There were a few articles that came out a few years ago arguing that, no, dating apps were terrible for women because it makes men even more noncommittal with such easy access to dates. My hypothesis was that the women they interviewed for those pieces were all going after the same small group of elite men. Thus, ~3% of the whole male population is sleeping around with ~20% of the female population. Makes me wonder if polygamy is the natural course of things.
The other implication of polygamy is that a lot of men simply didn't have a chance to pass on their genes at all.
Mentally ill people and geniuses are overwhelmingly male.
I cam across an interesting article here on HN posted about the link between polygamy and upheaval in the Economist https://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21732695-p... .
Whilst its not evidence, it certainly makes the case.
I am not so sure this was modus operandi for commoners when it came to marriage. Caste-bound poor village dwellers, with few prospects and no family wealth to maintain, I imagine married for love more often than not.
You dated two weeks at 15 and then announced marriage and then it was for live.
I am not denying that pre-arranged marriages are a thing, and that they played a more prominent role in the past, but to say that genuine love played no part in the match making process until 200 years ago, like the OP suggested, is an exaggeration.
Love is a part of human evolutionary toolbox, it's been around for a while. Accordingly, the subject of love, and marrying for love, comes up in literary works since the start of recorded history.
Yes, many anthropologists have theorized the same idea. William Tucker (journalist) wrote a whole book about marriage being a social mechanism to reduce violence:
https://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Civilization-Monogamy-Made-H...
That’s why there is a famous saying “Don’t shit where you eat”. Workplace relationships seldom end well.
Flirting in criminal court and at funerals are also probably bad ideas.
Intent matters a whole lot and their intent is not to harass you but rather to reach out and probe for your potential interest.
Accusing people of harassment, for simply trying to approach you, is imho a seriously crappy thing to do and very unreasonable.
Is being approached by a beggar harassment? Is it these individual guys fault that many little annoyances add up to be a big headache/borderline harassment? It's not like clairvoyance is an actual thing, so what are you actually blaming them individually for? And what could they, individually, ever do to prevent that situation?
The expectation you are having here is that all males should instead always be passive and never approach a female of interest because she might or might not have been approached before and thus feel harassed. Doing this "equal" would mean females should also never approach males, where would that leave us?
Tbh there is no easy solution to this because there are issues for both sides: Females getting dogpiled and males usually getting nowhere without taking opportunities leading to said dogpiling.
On a more practical note: There are subtle ways to prevent at least some approaches from happening and deflecting them somewhat effectively. Like wearing visible headphones when in public, instantly, but politely, declining the approach with body language by keeping a steady pace of urgency and slightly shaking the head.
With time this is bound to get better, at least if eroding of societal role expectations happens equally for all genders and females actively approaching males becomes something that isn't considered "out of the ordinary" due to its sheer rarity of happening. Imho that's something that very likely will require a multigenerational effort.
https://www.reddit.com/r/OneY/comments/7elhvu/men_at_work_wo...
> Men, most men, arent afraid that they dont know how to treat women with respect. Which every single comment to the article suggests men dont...every fucking one. [...]
> What men are worried about is how can they interact with women and KNOW that there is no way they are going to have to defend against a sexual harassment accusation and lose their careers. Thats the question men want answers to and thats why suddenly even crack-pot [Vice President] Pence makes some fucking sense.
> Which is what the NYT couldnt bring itself to say. Because even if it did, it knows theres no answer.
I worry about dying in car crash but that doesn't mean I never get in a car.
Women always had that specific kind of power in real world. When/if you go to a party, observe the people who are alone, standing against a wall; they're invariably men, without absolutely no exception. This says everything about power.
Having said that, bear in mind that this kind of power is only a (arguably small) part of relationships between the sexes. It says a lot, but it's still a (small) part.
> Why would they try to find a date in any other way?
Because the dating medium strongly correlates with the interest of the people involved. Not everybody's looking for the Tinder type of relationship.
"Before Tinder", one would just go to a nightclub. It's exactly the same experience; and for the same reason, not everybody goes to nightclubs.
It's honestly changed the way I think about relationships.
Is that a descriptive or prescriptive statement?
Or put another way: Are you observing and remarking on cultural norms, or stating "This is how things should be?"
I only ask because when someone says "It's X's job to [whatever]" the connotation is "X should [whatever]" but the context surrounding this made it ambiguous.
Should it be that way? The answer likely depends on whether you're a man or a woman. From the male's POV changing the game benefits us since there's less work to do. If you're a woman then it's the opposite and a net negative.
This sexual dynamic evolved for a reason, so changing it seems like the epitome of an uphill battle.
Men can brag Baku their sexual lives and even exaggerate it. Women have to do the opposite and be very secretive.
Perhaps it ties to the dynamic. Women are buyers. Men are sellers. Easy to spend $1000 to buy things, hard to earn $1000 to sell something.
Western dating is a totally different beast than other countries.
I think there are three different datings - the one when you look for partner, the one where you seek temporary fun and then the one when you seek brag points/social status through trophy partner you don't really care about. These discussions tend to confuse them.
