TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Would gender roles and dating dynamics be different if men didn’t prioritize sex so much? (ie: “think with their dicks”). If so, how? (tagged NSFW just in case)

The_FatGuy_Strangler

September 25, 2022

60 upvotes

/r/PurplePillDebate

Archived from /r/PurplePillDebate

r/PurplePillDebate is a neutral community to discuss sex and gender issues, specifically those pertaining to /r/TheBluePill and /r/TheRedPill.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Would gender roles and dating dynamics be different if men didn’t prioritize sex so much? (ie: “think with their dicks”). If so, how? (tagged NSFW just in case)
Author	The_FatGuy_Strangler
Upvotes	60
Comments	178
Date	September 25, 2022 6:07 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/xnuhiw/would_gender_roles_and_dating_dynamics_be/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/would-gender-roles-and-dating-dynamics-be.1133904 https://theredarchive.com/post/1133904

Comments

[–]stats135 110 points111 points112 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Antonija_Blagorodna 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Academic_Snow_7680 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]psd5 30 points31 points32 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ComboboxFromHellSelectionChangedIsNoGo 15 points16 points17 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hairy_bambooApprentice Shitposter 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ComboboxFromHellSelectionChangedIsNoGo 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fullmoonlightmyway 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TodTheRod01 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fullmoonlightmyway -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DiamondLilyD 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cowfishAreReal 45 points46 points47 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]No_Reflection_79817 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Final_Philosopher663 25 points26 points27 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DrBobyRed Pill dad 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man 44 points45 points46 points 3 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_FatGuy_Strangler 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_DarkLorde 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Academic_Snow_7680 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Poisongirl5No Pill 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JollyFawn90 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]psd51 points 3 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Poisongirl5No Pill 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]psd51 points 3 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Okay, so you say still in the end that a woman would like someone "who brings a lot more to the table than her"... But then I ask, what do this woman have to offer instead of just asking way too much from a male ? The dude have to either offer way better genetics from the opposite sex appeal, way higher status or money... So then, what does the female have to offer instead ? I see these very delusional demands from average women nowadays... But when you look at them, they're either 3-4/10, just like the average dude nobody cares about, gets no sex, no love or zero female validation.
Still, she thinks deserves or wants this guy way above her because there're so many braindead lunatics out there that bring up their attention, validation, money and time upon women that are just as unattractive as they're but because they're obsessed with either sex or just have to starve that much for any type of female affection/validation.

What is your actual meaning of "less than average?" Many women complain nowadays than the average looking dude is just unattractive because may have he has fat on belly or face ... Do you know 98% of males out there, either store fat in that body places but regardless what of what they do ? Aside from having no sex appeal boost out of fat but also there's no makeup for masculine face at all or almost any surgeries for the physical male sex appeal improvement overall...
This is just to point out how hypocritical is to actually call out most of men unattractive when there's very little to do about it or very hard to ever fix. And this just goes way worse because the amount of braindead males that make completely average to unattractive girls to think they are way more than actually are.

[–]Mrs_DrgreeNow Accepting Simp Applications[M] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]psd5 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mrs_DrgreeNow Accepting Simp Applications[M] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]psd5 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mrs_DrgreeNow Accepting Simp Applications[M] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gate18No Pill 22 points23 points24 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]retal1ator 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FlyV89 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely.

It just has started to strike me lately that I'm not as "in heat" like I was in my 20's now that I'm 33. I'm still very sexually attracted to women, I still enjoy sex, I still find a large subset of women attractive...

But I'm not actively seeking them most of the time like I did when I was young. My focus has shifted to other things, my intrests have changed, I have other priorities, my concentration towards my own purposes on life has overwhelmingly increased.

I've changed so much, SO FUCKING much, that even I can bring this to consciense, looking back I can actually SEE how much I've changed.

And this has changed my life too. I'm better overall, I've improved. I'm better off now, my finances started to reap some benefits, I feel more confourtable in my own skin, I don't need any external validation, I have more friends and bussines partners, I started my own bussines...

