Nb: tl;dr at bottom, key points highlighted in bold

Most of us can probably agree here that virtue is at the very least a neutral trait only in dating. This is because firstly, even the women who like men with authentic benevolent traits in their partners at best only want them as a bonus to all the other attractive stuff a man's got going for him. Second, these women seem to be balanced out by others who have an affinity for violence, and Dark Triad Personality (DTP) traits like Machiavellianism, Sociopathy and Narcissism. Scott Alexander said it best in "Radicalising the Romanceless":

Personal virtue is not very well correlated with ease of finding a soulmate. It may be only slightly correlated, uncorrelated, or even anti-correlated in different situations. Even smart people who want various virtues in a soulmate usually use them as a rule-out criterion, rather than a rule-in criterion – that is, given someone whom they are already attracted to, they will eliminate him if he does not have those virtues. The rule-in criterion that makes you attractive to people is mysterious and mostly orthogonal to virtue. This is true both in men and women, but in different ways. Male attractiveness seems to depend on things like a kind of social skills which is not necessarily the same kind of social skills people who want to teach you social skills will teach, testosterone level, social status, and whatever you call the ability to just ask someone out, consequences be damned. These can be obtained in very many different ways that are partly within your control, but they are complicated and subtle and if you naively aim for cliched versions of the terms you will fail.

​

We can probably agree then that it is about as useless to waste time on virtue as a sexual mating strategy as it is to spend time practising thug/asshole game especially in the latter regard if DTP traits do not come naturally/authentically to you anyway. This is because those traits are mostly neutral in terms of attractiveness and less expedient investment in terms of mating strategy if you don't have a wider basis for the core foundations of attractiveness. Black Pillers will be inclined to argue here that dating success in men is all about looks (facial aesthetics, height and muscularity), or at least it is that for the most part (some may be inclined to attribute some small degree of success to things like charisma, professionalism, social skills and overall confidence). I'm not here to debate that perspective but I disagree that men with traits that are "attractive" in a more general sense are necessarily successful in dating. This refers to:

(a) conventional attractiveness (in terms of various physical, psychological or socioeconomic aspects that institutional media outlets define as attractive and seem to socially condition people's own subjective perceptions of attractiveness)

(b) conducive aspects to reproductive fitness (in terms of genes/values that can be biologically/socially inherited)

(c) subjective attractiveness (in the sense that only the individual woman's perspective is what counts, although we may argue that certain traits are somewhat universal even among women who are believed to have more overall variability in their sexual/romantic preferences to men)

​

This could be the case for example if (a) and (b) contradict with (c), i.e. if a woman does not subjectively find traits that would be considered conventionally attractive or conducive to reproductive fitness). Or it could also be the case if (c) applies but social constraints affect a man's dating success. This would not necessarily be out of timidness from the man's behalf but rather if the couple were placed in a context where sexual or romantic success isn't a likely outcome for other reasons. For an example of this, we can look to historical settings where a woman's family would choose her partners rather than herself: it would effectively be taboo for her to sleep with an attractive man outside of wedlock.

In more recent eras we can look to online dating and a situation where a woman might find a hundred or so potential suitors attractive but of course because there is so much choice available, 99 of those men would be disregarded for the very top alpha male. The remaining 99 men would have to compete for the interests of another woman on a dating app such as Tinder where there are considerably fewer women involved in the first place. These would be examples of social barriers where a man is subjectively attractive to women but affected by constraints outside of his control.

But this isn't the focus of the thread. I want to talk about some Red and Blue Pill misconceptions regarding men who may be seen overall as "virtuous" or who may see themselves as possessing certain traits conducive to attraction. But firstly, I will present a nuanced understanding of virtue mostly detached from an understanding of attractiveness but also looking at what aspects could marginally be perceived as bonus to a man's overall appeal. On none of my other PPD threads have I expounded on a broader conception of virtue.

​

Virtue: A Meta-Ethical Basis for Greater-Minded Purpose versus Small-Minded Benevolence

What I want to address briefly is the moral relativist argument against virtue. The argument is that because individuals and communities have historically practised different ethical traditions (although things like murder, rape and paedophilia have almost universally been outlawed), the idea of talking about an objective "virtue" is mistaken and biased from the outset. This would also mean that it's pointless to talk about virtuous men in the context of dating.

