On the ethics of dating awful people

[Ethel mermania]

I get laid regularly, you don't. So if you want to call that a standstill, sure.

Standstill in the sense that you can no more prove you're telling the truth about your life than I can about mine. It's the Internet.

Though that's not the point, as much as I disagree with you politically, I want you to be happy in life

Then why are you tarnishing the credibility of your own advice by tying it to your own insinuation that picking-and-choosing about who to believe online, based on nothing more than your preconceptions, is a-ok?

and with your attitude towards dating, you will not be.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure I'd be content with mere sexual pleasure, and I doubt I'd get adequate emotional pleasure out of compromising my own beliefs to get my short-term fix of her approving glance. If I can find someone who appreciates honesty about one's beliefs, great! But if I can't, then don't underestimate my willpower.

Well my default position is to take what I am told at fave value. So when you were honest about your experience I believed you. I believe you are being sincere in the beliefs you are expressing in this thread. if you think all married men are unhappy and I am just lying about it to preserve the institution, nothing I can do about it. So if the internet is a contest of believability of some sort, you win.


I dont underestimate your willpower, I just think its sad that in this part of your life you want to apply it.

[USS Monitor]

Much like fat, dumb and stupid, risk-adverse is no way to go through life

It's probably fair enough if some people genuinely can't deal with anything negative and avoid those outcomes where possible. For me, it isn't worth it to waste money on frivolous activities such as going out to a bar to buy drinks and speak to strangers. I'd prefer to just laser focus on becoming rich (which means living below your means whilst investing in assets) or to constantly seek greater material well being and security. I can't do anything anyways without income, so all the better if fewer people know anything about me until then.

Being celibate for a NEET or only going for a prostitute, is still a better deal for me than to potentially get sexual harassment allegations, rape accusations, risking verbal or physical fights, getting arrested, or whatever else might go wrong in a public setting approaching random people. I just can't endure or bear feeling like a fool or out of my element for any second. If that causes me to be forever alone, so be it.

If you are laser-focused on becoming rich, then why are you a NEET?

It's fine to be in a career-oriented mode where dating goes on the back burner, but living in career mode should lead to a career.

[Saiwania]

If you are laser-focused on becoming rich, then why are you a NEET? It's fine to be in a career-oriented mode where dating goes on the back burner, but living in career mode should lead to a career.

I'm chasing after getting rich quick or easy, but without it being day trading. The right path is just quite elusive. The My Pillow guy is a prime example of success. He sells a product that sucks, but the point is that just enough people still like it. Its a numbers game that worked.

[USS Monitor]

If you are laser-focused on becoming rich, then why are you a NEET? It's fine to be in a career-oriented mode where dating goes on the back burner, but living in career mode should lead to a career.

I'm chasing after getting rich quick or easy, but without it being day trading. The right path is just quite elusive. The My Pillow guy is a prime example of success. He sells a product that sucks, but the point is that just enough people still like it. Its a numbers game that worked.

So are you developing up a business plan? Doing research?

Even if you plan to start your own business like My Pillow guy, you still need a product and it still takes money to start the business. Those pillows might not be a great product, but they are still a product.

[The Black Forrest]

If you are laser-focused on becoming rich, then why are you a NEET? It's fine to be in a career-oriented mode where dating goes on the back burner, but living in career mode should lead to a career.

I'm chasing after getting rich quick or easy, but without it being day trading. The right path is just quite elusive. The My Pillow guy is a prime example of success. He sells a product that sucks, but the point is that just enough people still like it. Its a numbers game that worked.

Welllllll originally is wasn’t that bad of a pillow. I had one. Not practical overall.

As a true American capitalist; you take a decent product and slowly turn it into crap with lessor ingredients to increase profit.

[Cannot think of a name]

I get laid regularly, you don't. So if you want to call that a standstill, sure.

Standstill in the sense that you can no more prove you're telling the truth about your life than I can about mine. It's the Internet.

Though that's not the point, as much as I disagree with you politically, I want you to be happy in life

Then why are you tarnishing the credibility of your own advice by tying it to your own insinuation that picking-and-choosing about who to believe online, based on nothing more than your preconceptions, is a-ok?

and with your attitude towards dating, you will not be.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure I'd be content with mere sexual pleasure, and I doubt I'd get adequate emotional pleasure out of compromising my own beliefs to get my short-term fix of her approving glance. If I can find someone who appreciates honesty about one's beliefs, great! But if I can't, then don't underestimate my willpower.