Hell, I'm in the best shape of my entire life! I'm fucking jacked like a Marvel superhero now.

And because of this, women are less of a "need" in my life, and I can see now how much power the held over me.

I've started selecting women in the last years, I've even rejected women, I calculate the moves they make and think about their intentions, I've become more cold minded, more realistic.

It's like a prolongued state of "post-nut clarity" on steroids, kid you not.

6 years ago I thought my girlfriend was going to be my wife forever after. A year ago I ended my engagement with that woman because I understood we weren't compatible.

A hot 24 years old gal told me a few months ago that if we weren't moving in together she was gone. That ultimatum would have been a deadly blow to my 24 years old me. My 33 years old was like "girl... Do whatever you want to do, I'm going out with the guys tonight, don't wait for me awake".

I can say, 100% sure, my libido stabilizing over the last years have brought me only benefits.

I'm more eficient now because of this, at everything, and this includes getting (and handling) women.

My advice to men out there?

Don't get married before you start "thinking" for real. Once you are here, you'll see marriage and women through different lens.

[–]KombuchaEnema 14 points15 points16 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WilliamWyattD 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bunnakaybirth control pill 22 points23 points24 points 3 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdmiralWoke 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]KombuchaEnema 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AdmiralWoke 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bunnakaybirth control pill 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdmiralWoke 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bunnakaybirth control pill 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (44 children) | Copy Link

Women like me who would rather be single than date [..]

Which match with yours mating strategies and reinforce the various hypotesis that this indeed relate to your wiring and lack of libido, infact...

Men would be able to uphold standards, thereby becoming respectable

This is based on the mating strategies you find advantagious. Obviously for men the contrary would be true if women would settle more easy like men do instead of following potential unrealistical expectations, which in the eyes of a lot of them would made them be more respectable as the frustration of a lot of men will decrease as the sexual desire of both sexes are meet. Sex may as well be considered as part of human nature, so its desire may not be considered as something that reduce human dignity.

Who don't want a man who can't say the same.

So what happen if you meet someone that is up to your standards but you are beneath theirs? Imagine if libido drop and for most of men (including the one you are interested to) you are a 4 (not just in aestethic). You said that you rather be single, but if this would be the case for the majority of people (as they seek standards beyond average) this can also excalate relatively quickly, with a global crisis due to population decline, economic crash and wide spread suffering and discomfort due to human stupidity, stubbornness and unrealistic expectations. In 1 generation, people that had similar ideas like yours would be naturally selected, leading eventually to the same mating strategies of before. Calling that respectable would be the same as saying that suicide during a battle is respectable: both events are respectable due to some human perceptions but do not necessarily lead to advantageous outcomes in empirical reality and do not even find their roots in rationality.

Don't get me wrong, you can have your tastes and you can be attracted by whatever you want. The thing is that many of you talk and complain about entitlement as it is one of the less respectable things about men. Now being entitled to something that is above your standards and potentially above you in many sectors become a virtue rather than a defect.

[–]bunnakaybirth control pill 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]bunnakaybirth control pill 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago* (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]bunnakaybirth control pill 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (38 children) | Copy Link

Bruh. You litteraly said that women like you want someone that it is up to their standard and a man that also doesn't want a woman that is beneath to his standards.

This is called "Expectation"

An expectation is:"a belief that someone will or should achieve something."

Deserving mean:"appropriately having or being given something specified." (Merriam-webster)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deserving

You said to only date people that are not beneath your standard (only when you "appropriatly have something specified"), if not, you will remain single. You feel entitled (aka you believe that you inherently deserve/appropriatly have that thing you have specified) to that special thing to not be single.

If you feel that you don't deserve it your entire point become flawed, since you shouldn't even try to date men that fit or are above your standards (as you know that you are not worthy to have them and don't have any expectations to be with them).