  1. I want to point out that this view has virtually no use in any political or socioeconomic framework. If judges, politicians and law enforcement tomorrow decided that "meh, it's all subjective anyways" social order would decay immediately and the population would not be very happy with the status quo: there would be an uprising to establish a new State or alternative socioeconomic system. We can speak about Consequentialist systems of ethics such as Utilitarianism but consequence is subjective; utility is subjective. And besides, the public are revolted by these arguments: virtue is simply an accepted/assumed premise in any constitution or international law such as the Geneva Convention.

  2. the moral relativist view has no practical application on an individual level apart from individuals with no compassion or empathy such as psychopaths. Because if someone murdered a loved one, there wouldn't be any discussion such as "well, murder is only immoral from my subjective perspective: from the perpetrator of this crime's perspective, his act was perfectly fine and objectively, the act was neither right nor wrong". Instead, the victim's loved ones would be outraged, shocked, horrified and potentially even bloodthirsty. The subsequent beliefs and behaviours would indicate an objective stance on morality from those acting in abhorrence to the crime.

When philosophers try to develop an "objective" framework for morality then, it has to be understood in the context of 1) and 2) stated above. The most cohesive theory seems to be virtue ethics which is that men and women feel "good" when they practice ethics and "bad" when they do not. It is not good or bad in a hedonistic sense (pleasure versus pain) but good or bad in a teleological sense where good refers to a rich sense of purpose and intrinsic fulfilment from that. This is postponing short-term pleasure for an aesthetic of long term prowess.

I am not interested in this thread to reconcile this perspective with practical implications such as the moral conundrums presented by war, euthanasia, abortion or socioeconomics. But political philosophers are typically expected to make their ethical framework (whether consequentialist, deontological or virtue ethics) with these practical implications in mind. This is all hyperboled though. I am only interested in a significantly lighter subject which is the practical implications of exploring what is meant by a Good Man (GM) or more specifically, a Sexually and Romantically Unsuccessful Good Man (SRUGM - "sshruggehm") within the confines of dating. So I hardly need an elaborate meta-ethical basis for this anyway.

source: "A Companion to Ethics", by Peter Singer

In my opinion, we have to understand GMs on a continuum that is contrasted between GMs and Nice Guys^(TM) (NGs) where GMs engage in a greater-minded purpose and NGs engage in small-minded benevolence. GMs tend to see self-fulfilment on a personal level, helping others on an individual level and contributing to communities and societies on a social level as their purpose in life. They can be seen engaging in acts of heroism or charity work but their real passion is to get to the heart of the issue so that people need not be rescued at all. In fact, charity itself can be seen as an act of small-minded benevolence by contrast to greater-minded purpose because a lot of money that goes to charity is wasted, either on useless short-term solutions for people in need, or somehow funding corruption.

People often misunderstand and criticise GMs wrongly because they see GMs as refusing to help when really they would rather contribute to a greater-minded purpose. Case in point, I was walking through a busy city centre one time eating a delicious burger when a fundraiser tried to stop me to dedicate to the needy. I refused to stop and talk to him because I was going about my business, too busy enjoying my meal and he said that I was being selfish and that I was prepared to look after my own needs but not dedicate any of my precious resources to helping those in need.

Objectivist critiques of virtuous/altruistic behaviour tend to be based on a misunderstanding of altruism as small-minded benevolence. Somebody who passionately explores science or political philosophy can be seen as engaging in greater-minded purpose because they are contributing to a socially useful body of knowledge that actually has more meaning and purpose than giving small change to a panhandler or sending money to an international charity that could be used to prop up a corrupt dictatorial regime.

Closer towards the NG spectrum, we do actually have GMs that may engage in acts of small-minded benevolence where they can see that these behaviours may go some small way to bring value to a person's day. For example, helping an old lady cross the street, giving a homeless person packaged food so that they know the food has not been contaminated; volunteering in someone's local community, etc. It's just that these types of small-minded benevolence are not necessarily conducive to optimised results, nor are they necessarily the best expenditure of time, money and resources for someone who is truly passionate about helping society. Closer still towards the NG spectrum we have men who can only arguably be described as GMs still when they engage in what is referred to as "benevolent sexism". This means things like buying drinks for women, waiting for longer than you normally would to hold a door open for a woman on the date, walking on the right side of the pavement next to your partner or date, paying for the date, etc.