Good looking and/or charming and/or outgoing people 'get laid.'

The rest of us make meaningful connections with people that eventually, occasionally, result in intimacy. I know more people like that than the former.

If you are laser-focused on becoming rich, then why are you a NEET? It's fine to be in a career-oriented mode where dating goes on the back burner, but living in career mode should lead to a career.

I'm chasing after getting rich quick or easy, but without it being day trading. The right path is just quite elusive. The My Pillow guy is a prime example of success. He sells a product that sucks, but the point is that just enough people still like it. Its a numbers game that worked.

You gonna be one of those drop ship 'storefronts' on Amazon?

[Dakini]

and with your attitude towards dating, you will not be.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure I'd be content with mere sexual pleasure, and I doubt I'd get adequate emotional pleasure out of compromising my own beliefs to get my short-term fix of her approving glance. If I can find someone who appreciates honesty about one's beliefs, great! But if I can't, then don't underestimate my willpower.

See, statements like this are why we know you don't get out much. You write like you're writing a melodramatic and badly translated anime series about romance.

[The Black Forrest]

I get laid regularly, you don't. So if you want to call that a standstill, sure.

Standstill in the sense that you can no more prove you're telling the truth about your life than I can about mine. It's the Internet.

Though that's not the point, as much as I disagree with you politically, I want you to be happy in life

Then why are you tarnishing the credibility of your own advice by tying it to your own insinuation that picking-and-choosing about who to believe online, based on nothing more than your preconceptions, is a-ok?

and with your attitude towards dating, you will not be.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure I'd be content with mere sexual pleasure, and I doubt I'd get adequate emotional pleasure out of compromising my own beliefs to get my short-term fix of her approving glance. If I can find someone who appreciates honesty about one's beliefs, great! But if I can't, then don't underestimate my willpower.

Hmmmm? Incel much?

I think I who you are.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Good looking and/or charming and/or outgoing people 'get laid.'

The rest of us make meaningful connections with people that eventually, occasionally, result in intimacy. I know more people like that than the former.

And yet, on this site, people who express negative stereotypes about cheerleaders are more often made out to be having difficulties "getting laid" than "making meaningful connections with people that eventually, occasionally, result in intimacy." How do you explain that?

[South Reinkalistan]

if they're hot it is ethically valid

[Herador]

Good looking and/or charming and/or outgoing people 'get laid.'

The rest of us make meaningful connections with people that eventually, occasionally, result in intimacy. I know more people like that than the former.

And yet, on this site, people who express negative stereotypes about cheerleaders are more often made out to be having difficulties "getting laid" than "making meaningful connections with people that eventually, occasionally, result in intimacy." How do you explain that?

By who?

E: Brevity, wit, etc. But I think I should be more specific. I get that some people sometimes will use "incel" as a insult, but who are these majority that levy the insult.

[Dakini]

Good looking and/or charming and/or outgoing people 'get laid.'

The rest of us make meaningful connections with people that eventually, occasionally, result in intimacy. I know more people like that than the former.

And yet, on this site, people who express negative stereotypes about cheerleaders are more often made out to be having difficulties "getting laid" than "making meaningful connections with people that eventually, occasionally, result in intimacy." How do you explain that?

Who gives a fuck about cheerleaders?

If you think that we're inferring your lack of dating experience because of your stance on cheerleaders (a word which just appeared now in the thread, so I don't see how anyone could have said anything about your opinion of them) instead of your total naivete and the way you describe women in this thread, then you are sorely mistaken.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

And yet, on this site, people who express negative stereotypes about cheerleaders are more often made out to be having difficulties "getting laid" than "making meaningful connections with people that eventually, occasionally, result in intimacy." How do you explain that?

Who gives a fuck about cheerleaders?

If you think that we're inferring your lack of dating experience because of your stance on cheerleaders (a word which just appeared now in the thread, so I don't see how anyone could have said anything about your opinion of them) instead of your total naivete and the way you describe women in this thread, then you are sorely mistaken.

Well, for starters, the above wasn't referring to something said about myself, so you were wrong about that too.