I don't have a horse in that race, but I do have an ethical concern.
If you tell men that they're supposed to try, then it's likely that a lack of success will be met with trying harder.
What does this result in, practically speaking? Being more forward? Being more touchy? Being more in their face putting in the effort?
a.k.a. creepy, stalkerish behavior and possibly an increase in the incidence of sexual assault and/or harassment.
That's the concern I have with the "should" position.
Inhabiting different environments. E.g. a female friend suggested I take up yoga as yoga classes tend to be more/mostly female. Within a few classes I was dating a woman I met there.
"Putting it out there" by which I mean proactively telling friends that you're interested in meeting women. This was suggested to me and my first reaction was "That's silly. Everyone knows I'm single and looking..." but in fact most people - even your friends - aren't prioritizing your dating life. If you mention it to them it sometimes can trigger a "Hey, that reminds me, I know someone who's also single...you two might be a good match."
Increasing your velocity. At the end of the day meeting someone you want to date is a numbers game. The more women you meet the more likely you are to find a match. "Trying harder" can simply be making more attempts to meet more women.
I.e. trying harder doesn't have to be creepy.
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16898821
> I think the person employing that strategy would quickly find that it doesn't work as well as some other ways of trying harder.
You'd think, but in practice, not always. Aren't humans amazing?
I think if we're being prescriptive, I think working towards a culture where all parties involved do both choosing and trying. Put forth the effort to get to know people, then choose who you want to be romantically/sexually involved with among the people for whom there is even a remote mutual desire.
>Aren't humans amazing?
I wasn't suggesting it's not tried. Simply that it's unlikely to be successful and thus will find fewer adherents.
>working towards a culture where all parties involved do both choosing and trying
This happens already. Women pursue men all the time, they just don't have to expend as much energy as men do.
The observable consequences of this imbalance offers insight into human nature. The article and comments in that thread delve far into them.
It's worth reading.
BBC has a good intro on the subject: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160624-we-have-the-wrong-id...
it's really the same for all generalizations. i can make the statement, "males are attracted to females" and it will be true in 95%+ of cases. just because some limited counterexamples exist does not make this generalization a poor representation - these are not laws of physics or mathematical axioms that need absolute conformance to be usefully true.
IMO this is very close, but missing an important point. It's a man's job to escalate, it's a woman's job to choose.
Women definitely try. They put a lot of effort into how they are perceived (looks, mannerisms, etc.) and giving us subtextual clues that they are interested.
All we have to do is be a little vulnerable and ask them out on a date, go for that first kiss, get down on one knee and so on.
It's a lot more complicated than that. Getting down on one knee can be more expensive than a knee replacement.
So females should probably collude to enforce dating-monogamy, to encourage males to clearly commit or reject. Polygamy works only when females judge 1/Nth of the attention of the best males to be worth more than 100% of a lesser male. Polyandry doesn't work well, because the males have negative incentive to participate--why compete over one woman when those men could just compete on the same terms for all women?
I can envision a system wherein all the women establish a ranking of their top prospects, and an algorithm deconflicts their preferences, such that only one woman can contact a given man through the system at one time, until one or the other publicly repudiates the match. If a woman expresses her preference for only alphas, she may be in a situation where she cannot contact any of them, because they're all "busy" at the time. If she tags a bunch of betas--or even omegas--she might be able to date several of them concurrently. It forces the males to judge based on "good enough for me, or not" rather than "better or worse than potential alternatives". The women would always be dating "the best available that does not compete with the other women".
It's just not realistic to implement a symmetric experience on dating apps.
For one, the male class is not given any opportunity to rank females, as it is presumed that most males would attempt to game their own preference rankings to maximize their chances at getting a match. Secondly, the classes are not closed, and additional members may be added or removed at any time, when some matches may already be dating.
To be sure, whomever it is that figures out the fair dating algorithm would have to cite Gale-Shapley as a starting point.
Tinder and the Dawn of the “Dating Apocalypse” https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/08/tinder-hook-up-cu...
I think is noted literature in that field
- "Men on Tinder Explain Why They Swipe Right on Literally Everyone" (https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ae55xk/men-who-swipe-...)
- "Cupid on Trial: A 4-month Online Dating Experiment Using 10 Fictional Singletons" (http://jonmillward.com/blog/attraction-dating/cupid-on-trial...)
A larger context in the "taking initiative" section of "Dating for Nerds (part 2): gender differences" (http://p.migdal.pl/2017/09/30/dating-for-nerds-gender-differ...).
Do they actually? I've spoken to many men and those apps don't seem to work at all. Usually gets deleted after a few days of usage. Like what's the point of being there if absolutely noone wants to write?
It's no wonder Tinder is up there on the Play Store as the second highest grossing app alongside all the online gambling apps. That's because Tinder and all the online dating platforms are exactly designed to mimic gambling.
You can't win if you're not in the game.
In Asian countries, white guys are the choosers.
The issue is selling hope to incels. That's where the real money's at.
Men in aggregate will crawl across an interface made of broken glass if they perceive it as providing access to women.
I know men in both categories.
Awful to see it written out like that.