Reddit’s Female Dating Strategy offers women advice
theverge.com
theverge.com
>they do not support consensual BDSM, viewing porn, or having sex before commitment has been established in a relationship
>Similar conservative guidelines (“don’t rush into sex,” “let him take the lead”) were promoted as dating advice in books of the ’90s and 2000s such as The Rules: Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right.
>Like pickup artists, Female Dating Strategy often objectifies the opposite gender and turns dating into some sort of game to be won — just in their case, it isn’t having sex that’s the prize, but finding a High Value Male.
Yeah this is basically redpill/PUA crap combined with a hearty dose of American puritanism. Maybe both men and women who believe in this stuff should find each other instead of trying to give advice to the rest of us.
I'd say it's better to demonstrate what's wrong with their advice instead of labeling them and rejecting everything they say or stand for outright.
>Maybe both men and women who believe in this stuff should find each other instead of trying to give advice to the rest of us.
Their strategy doesn't work if other options are available. If you demand herculean efforts in order to reach intimacy then highly likely the partner will lose hope or give up and go for someone easy and if this happens many times then the person demanding efforts is going to waste a lot of time without running into someone who is ready to expend that much effort. But yes, if everyone demands herculean effort then probability of finding someone who puts herculean effort goes up drastically.
>Their strategy doesn't work if other options are available.
Maybe they should rethink their strategy then (by the way, what a lovely word to use when dealing with romantic interests).
FDS differs from PUA in that they want to settle for a man who is valuable to them and PUA just goes through women one after another even if you manage to get laid with one woman, it doesn't stop anywhere.
>Maybe they should rethink their strategy then (by the way, what a lovely word to use when dealing with romantic interests).
>Objectively, how am I supposed to prove that it's of any use when literal billions of people live happy relationships without the use of any of that stuff?
We don't know that billions of those people are happy. Were slaves happy before slavery was abolished? Were women happy before feminism?
I am a guy who never used to get much attention from women but I read FDS and I see lots of women there have had very bad experience with men who they just fell in love with, who they didn't clearly vet and they suffer consequence of this in terms of abuse, being raped or consigning debt etc...
Their strategy is now focused on avoiding those men who have destroyed their life.
My guess why I was banned? I made one or two comments outside the sub promoting a non-toxic alternative called https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXDating
The inflection point of global population happened somewhere around 1962-1965 when it went from concave up (growth phase) to concave down (slowing phase). Population still continued to increase in many parts of the world, but it's the rate of change that slowed. In many ways, overall population is best modeled by a different equation, but the carrying capacity is variable including place-to-place, time, technology, food, economic and political concerns.
Even though population slowed, it still kept increasing. With a larger population, resource scarcity plus labor over-supply increased in first-world countries and so the ability to start families decreased. People who are relatively rich have an easier time having children than most people when the average purchasing power and average income is reduced. More inequality + more access to reproductive services -> fewer families -> fewer children.
The sexual revolution and The Pill happened around this time, increasing the number of divorces and reducing the number of formed family units. (Birth control isn't anything new, as Silphium was a cash-crop in the ancient world that was harvested to its extinction.)
Delaying marriage also reduces the number of births. It was the case in the 19th century that girls were having children at 15-16 through their late 20's, so family sizes were on the order of 6-10 children per couple.
One point that goes against the trend is modern divorce (with a prenup and in a non-community property state) allows a high-income earning man to start multiple families serially.
Women gained more access to the means of income earning, removing dependency on men. As such, many women's time and priorities were taken-up by work, and so starting a family was no longer a primary motivation.
Alternative lifestyle became more acceptable as population increased. The previous modality forced some people who were uncomfortable with heterosexuality to have families and children, but who wouldn't have passed on their genes to a new generation in the new modality. Furthermore, individuals in the modern era, not necessarily for sexual or gender reasons, adopted new and various subsets of lifestyles that also reduced and limited their reproductive success.
In conclusion, I think it's important for any wise person to not capriciously lash their identity to a random cult, external attribute or way that contains a lot of negative, judgmental/stereotypes or arbitrary "rules," and to use some common-sense, nuance and love rather that bitterness, scorn or hate.
We already see this in some Western countries where Muslims have much higher birth rates. Also in the US, we have the Mormons. If this development continues, it is not unlikely to see a return to historical, more efficient, social norms.
It doesn't require direct genetic pathway, imagine if assertiveness or dominance is comes from specific hormone which comes from specific genes.
In such setting, people upholding specific culture if do not reproduce their culture disappears before a culture which is reproducing and indoctrinating future generation from the point they are born. It's much easier to influence a kid than a grown up adult.
Religiosity is genetic, and that has quite strong effects on fertility.
I've seen people here claiming that Asians are more conformists they've been selected for conformity from the time where your books were burnt if they were not allowed by the Chinese empire.
>Which genes are involved, how does the epitaxis play out, which pathways are influenced?
We know tall stature is genetic trait and we've many genes which correlate to tall strature. We don't know pathway which causes tall structure. So can you tell me which pathway makes a person tall? Should we stop believing tall strature is a genetic trait even if partially?
Similarly, there are gay or transexual people - we don't know pathway, are you going to claim that its cultural? There are many gay in Muslim countries or India where they were not socially accepted for long time.
There have been experiments on mouse where when they injected q mouse with testosterone, they became more dominant and fought more fiercely against the bully.
Similarly, there are accounts of trans people who went from female to male - and became more competitive, aggressive, dominant.
It's not far fetched to think there are hormones which turn depend on genes or environment which make a person more "individualistic"
In psychology, we know of this disorder Borderline Personality Disorder which sometimes is genetic and sometimes not. It's a very individualistic disorder and person suffering from it finds it hard to keep meaningful relationships for long term.
We don't know if it's caused by hormonal imbalance or genetics or some brain anomaly.
Similarly, depression is contender for genetic trait yet we don't know any pathway.
So what's my point? Asking for specific genes or pathway is not going to invalidate the hypothesis that a particular personality trait might have genetic basis
I have no idea which specific genes are involved or by what pathways, but neither do I know which genes control height and that still seems readily apparent.
Here is the Wikipedia article on the proposed gene ("VMAT2"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
Here is an article on phys.org which describes my idea: https://phys.org/news/2011-01-religiosity-gene-dominate-soci...