I'm not sure if this sounds familiar to the moderators, but I think a few years ago one of the same guys behind niceguyism threads posted a thread spouting various negative stereotypes about cheerleaders and was presumed despite claiming to be asexual to in fact be an incel. (Incidentally, if he were the former, his sexual experience would also be zero, yet people felt the need to paint him as the latter.) Such stereotypes would never have occurred to me until I saw the hypocrisy of those who dismissed them while they were spouted by others. Criticizing him for his lack of evidence, then turning around and assuming facts not in evidence, showing they don't care about evidence anyway. Complaining about what animals he thought people were, and then attribuing his worldview to the most animalistic motives, showing they have no problem presuming animalistic motives anyway. It seemed so hypocritical. And yet to this day I wonder if I learned the wrong lesson from that anyway. NSG seemed unwarrantedly certain of themselves despite this being a worldview that could potentially be explained by so many other things; including, let's say, the irrationality and/or hypocrisy of some of those who dispute it. Does this sounds familiar to anyone else?

At the very least, this should ring a bell if not directly then from the fact that similar things went on in other threads. By comparison, users' anecdotes specifically about the offline personal lives of people they know are no more provable than my own. Possibly even less so, since I know myself (er... to some extent), while others might not know the people they know as well as they think.

[Dakini]

Who gives a fuck about cheerleaders?

If you think that we're inferring your lack of dating experience because of your stance on cheerleaders (a word which just appeared now in the thread, so I don't see how anyone could have said anything about your opinion of them) instead of your total naivete and the way you describe women in this thread, then you are sorely mistaken.

Well, for starters, the above wasn't referring to something said about myself, so you were wrong about that too.

Maybe don't complain that people are making incorrect assumptions about yourself, then switch to complaining that people are making incorrect assumptions about another person in the middle of a sentence? Also, nobody in this thread has mentioned cheerleaders until you did, so I doubt that someone's opinions of cheerleaders has affected anyone's opinion of anyone in this thread.

I'm not sure if this sounds familiar to the moderators, but I think a few years ago one of the same guys behind niceguyism threads posted a thread spouting various negative stereotypes about cheerleaders and was presumed despite claiming to be asexual to in fact be an incel. (Incidentally, if he were the former, his sexual experience would also be zero, yet people felt the need to paint him as the latter.) Such stereotypes would never have occurred to me until I saw the hypocrisy of those who dismissed them while they were spouted by others. Criticizing him for his lack of evidence, then turning around and assuming facts not in evidence, showing they don't care about evidence anyway. Complaining about what animals he thought people were, and then attribuing his worldview to the most animalistic motives, showing they have no problem presuming animalistic motives anyway. It seemed so hypocritical. And yet to this day I wonder if I learned the wrong lesson from that anyway. NSG seemed unwarrantedly certain of themselves despite this being a worldview that could potentially be explained by so many other things; including, let's say, the irrationality and/or hypocrisy of some of those who dispute it. Does this sounds familiar to anyone else?

At the very least, this should ring a bell if not directly then from the fact that similar things went on in other threads. By comparison, users' anecdotes specifically about the offline personal lives of people they know are no more provable than my own. Possibly even less so, since I know myself (er... to some extent), while others might not know the people they know as well as they think.

So you basically don't remember who made incorrect assumptions, you don't remember who the incorrect assumptions were about, but you vaguely recall a thread where someone went on about cheerleaders and you think that some forum members (who might no longer be members of this forum) made incorrect assumptions about this person some vague number of years ago, which means that obviously, everyone in this thread who has pointed out that it's clear you don't date much is wrong to infer anything about you (even though you clearly don't date much).

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Maybe don't complain that people are making incorrect assumptions about yourself, then switch to complaining that people are making incorrect assumptions about another person in the middle of a sentence?

I don't know. It seems to be a good way of identifying who is better and who is worse at keeping track of what's going on.

Also, I don't presume to know whether or not their assumptions about others were incorrect. Only that what traits they ascribe to people, in the absence of evidence or even any especially strong reasoning, reflects their own biases, and the fact that they were quicker to assume this guy to have difficulty getting laid than difficulty making connections with people (which is what CTOAN implied more people care about) speaks volumes.

I do claim their past assumptions about myself to be incorrect, but I also accept that I can't prove it.

So you basically don't remember who made incorrect assumptions

The baseless (again, may or may not be incorrect) assumptions were expressed by everyone who chose not to actively distance themselves from these assumptions. Whether or not they agreed with this assumptions, they at the very least pretended to.

you don't remember who the incorrect assumptions were about

That part doesn't matter. Them as individuals behaving like sanctimonious pricks here doesn't tell us what their personal lives are like. A lot of religious leaders behave like sanctimonious pricks. And yet, they aren't made out to have difficulties getting laid... by most of their critics, anyway. Something else must have changed that.

but you vaguely recall a thread where someone went on about cheerleaders and you think that some forum members (who might no longer be members of this forum)

See earlier point.

made incorrect assumptions about this person some vague number of years ago, which means that obviously, everyone in this thread who has pointed out that it's clear you don't date much is wrong to infer anything about you (even though you clearly don't date much).