Think about it, do you think (or better hope) to deserving (aka being worthy) of a man that you put such higher standard on or not?

If you say yes you are by definition entitled and if you say no you have just putted such higher standard on others while wanting to date other people that you know damn well you are not worthy for their time (in good faith, i assume then you have already decided to remain single for the rest of your life and to never date or have dated before). Both possible answers will lead to more or less negative implications for your arguments.

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn't miss that part...since it is the exact thing i pointed out to expose some holes in your reasoning.

If you think you don't deserve to be with such people, then even when you find them you shouldn't even try to date them since you know that you are not worthy (and i have assumed that you have never dated in your life because of that, right?). You have stated in your text that you want to date such man if he fit your standards. This suggest more that you think to be worthy for your dream man to be with you rather than not.

This explain why you still avoid the main question: with all your upper standards you put, do you seriously think (or hope) that you inheritly deserve (for your aestethics, personality or for many other reasons ) the men you dream of?

The answers can only be 2: Yes or no.

You can still single and think you deserve such man (entitlement) or you can still single and never date or have dated because you think you don't deserve such man. Which one it is bunnakay?

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's for them to decide.

The argument is not if they are able to decide or if you take rejection personally but rather if you hope to deserve this in the first place.

If you say that you will date a man that meet your standards then you are by definition hoping that for some of the men that fit your standard you should be worth of that date, otherwise your phrase wouldn't make any sense because you would know damn well that there is no man under your standard that think you are even worthy.

If you say "well there may be one...maybe" then indeed you are hoping and thinking that there is atleast 1 man that think you deserve his time.

Otherwise you wouldn't had said that "you would only date a man that fit your standard" because again you would know damn well at that point that no man at such standard would care about you and think you are worthy.

If you want that and you hope to deserve it, that's called entitlement. You apply judgement on others, pretend something special beyond realistical expectations and hope to deserve it as main requirement to not remain single for the rest of your life.

You are so stubborn on your higher standard that you cannot do a proper introspection and even tell if what you bring to the table is what the typical man on your standards would likely like: are you pretty? are you extremely rich? Have you a nice personality? (These are examples)

Your reasoning is like if a poor ugly person with a fuck up personality expect to date an UK monarch and hope that some of them will actually find their traits similary attractive without the necessary need from the poor person to change anything about him. If such conditions are not met, he will remain single since he cannot tollerate to be with another person that is poor as them. The poor person cannot tell the reasons on why a monarch will never date them since such person is unable to understand throught a mirror any of reasons on why such thing should be impossible. "It can be so why not? There must be a monarch that may accept me, so i should say that or nothing!" . Despite being considered a fool for the people of his village, the poor person still hope to be inheretly deserving something as a condition to not remain single. That's entitlement.

The poor person may as well represent average people or whatever fit the metaphor, it doesn't matter. There is still an expectation and a desire to achieve such expectation with the aspiration to deserve it, otherwise for you dating would not even be something to even try to look for.

Even if relative to the onlooker, you still hope to be worth something for someone you find attractive otherwise (yet again) you would never date or have dated in your life (as you are aware that this can't never be the case). It's almost subconscious selfishness, where you have higher ambitions and want others to put up to your standards while also hoping to find someone that think you are worth for what you are now without changing much of yourself ( and withouth being able to tell yourself if your standards -not necessary aestethical ones - would have been applied to you, would you even barely match it; notice that also changing yourself or achieving something remarkable and then hoping to deserve someone because of that can be an expression of entitlement).

Again, your tastes are your tastes buddy, but a spoiled kid that remarkably wants something very valuable while hoping to deserve it without even knowing if they or their parents can afford it, it still a spoiled kid. The fact that the spoiled kid would be lucky enough to find someone that gifted to him the thing they wanted would not make the spoiled kid less spoiled or entitled.

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't perceive of relationships as either deserving or not deserving.