At the best, we can say that these are activities that are done spontaneously without expecting anything in return from the women in question but even in these situations, when men everywhere are behaving like this, it is both belittling to women who want to be seen as equally responsible and mature to men, as well as damaging for GMs who identify as egalitarian and don't want to play the traditional gender role dating game if spoiled women expect it from them. Worse than this are the behaviours from benevolently sexist men with some sort of agenda: "if I pay for this expensive dinner date, maybe she will sleep with me tonight". When we have reached full-on NG territory is when the man never engaged in small-minded acts of benevolent sexism with the intention of uplifting value of the woman's experience of the date for her own pleasures. In these instances, what we see instead is that the man is in fact demanding sexual rewards:

"why can't you see I'm a nice guy, bitch? I paid for your date, even though you didn't ask me to ... why won't you have sex with me now?"

​

Red Pill (RP) Misconceptions About GMs

Firstly, RPers without nuanced ideological considerations may be inclined to argue that virtue is inherently unattractive. This is not necessarily the case in terms of (a), (b) or (c) stated in the first section, at least not for Relationship Market Value (RMV). Even for Sexual Market Value (SMV), not all women want to sleep with jerks especially when there is someone in the room who is equally hot and doesn't act like a dick that would be interested in her affections. In fact, a base level of comfort - i.e. the knowledge that the guy is not a sociopathic rapist/torturer/murderer - is important too for intelligent women at least.

This is basic virtue, as opposed to some cosmic or divine notion of a GM in which RP have this false conceptualisation of GMs as those who pride their virtue above all other personal assets that could be perceived as attractive. And this is not true, because GMs are wide and nuanced - they may have other qualities or attributes to bring to the table. GMs also understand that superficiality is within reason because men and women both are entitled to their own set of standards, especially when they meet their own expectations. That's why GMs do not feel entitled to women outside of their league, acts of greater-minded purpose or small-minded benevolence aside.

When it comes to RMV, we have an easier time promoting the idea of virtue as an attractive quality in the minds of intelligent women that have prudent mate selection strategy. That's because dominance only fulfils the hunter aspect of the optimised alpha bucks man that high quality women everywhere fantasise about. The other aspect is provision - the ability to apply resources in a way that will help the wife and offspring. In modern egalitarian arrangements, the wife and husband will expect each other to contribute to the household equally through domestic and financial arrangements both. This is as contrasted to the RP straw man perspective of male providers as "betabuxes" who only use their resources in an attempt to be sexually attractive.

Finally, to be a protector (to defend a man's wife and children before the law and physical threats) a man is required to be both: dominant and virtuous. Objectivism sometimes forms a basis for certain tenets of RP thinking. As a side note: the only aspect which is covered correctly by objectivism in this is that a man's selfish interest (his own needs and those of his most immediate loved ones) do indeed need to be prioritised over small-minded benevolence and even greater-minded purpose for this person to be considered a truly "Good Man".

​

Blue Pill Misconceptions About SRUGMs

People that we can think of as being "Blue Pilled" (as opposed to "Red Pilled") typically do not voice their misconceptions about SRUGMs until these men have the audacity to dare speak about their issues in dating:

  • the fact that there are GMs falling behind in the dating world and what can be done about it.
  • what it means if there is a crisis among males who are depressed and not getting what they want from their sexual/romantic lives? depression has been widely linked to a lack of productivity and other problems.
  • what the problems are in this sort of society and what it means for future generations if we cannot pass on intelligent & virtuous traits (as inherited biologically and through child rearing).
  • what roles gender politics play in this.
  • the biological and social conditions of women that contribute to this.
  • our individual experiences and struggles in the dating world for which we should be able to refer to ourselves as GMs and whatever virtuous or otherwise desirable traits we may have. I say this because it is relevant background information to our situation, not because GMs walk around in real life referring to themselves as such.
  • the warning of the Big Question which is posed by women who, after years of ignoring and neglecting GMs turn around and ask "but where have all the Good Men gone?". Essentially, these are the same GMs that already pursued and were rejected, often harshly by these same women, and the same self-respecting GMs that no longer want anything to do with these same women.
  • concerns about the absence of platforms which are dedicated to the discussion of Good Man Discourse (GMD) where the above-mentioned issues are discussed rather than the extremist, terrorist ideologies promoted by the damnatio memoriae.