They were right about the fact that I don't date, they were wrong about why. Prior to this thread, they were making me out to just be an incel. The possibility that I was afraid of the aforementioned "dead-broke dad" risk, especially in my later teen years, didn't seem to them to be worth mentioning. The possibility that even before I heard of that I was once too fixated my crush to just give myself to whichever girl my classmates claimed wanted me didn't seem to them to be worth mentioning. Now they're for the most part backpedaling on it by not bringing it up, instead of defending whatever merit if any there was to their assumptions.

But yeah, if something they were that sure of themselves about could be wrong, that reflects poorly on their judgment. Suppose you're right about them being right about other matters. Would that make it anyone's fault other than their own that I don't believe them?

[Saiwania]

Good looking and/or charming and/or outgoing people 'get laid.'
The rest of us make meaningful connections with people that eventually, occasionally, result in intimacy. I know more people like that than the former.

You can always just pretend to be those things or practice enough as to effectively become more outgoing or charming. Pick up artists do this to varying degrees of success. Its a bit too taxing to keep up such a front indefinitely however.

The problem is that once a pick up artist has sex with someone, the other person might feel betrayed if they immediately discontinue the relationship or ghost them after they got what they wanted out of it (which was sex) unless they were both on the same page. As is what typically happens all too often.

One person is just saying sweet nothings and pulling off some seduction solely to sleep with them, while the other person genuinely likes what this person is saying/doing but is still unaware of their deception or real intentions long term.

[SD_Film Artists]

Condoms are a lot less risky. According to healthline they give 98% protection when used correctly. That's a lot more than "marginal". Accidents can still happen but you can say the same thing about a lot of things in life. Would you not buy a car because there's a chance of having a crash?

I wouldn't.

But suppose I lived in a town without a bus system. Would a car not then be more of a necessity than a pleasure? The only thing sex and dating are "necessities" to is proving your desirability to the same idiots who were wrong about everything from your motives to your personal lives. Whatever opinions they had, they wouldn't be based on merit anyway, so it shouldn't matter.

I'm starting to think this is more about your perspective of risk rather than whatever gender equality issues there may be. Cars always have a benefit; such as going straight to your destination at a time of your chosing rather than having to rely on the whims of a corporate bus/train timetable. You also don't have to expose yourself to violent drunks who may either be on the bus or between your house and the bus station. In this era of Covid it's also more healthy to be in your own transport. More on-topic, if you think that sex is just for "proving your desirability to the same idiots who were wrong about everything" then I think you're looking at it in the wrong way. It's almost as if continually spouting negative gender theories is unconstructive to dating.

There is financial support availible, which you're probably going to need anyway if having a kid is enough to make you "dirt poor". I know having kids can be very expensive over time but you make it sound as if it's enough to turn a middle-class home into a crack den; not that you even have to have sex in a relationship anyway.

If you have to drop out to pay child support, then the only jobs available that won't leave you "dirt poor" are notoriously risky to life and limb.

If self control were durable in the presence of proximity to someone of the opposite sex, couples wouldn't take on this risk in the first place.

I don't remember anyone here saying that teen pregnancy is a good thing.

Well it's nice that you chose NSG, but it's still weird that you focus so much attention on a subject which you're apparently uninterested or "hesitant" in getting into and have no experience in. Perhaps a relationship forum may be more constructive than debating gender equality.

I don't think that phrase is objectively definable.

I'm here because it's unfinished business. The overlap between the two contradictory statements NSG tends to collectively make about this just stands out to me, and so it's them who need to be confronted on this matter more than anyone else.

And stop pretending it's the "have no experience in" part you look down on. You wouldn't have a problem with people dismissing their own personal experiences as an unrepresentative sample of the big picture, don't pretend to have a problem with them not having those personal experiences in the first place.

What does NSG tend to collectively say?

And yes, I do think that it's best to have experience in something that you wish to talk about. That doesn't make it infallible, but primary research is generally better than secondary research.

According to the basic logic that pinning social ills on women in obsessive gender theories is a rather incel-ish thing to do. Also you still haven't said who these 'always wrong' people are.

It's not obvious?

