/ratanon/ - Rationalists Anonymous

 >>/6282/
> mate preferences in WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) societies are primarily guided by lookism, tribalism and, for heterosexual women, heightism
Any serious examination of mate preferences should examine men and women separately. Men are overwhelmingly attracted to looks. For women "lookism" and "heightism" may be true when they are rating pictures, which is what happens in most experimental setups. In live mates, however, heterosexual women seem to be looking primarily for attention from other women and displays of agency and dominance. For evidence compare the porn that men and women consume or makeup to PUA techniques.

> the best you can get after years of self-improvement
Obviously, you weren't successfully improving the actually relevant stats. Have you tried working on your small displays of cruelty and indifference or at least on stoically not whining like the hero of http://the1585.com/imnicemen.htm? Have you tried to internalize the maxim that there is no irreplaceable woman? Have you tried lifting not for the looks but for the mental effects?

> This seems to me like a hardwired need of sensitive men which fundamentally cannot be fulfilled
Well, yes. The "one weird trick" is to figure out whether you are hardwired as a sensitive romantic type or if it is more a consequence of conditioning, social anxiety and mistaken expectations. If in the end you are not that intrinsically sensitive, congratulations. If you are and you can't or don't want to change it, maybe you can bring some technical competence to >>>/robowaifu/.

 >>/6283/

>  Any serious examination of mate preferences should examine men and women separately. Men are overwhelmingly attracted to looks.

Straight men strongly prefer young and feminine partners, but the way the modern dating scene is arranged ensures that even old, very unattractive women are constantly asked out by supplicating guys.

>  In live mates, however, heterosexual women seem to be looking primarily for attention from other women and displays of agency and dominance.

Online dating is currently the most popular way of meeting partners, seeking them elsewhere automatically puts you at risk of being accused of harassing. Also, agency and dominance stem from having options, having options is possible when you have a high status, and high status is achieved largely through looks and resources. It's difficult to acquire "strong game" without the reassuring signals from the social circles.

>  Have you tried working on your small displays of cruelty and indifference

This might work (as long as you're fine with walking a thin line between confidence and mild emotional abuse), but I'm afraid that these displays won't come out as honest signals in case of sensitive guys.

>  The "one weird trick" is to figure out whether you are hardwired as a sensitive romantic type or if it is more a consequence of conditioning, social anxiety and mistaken expectations.

Good advice, but how people can actually figure it out in practice?

>  If you are and you can't or don't want to change it, maybe you can bring some technical competence to >>>/robowaifu/.

It's sad that robowaifus are currently in the uncanny valley of anime and creepy sex dolls. It will take us at least few more decades to emulate the human cognition and come up with technology providing a combination of coherent multisensory inputs which would satisfy the love-craving circuitry. Safe empathogens might be an easier way.

>  Have you tried working on your small displays of cruelty and indifference or at least on stoically not whining

I'm a somewhat short, not very handsome gay man who is occasionally approached by females above my score (say, 7-8/10) who ask to go out. The main factor contributing to this appears to be my disinterest in them: I'm happy to chat or to help when it takes no effort, but I do not bother to react to their ambient sexiness signals and do not store details of their bullshit in memory. Adding to that, I'm perceived to be smart and sometimes eccentric, but this is probably default for people frequenting this board.  

At least one gal admitted she got aroused seeing me casually flicking a folding knife. Which is weird but whatever.

Make of this what you will. I really feel for the plight of straight dudes of my phenotype. At least I'm not contributing to your competition.

 >>/6282/
Maybe go outside less? In my own experience, as I've become more of a hikki, I don't think about women enough to think depressed thoughts about how I'll never get a girlfriend, I just play vidya instead.

These studies are all selected to support the author's conclusion.  Many are weak: Correlations under .4 are not all that significant.  In some cases the author spins the result of the study to fit their conclusion: for example, one study found that the majority of women prefer an equal relationship, but the author neglected that fact and chose to spin the result in a different way.  Some results are just plain omitted, see this whitepill for example:

https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/the-paternity-myth-the-rarity-of-cuckoldry/

This series is no different from progressive textbooks which only cite research that supports their conclusion.

If you want puppy love, check out eHarmony.  It's a marriage-minded dating site which is majority female.  There are a lot of things you can do besides Tinder.  Try going to the dog park to meet women.

 >>/6360/
> In some cases the author spins the result of the study to fit their conclusion: for example, one study found that the majority of women prefer an equal relationship, but the author neglected that fact and chose to spin the result in a different way.
How did the author spin it?

Perhaps both conclusions are correct and the less selective conclusion would be accepting both findings.

 >>/6288/

> as long as you're fine with walking a thin line between confidence and mild emotional abuse

It isn't a line because the area of confident behavior and the area of mild emotional abuse overlap. By many accounts behavior that makes a man attractive to women substantially overlaps with abuse of women. Recurring mild emotional abuse may simply be necessary to sustain a relationship between typical heterosexual partners. This is something both male and female romantics reject or never even consider. One consequence is that when women unwittingly pressure men into "soft" behavior it makes men unattractive to them.

 >>/6368/
How is a heterosexual to deal with this then?

 >>/6360/
>  As I said above my own interactions are with people of generally liberal inclinations and values, and the high paternity uncertainty numbers aren’t offered up as evidence of the lascivious nature of women or the degraded state of modern morals. Rather they’re presented as evidence of gender equality, sexual liberation, and a generally praiseworthy reflection on the weak emphasis of genetic ties as the root of the parenting bond.

So, cuckoldry as an [aspect of liberal] ideology precedes cuckoldry as a sexual practice.

 >>/6369/

Learn to enjoy inflicting the mild emotional abuse you need to inflict. Learn to accept receiving the mild emotional abuse you enjoy to receive. Learn how much is too much. Basically, become a stealth BDSM lifestyler by prescription.

Erastes-cou... jpg
(112.52 KB, 564x852)

> This seems to me like a hardwired need of sensitive men

It's not hardwired. This idea that women are supposed to provide you with true love and friendship is nothing more than brainwashing by modern movies and TV shows. Men in ancient times knew the score; they realized that women were for reproduction, but cuteboys were for love and pleasure.

 >>/6377/
Even if true, pederasty is not really an option for the modern incel.

 >>/6371/
> Learn how much is too much.
But the point of  >>/6368/ is that there's no line of "too much"?

 >>/6384/
the modern incel can avail himself of a cohort of legal-age eromenoi whose hormone treatments counteract the ravages of time.

 >>/6401/
If you're giving up women and switching to pederasty because women are crazy, ending up dating trans women is a big oof.

Also, do you think the average incel is actually a standardcel who'd be up to his elbows if he didn't insist on getting cis female pussy? Or, fuck, if you know how to get a harem don't keep it to yourself.

 >>/6405/
incels can learn a lot by dabbling in trannychasing. just being able to experience what dating feels like with different power dynamics is a revelation. yeah, you still have to meet a minimal standard even if you're looking at people with fewer options, but that teaches you what the standards ARE. it teaches you which aspects of dating are things you actually need to be doing to be attractive or a decent person, and which aspects are BS that the pussy cartel tries to upsell you on. it's also good for becoming comfortable with imperfection, and realizing that other people have it worse than you.

sure if you're a dumbass you might rush into things with some desperate crazy trap, but it's easy to avoid that if you have any standards whatsoever or any ability to judge character. the bottom line is, trans women are WAY more openminded and less conventional (except for the ones who are overcompensating), and they place appropriate value on "making it work" with someone who they have something positive with, rather than constantly putting their partners on trial.