Which doesn't make sense and it is an inconsistency with what you said before, because if you don't perceive to want or hope to have the exact thing you have specified (i.e. deserving) then dating for you should be pointless. I don't think this is quantum physic and you are in a superposition (multiple states at the same time ) where you both hoping (or have hoped) and not hoping at the same time, because rationally that wouldn't make any sense. You said that you want to date only a man that also have his own selectice standards so by definition you litterally said that you want (definition:"desire for something; wish or hoping to have") that thing with such standards.

If you know that you don't match the standard of such people, then you shouldn't date at all. If you don't know if you actually deserve him but you try to dating him anyway, then you still hoping to deserve him since you wish to be with him. If this isn't true and you don't wish to be compatible or be worthy for him, then why dating in the first place?

You're really coming at this from the belief that I'm desperate for a relationship.

No, that wasn't indeed my point and this statement clarify you didn't understood almost none of my arguments. You don't need to be desperate to be entitled. You want something very valuable in hoping to be worth of that thing for what you are. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't date, simple as that.

I will try another metaphor, maybe this one will make you understand what we are talking about. Imagine 2 children that want a particular pen. One child doesn't know if he deserve or not that pen but he still want that pen in the exact way he specified and initially he will ask for others if he can have such pen when he will find it (analogy for dating), meaning that in some capacity he hope to deserve it. If the condition is not met (not just because of rejection, but also simply because the child doesn't find the wanted pen) he would be contempt to never have a pen or to write with a pen for the rest of his life. The child doesn't try to ask, search or put basically any effort to have that pen anymore. The child effectively doesn't care too much in having a pen, it is not desperate or whining, neither angry or loud. Despite that, his behaviours are still the result of his stubborness and entitlement. The second child instead know that he doesn't deserve the pen and never asked, searched or put any effort to have such pen because he already know that there is no chance that he is worthy of the pen.

You express the will to date the person that met your standards, meaning you will try to date the person that you find attractive or a match. In that situation you are hoping that you two are compatible and that you are also worthy for him. If this wasn't true and you have no of such hope or potential expectation, then there would be no need to engage in dating. If you don't have what you exactly want then you will be contempt with your romantic loneliness, with no whining or anger, neither desperation or frustration (or capabilities of introspection), but just with a decision that it is the result of your stubborness and entitlement.

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nah, I think you're reading way too much desperation/desire into what I've said.

Literally states that is not about desperation or extreme desire

You:"well i think you are reading way too much desperation and desire in what i said"

No offense, but i don't think it is the case, expecially since i'm not the one that is literally not reading the statements of the other person in this context

Being open to something doesn't mean I'll be upset if I don't get it.

Yeah, you definitly have read all the times that i have implicity or explicity pointed out that is not about being upset because of rejection or because you don't get it. Like i said before these are not necessary requirement to define you as someone that is stubborn or entitled.

Plus, it seems ridiculous of me to assume anything about the standards of who I find attractive.

Assume what? You said that a man shouldn't be beneath your standards. If for you men "would be able to uphold standards" in that situation, it is logical to state that you are not someone that like to settle easily or that respect too much people that do such, otherwise many of yours previous statements would be inconsistent and quite hypocritical.

Just as with myself, they're free to let me know if I don't meet them.

Again, that is not the problem or what we are arguing about (expecially knowing that wanting men with more selective standards is also part of your standard). The fact that they are free to let you know if they don't meet their standards doesn't mean that you date them knowing that you could fit their expectations (meaning that you dating them was justified for you because of such possibility).

Would you like to date such person, yes or no? Do you prefer or want to match the expectations of a person you like, yes or no?

Then you by definition hope (definition of "hope", since you only associate such words to something that relate to extreme desire:<<want something to happen or be the case>>) to be worthy of such person, because if you don't have any hope in that (aka you don't expect to be the case in any possible scenario) you shouldn't date at all because you have no reason to seriously date a person if you didn't take on consideration the chance of an onset of a relationship with a person you seem to like.

The whole point is that a relationship isn't WORTH changing myself for (neither is sex).

