Jump to content

"Friend Zone" memes and whining are silly (Rape Culture discussion)


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I'd agree that the Alpha/Beta male definition is essentially bollocks, and was used by some PUA's back in the day. Its mostly a broad generalisation to find a way to catagorise men into groups, those who get laid and those who don't. Thats far too broad but theres some truth in it as there are clearly guys who do very well with women and display certain characteristics and there are men who do badly with women and tend to display the opposite characteristics. Im talking about mainly confidence and charisma. 

Yet, I have confidence and charisma outside of the specific context of being single and romantically interested in a given female.  Even the sub-catagorization is "bollocks".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're linking to fucking Sargon of Akkad as a credible source now? The dude who's been repeatedly endorsed by actual neo-nazis? 

Oh dear lord my sides. 

Gamergate was a hate campaign. Nothing more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yet, I have confidence and charisma outside of the specific context of being single and romantically interested in a given female.  Even the sub-catagorization is "bollocks".

Well confidence is a situational thing, you might have confidence at work but that won't help you with women much if you crumble when you talk to them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Well confidence is a situational thing, you might have confidence at work but that won't help you with women much if you crumble when you talk to them

Which is my point.  The generalization fails for the need for over-specificity to make it work. Worse, it portrays sexual aggressiveness as a positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Which is my point.  The generalization fails for the need for over-specificity to make it work. Worse, it portrays sexual aggressiveness as a positive.

Well there is the dilemma, being sexually confident and forward ( not in a creepy way) can be seen as attractive. The opposite is what leaves guys sitting in the friend zone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Maelys,

Okay, I've never met a "stranger" and am quite adept at striking up conversations with people where ever I happen to be.  But not, I've been married for 15 years mind you, when I was romantically interested in a woman.  I had huge anxiety about talking to women I found attractive.  Are both of those contexts not "social" yet in one I'm fairly "dominant" and in the other I'm fairly "submissive".  

I can't be the only person who is like this.

 

21 minutes ago, mormont said:

I don't, because there is no better term to describe a concept that lacks any basis in actual fact. The problem here is not the terminology, the problem is that people do not work this way.

No reputable scientific evidence exists to this effect.

Like every other animal that exists, human females, when searching for a mate, tend to prefer males who exhibit "dominant" characteristics; namely charisma, confidence, assertiveness, strength, the potential for healthy children and the ability to protect and provide for them. Submissive males generally do not exhibit these same characteristics to the same extent that dominant males do. The same way other mammals look for the most optimal mate to give the best offspring. This is common sense. Any documentary you would watch as a child would tell you this.

Scot, you being married despite being submissive does not mean there are no such thing as dominant or submissive guys. Reasons why a woman would chose a more submissive male can be anything from individual variation, to a more dominant woman wanting to be in control over her mate, a lack of potential dominant mates, perhaps a more generally submissive male may posses one or two more appealing or satisfactory qualities.

I am not claiming it is a black and white division. There is some overlap. But it is quite obvious if you have ever spent any time around human beings that more assertive men tend to do better with women than submissive guys. For a crude, stereotypical example, it is why there are outgoing and popular kids in highschool and the "losers" who hangout in the library. It's not that a loser is never going to get a girl, its that the popular kids are going to get a lot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maelys I Blackfyre said:

 

Like every other animal that exists, human females, when searching for a mate, tend to prefer males who exhibit "dominant" characteristics; names charisma, confidence, assertiveness, strength, and the ability to protect them. Submissive males generally do not exhibit these same characteristics to the same extent that dominant males do. The same way other mammals look for the most optimal mate to give the best offspring. This is common sense. Any documentary you would watch as a child would tell you this.

Scot, you being married despite being submissive does not mean there are no such thing as dominant or submissive guys. Reasons why a woman would chose a more submissive male can be anything from individual variation, to a more dominant woman wanting to be in control over her mate, a lack of potential dominant mates, perhaps a more generally submissive male may posses one or two more appealing or satisfactory qualities.

I am not claiming it is a black and white division. There is some overlap. But it is quite obvious if you have ever spent any time around human beings that more assertive men tend to do between with women than submissive guys. For a crude, stereotypical example, it is why there are outgoing and popular kids in highschool and the "losers" who hangout in the library. It's not that a loser is never going to get a girl, its that the popular kids are going to get a lot more.

Maelys,

I'm not submissive in my everyday life. I'm quite outgoing and don't have trouble talking to people... unless I happen to be single and I'm romantically interested in a female.  Do I still fall into the sterotype you are selling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Maelys,

I'm not submissive in my everyday life. I'm quite outgoing and don't have trouble talking to people... unless I happen to be single and I'm romantically interested in a female.  Do I still fall into the sterotype you are selling?

Im not quite sure what point you are making. Maelys is saying that some guys have more success with women than others and that women tend to select for certain characteristics. This is basically true. It doesn't mean no man is not an "alpha" will never get laid or find a wife, as everyone finds their level, we all essentially end up with a person around our own attractiveness level in some way or another. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Im not quite sure what point you are making. Maelys is saying that some guys have more success with women than others and that women tend to select for certain characteristics. This is basically true. It doesn't mean no man is not an "alpha" will never get laid or find a wife, as everyone finds their level, we all essentially end up with a person around our own attractiveness level in some way or another. 

Good lord.  Do you see what you are saying?  You are judging sexual success or failure (weird to begin with) based upon something as inherently subjective as "attractiveness".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Good lord.  Do you see what you are saying?  You are judging sexual success or failure (weird to begin with) based upon something as inherently subjective as "attractiveness".  

Yes. You don't think there is a correlation? Attractiveness isn't as subjective as you are suggesting either, many characteristics of attractiveness are universal. The same as if I said that being a stinky tramp with leporosy was a universally unattractive trait 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Good lord.  Do you see what you are saying?  You are judging sexual success or failure (weird to begin with) based upon something as inherently subjective as "attractiveness".  

Attractiveness is not always completely subjective. It's why hundreds of thousands of women swoon over Ryan Gosling and men over Scarlett Johansson or Jessica Alba for example. Everybody does have their own particular taste, but there are quite clearly near-universal truths about what is attractive or not. And assertiveness, charisma, confidence, (all the things I have listed above) as well as attractiveness all go into the sexual success or failure of any given person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay guys if attractiveness is not subjective explain why being overweight has been seen as a mark of attractiveness in some societies and a mark of unattractivness in others?  It also varies from a given time period.  If Attractiveness can be defined objectively, why does what is considered attractive... change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Okay guys if attractiveness is not subjective explain why being overweight has been seen as a mark of attractiveness in some societies and a mark of unattractivness in others?  It also varies from a given time period.  If Attractiveness can be defined objectively, why does what is considered attractive... change.

Because being overweight was a sign of wealth and success , which is an attractive quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Because being overweight was a sign of wealth and success , which is an attractive quality.

But not now.  Generally speaking overweight people are not see as attractive.  So... why are you claiming that attractiveness is something that can be viewed objectively when clearly it is subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But not now.  Generally speaking overweight people are not see as attractive.  So... why are you claiming that attractiveness is something that can be viewed objectively when clearly it is subjective.

Different cultures have different general tastes that have developed over centuries. Simple question, easily debunked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But not now.  Generally speaking overweight people are not see as attractive.  So... why are you claiming that attractiveness is something that can be viewed objectively when clearly it is subjective.

Because what we are really talking about is social and sexual value and status. We all give off signs this and those signs change depending on culture and time. 

Being obese is now seen as almost universally unattractive now because it signifies low social value and poor health. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...