, in the majority of the cases. Of course there will be some anecdotes of bottom of the barrel guys succeeding sometimes(the bottom of the barrel is surprisingly getting bigger and bigger), but that proves nothing. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

No. I’m just picking up on the underlying implications of the post. 

Also, you’re not understanding how female sexuality works. It isn’t just a pickier form of male sexuality. It’s quite different.

Women in their feminine intuition are drawn to men as particular human beings. And we get a Cupid’s Arrow for one of them... usually one that matches us in attractiveness.

So, women generally go for their match. Tens will go for tens and feel ecstatic about it. Twos will go for twos and feel ecstatic about it.

Men, on the other hand, are all attracted  sexually to 10s. And without emotional development and feminine integration, he won’t see the value in a woman of equal dating marketplace value. He will always go for the ideal woman, even if she’s out of reach.

So, men with a disintegrated feminine side, project their objectifying “aiming for 10s” tendency onto women when this is not how our sexuality works.

And because women are more selective, they get the distorted notion that all women only really care about guys who are tens and will weed out all the 9s and below to be in the “harem” of a guy who’s a 10. And that only 10% of men get affection.

And all of this distortion and anxiety because you don’t know how women work. Women like specific men... often for his flaws. We are attracted to men’s humanity.

But because men without an integrated feminine side are not attracted to women’s humanity, they project the same objectifying and cold hearted tendencies onto women. And then the insecurity rules them.

[RendHeaven]

18 minutes ago, TK2021 said:

@Leo Gura

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

And how about empathy for women struggling to find stable long-term male providers?

 

This is a much easier problem, and slightly derailing the topic at hand. The moment women stop confusing their sexual market value with their relationship market value is the moment when this "struggling" greatly reduces. The problem here is that women are delusional about their relationship market value, confusing it with their sexual market value which is much higher, hence disappointment and suffering.

And if you had any empathy towards these struggling women, perhaps you wouldn't peddle pick-up advice so willy-nilly, since all the ideologies behind it promote more casual sex - which of course lowers the relationship market value of women. And men to some extent also. I'm not saying it cannot be used for relationship purposes - but be honest. The more casual sex a woman has had, the vast majority of men will see them as having lower relationship value. An easy girl seems to have the same relationship value as a wimp guy has sexual value. Because the easy girl is a threat to his reproductive and survival purposes, just as the wimp guy is a threat to the girls reproductive and survival purposes. 

Hoooooooly crap you are dense lol 

1 hour ago, Harlen Kelly said:

@WaveInTheOcean You did not engage intellectually with the post. 

yeah because the post is framed in such a twisted way, it doesn't deserve serious intellectual scrutiny.

1 hour ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

Why are such low conscious topics like this allowed? I'm getting nausea just reading three lines of op

To op: grow some fucking balls you fucking pussy

pretty much 

[Emerald]

5 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

*and a man who does not get laid(?)

Oops! Yeah, that’s what I meant 

[RendHeaven]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

And we get a Cupid’s Arrow for one of them... usually one that matches us in attractiveness.

So, women generally go for their match. Tens will go for tens and feel ecstatic about it. Twos will go for twos and feel ecstatic about it.

I don't know if I'm willing to take this as a universal, but I can nonetheless attest to viewing this phenomenon in action.

[Emerald]

Just now, RendHeaven said:

I don't know if I'm willing to take this as a universal, but I can nonetheless attest to viewing this phenomenon in action.

It is a generalization as some women may genuinely skew more masculine in their attraction dynamic as a part of their personality.

But this is the feminine/Yin attraction dynamic generally. 

[Harlen Kelly]

5 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

yeah because the post is framed in such a twisted way, it doesn't deserve serious intellectual scrutiny.

That's not the reason why that person commented ''grow some fucking walls''. That person got triggered due to they way the topic frames women as commodities. Getting triggered and neurotically overreacting is not what particularly smart people do. That's a dull-witted attitude. 

[RendHeaven]

5 minutes ago, Harlen Kelly said:

Getting triggered and neurotically overreacting is not what particularly smart people do. That's a dull-witted attitude. 

Seems from here like you're overreacting to overreacting

If you actually understood the shit that women endure from men just like us, there would be no room left to leverage notions of "smartness" against them whenever they express their discontentment.

[Harlen Kelly]

@RendHeaven Without the usage of foul language, how could you infer that I am overacting? 

Your perspective on what women go through because of men is childish and juvenile. The reality is that both men and women cause each other tremendous suffering. 

[Preety_India]

There's a very simple conclusion to this post. 

If you're sexually attractive, whether male or female, you have a guaranteed place in the market. 

If you aren't sexually attractive, then you need to accept that it's going to be harder for you in this market.

There's nothing else to it.

Either you try to appear sexually attractive or you stop complaining. You aren't going to achieve much without procuring the traits you need in this market 

The true resource here is sexual attractiveness. The more the merrier.

 

[knakoo]

5 hours ago, Harlen Kelly said:

 If I am not mistaken, currently 1/3 of the male population in their 30s are virgins. That used to be around 10% in 2010. 

Seriously ??? Where did you get that number ?

[RendHeaven]

30 minutes ago, Harlen Kelly said:

@RendHeaven Without the usage of foul language, how could you infer that I am overacting? 

You're very clearly implying that WaveInTheOcean is not smart - and in the same breath, disparaging "not-smart" in favor of elevating "smart."

That's absolutely an overreaction, because smartness has nothing to do with any of this - it is an unnecessary judgement that you brought into the conversation in order to have narrative control.

30 minutes ago, Harlen Kelly said:

Your perspective on what women go through because of men is childish and juvenile.

Oh yeah?

Explain to me why. Such that little not-smart child me can understand your aged wisdom

30 minutes ago, Harlen Kelly said:

The reality is that both men and women cause each other tremendous suffering. 

Obviously lol. But that doesn't mean that the suffering is equal. Have some nuance!

Edited May 27, 2021 by RendHeaven