Years ago someone else brought up the same kinds of concerns mentioned in the OP. I was mistaken for "jealous I'm not getting laid" even when I only found that vaguely plausible at the time, even though the only gal I wanted to get laid by at the time was my crush, and her boyfriend was actually a pretty decent guy. If I didn't think she was too smart to fall for it, and I had any reason to believe maintaining a facade in person was my strong suit, (or worth it at all) and managed to find out when/if they were no longer together, I'd imitate him, not whoever was being the Casanova of the school that week. (Not that I would pay a second of attention to the lives of anyone else at that wretched school anyway.)

They said I wouldn't dare condone a girl who thinks she'd be best for a guy try to get between him and his girlfriend. The hell I wouldn't. I condoned that sort of behaviour in fiction all the time if the girlfriend is obnoxious enough and the rival for his heart likeable enough, and reactions to fiction reflect feelings about reality.

Now tell me, what was I supposed to do? Expect these people to be right about something for once?

Now to be fair, I cannot prove any of the above; just as Ethel and Heloin (and to be honest, IM) can't prove theirs. If someone were to doubt all online anecdotes equally, there would be merit to that. Instead, they pick and choose based on nothing more than their preconceptions.

What's your point?

Convenient that you call it "word salad" when it discredits your claim this was about valuing "experience," but I'll bite. Where did I lose you?

Where you went off on another tangent about 'people who always diagree with you' or 'people who are always wrong'.

I don't care who disagrees with you, I don't care what you think should be said to nuns, I don't care who you think is lying; just stick to your own thread topic if indeed there is one.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

More on-topic, if you think that sex is just for "proving your desirability to the same idiots who were wrong about everything" then I think you're looking at it in the wrong way. It's almost as if continually spouting negative gender theories is unconstructive to dating.

Of course it's not just that. It's also about pleasuring one another. It's also a performance art. And there's plenty of plausible evolutionary reasons why people say in monogamous relationships it's also a bonding experience may be telling the truth.

But proving one's desirability is still a factor, or people wouldn't conflate virginity with undesirability. And it's doubtful we can consciously tell its role apart from other factors.

I don't remember anyone here saying that teen pregnancy is a good thing.

I didn't say you said that. Don't go putting words in my mouth if you're going to imply that I did that to anyone else.

I'm saying that if teenage boys are horny enough to ignore the above risks, they're horny enough to ignore the fact that he's enabling her behaviour by accepting her advances in spite of it. And depending on how much horniness increases or diminishes with age, a comparable assumption might apply to grown men.

What does NSG tend to collectively say?

The two contradictory statements are that anyone worried about other boys imitating whichever "bad boys" get the girls, or anyone spouting negative stereotypes about cheerleaders, etc... must be incels, yet also that the only real solution for any teenage boy afraid of becoming a "dead-broke dad" is abstinence. The very thing they preach is the very thing they themselves imply no one actually practices.

I don't think the converse is hypocritical. People who spout things like in the aforementioned paragraph are far from the only people believing things at odds with their own experience (see also the religious people who don't think they'd be degenerates without god, just that everyone else would) and when the only voices of reassurance to the contrary are the same idiots getting their personal lives backwards, of course that's going to any of these scenarios sound more plausible, if only by discrediting those saying otherwise.

And yes, I do think that it's best to have experience in something that you wish to talk about.

Who gets to say what counts as "experience-based"?

And why, if people are expected to have experience, are they not expected to use it? Would there not be just as much expectation on people who've experienced something to stop assuming everyone else's experiences will be the polar opposite of their own?

Also, if this is where you were going with this, why didn't you say so the first time, rather than leaving others with the impression that you were claiming to know how (supposedly) unattractive people were based on their worldview?

That doesn't make it infallible, but primary research is generally better than secondary research.

"Research" would be conducting an actual survey and getting a representative sample. And then respondents could lie to it anyway.

Personal experience could be thrown off by any sorts of unknown factors from factors from what town you're in, to what the mood is around this sort of thing in that town, etc... and on the Internet it can be lied about anyway so the point is moot.

What's your point?

You had to ask? I would think the word choice "expect these people to be right about something for once" would've been pretty clear.

Where you went off on another tangent about 'people who always diagree with you' or 'people who are always wrong'.

I don't care who disagrees with you, I don't care what you think should be said to nuns, I don't care who you think is lying; just stick to your own thread topic if indeed there is one.

The central theme is... almost exactly what it says on the tin. It's just that the specific emphasis on the theme of whether it can be a "gender-neutral" matter or inherently depends on the sexes of those involved doesn't necessarily fit well into a subjectline.

And patterns within each side of being right/wrong, hypocrisies within each side, etc... are each relevant to that question.