​

At this point, because less sophisticated Blue Pill thinkers are ignorant about the meta-ethical conceptualisation of GMs as having greater-minded purpose as opposed to small-minded benevolence, the assumption will be that these men must be NGs. The GMD topics listed will be written off as sexist and entitled. And the men will basically not have the full-range of their thoughts / ideological beliefs adequately understood. When this is pointed out, a more intellectual Blue Pill thinker will be inclined to make the case that if one were truly a GM then they would not need to say it. And this is true. The men I have identified as SRUGMs do not walk around in real life referring to themselves as such.

The point here is that there are discussions (GMD) that SRUGMs want to have oriented towards the above topics. Their positive traits may be related to their dating circumstances because if a SRUGM is seeking constructive advice, they are likely to list their positive attributes, not just their flaws and anything else that might affect their dating experience. Some platforms outside of PPD also have a legitimate therapeutic function as a place for SRUGMs to vent their frustrations in order to achieve peace of mind but also receive feedback on where they are going wrong with their personal mindset. Some would call this "whining" but it also has a positive psychological effect when practised correctly and in a constructive manner.

​

Too Long; Didn't Read (Tl;Dr)

1) A man can be "attractive" in terms of

(a) conventional attractiveness (various physical, psychological or socioeconomic aspects that institutional media outlets define as attractive and seem to socially condition people's own subjective perceptions of attractiveness)

(b) conducive attributes to reproductive fitness (in terms of genes/values that can be biologically/socially inherited)

(c) subjective attractiveness (in the sense that only the individual woman's perspective is what counts. Although we may argue that certain traits are somewhat universal even among women who are believed to have more overall variability in their sexual/romantic preferences to men)

and still be unsuccessful in dating, e.g. if (a) and (b) contradict with (c), i.e. if a woman does not subjectively find traits attractive that would be considered conventionally attractive or conducive to reproductive fitness. Alternatively, this could be the case if (c) applies but social constraints affect a man's dating success.

​

2) A man can be "virtuous" as understood in terms of greater-minded purpose as opposed to small-minded benevolence. For instance, somebody who passionately explores science or political philosophy can be seen as engaging in greater-minded purpose because they are contributing to a socially useful body of knowledge that actually has more meaning and purpose than giving small change to a panhandler or sending money to an international charity that could be used to prop up a corrupt dictatorial regime.

Benevolent sexism is an example of small-minded benevolence which refers to non-egalitarian things like buying drinks for women; waiting for longer than you normally would to hold a door open for a woman on the date; walking on the right side of the pavement next to your partner or date, paying for the date, etc. At it's worst, benevolent sexism can come with psychological entitlement for sexual/romantic favours. While non-entitled small-minded benevolence is not inherently bad, none of these acts are relevant to the types of "Good Men" (GMs) I talk about in my posts.

​

3) Unsophisticated Red Pill misconceptions about GMs are usually related to the belief they think virtue is sexually attractive (they don't); and that they have nothing else to offer in terms of physical or psychological traits that could be considered attractive by conventional standards or conducive to reproductive fitness (they do).

​

4) Unsophisticated Blue Pill misconceptions about Sexually and Romantically Unsuccessful Good Men (SRUGMs - "sshruggehms") who want to discuss their issues in dating are usually related to the belief they are sexist; or that they engage in entitled benevolent sexism like Nice Guys**^(TM) (NGs) rather than greater-minded purpose. A slightly better argument is that Good Men (GMs) don't need to refer to themselves as such but it does not account for a need to provide background context to a wide range of issues SRUGMs might want to discuss.**

​

Double Tl;Dr

Sexually and Romantically Unsuccessful Good Men (SRUGMs) do not think virtue is inherently attractive; they aren't benevolently sexist/entitled; and they can still fall behind in dating even if they don't fit certain Nice Guy (NG) or neckbeard stereotypes. In my posts I don't refer to virtue or attractiveness as cosmic qualities that entitle SRUGMs to sex or say that they are objectively desirable. I am just talking about how men that want to discuss certain issues in dating in contrast to a narrative about certain stereotypes that are characteristic of online (or even real life) narratives about single/virgin men who try to discuss their issues. The terms and labels - "Good Men" (GMs), "virtue", "attractiveness", etc. - that are used have to be understood in this context. We wouldn't need to go to these lengths or complexities to discuss certain topics if the discussion about NGs and Neckbeard types was not framed in a certain way thanks to stereotyped Red and Blue Pill misconceptions.