Expect, do nothing and hope to deserve without changing nothing about yourself. That's indeed entitlement my friend. The other person may as well have changed a lot for you but you think that such potential relationship doesn't DESERVE or is not WORTH changing your self. If someone want a relatioship with you, you need to be accepted by inheritance as you are right now, without the need for you to put the work to change (especially for your potential flaws) otherwise you are good as a single person without regrets. Again, do what you want, but your approach is indeed quite egotistical and selfish by nature.

You have a hard time to accept it because you usually have associated entitlement to something related to abuse, use of force, frustration and lack of consent, but these things are not necessary requirements for a person to be entitled.

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How is it egotistical and selfish to not care if someone doesn't want to date me?

Again, you still cannot see what the argument is refering to. In that case, it is not the fact that you don't care if someone doesn't want to date you the selfish part (this is like the 5 time i repeat the same concept in this conversation, then you will ask again why you are stubborn). The selfish part is to want something without putting the will to change yourself (which include your flaws that very likely you have) for that thing, aka the relationship or your partner since for that "it's not worth it".

And AGAIN...I do not view relationships in terms of what one does or does not deserve. What's so difficult about this?

Because it is a contradiction of your reasoning. I already saw that you are unable to follow long reasonings so i will keep the reply more shortly.

Just answer these simple questions.

First: Would you like to date a person that fit your expectations?

Second: Would you like to match also the expectations of a person that you are dating and you like?

Reply to such questions, so you can slowly understand the reasoning

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The selfish part is to want something without putting the will to change yourself (which include your flaws that very likely you have) for that thing, aka the relationship or your partner since for that "it's not worth it".

It'd only be selfish if after being rejected, I was still demanding said thing. Selfishness would be me saying "I don't care that I don't meet your standards...you should date me anyway." I respect the standards people have, and I don't argue with them.

First: Would you like to date a person that fit your expectations?

If all were met, sure.

Second: Would you like to match also the expectations of a person that you are dating and you like?

It's their call whether I do that. I would hope not to end up with a man who has so little self-respect that he'd settle, but I don't think it's my job to manage someone else's standards.

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It'd only be selfish if after being rejected, I was still demanding said thing.

No, that would make you not just selfish and entitled, but also a whining, frustrated and a pretentious person. Plus, again, this isn't about being rejected. There are many contexts that a person can be selfish that do not involve rejection at all. Expectimg your partner to uphold your standards while not having any will to change yourself and your flaws for the relationship because this is not worthed (aka convinient) for you is textbook selfishness. You may feel uncomfortable about it or accept it but this is what it is.

If all were met, sure.

Okay, why would you date them? What's the point of dating?

It's their call whether I do that.

This is have nothing to do with them. The argument is not around if you should manage someone else standard but what's your point of dating in the first place. Answer the question above this statement and you will start to see what i'm talking about.

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Dating is fun..?

Yeah, but it wouldn't be dating if there is no romantic expectations. That would be a normal go out with a friend, not a date. That are 2 completely different things.

if I do find someone I like who likes me in return, that's pretty awesome.

We are getting it. So you think it is possible that someone may like you (aka you are worthy for their standards) during dating and you actually prefer more to match the expectations of a person you like. That was the obvious answer that you wouldn't be able to answer before (probably because you may not like that match that someone do specific observations about you)

This is kind of like asking what the point is of eating out when you have a working stove at home lol

No, that would be a criticism of efficiency, not necessary an analysis of purpose. Eating out with some friends and dating differ because dating imply a romantic purpose: it is by definition a stage of a relationship that is made with an effort to evaluating each other compatibility in prospect of a possible more intimate and close relationship. If you don't expect any chance of a relationship, this ""eating out"" with such person does not have any type of romantic interest and no one of the two is doing that to evaluate the suitability of the other, then by all official definitions this would not be dating.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating

Why? They aren't obligated to be with me any more than I'm obligated to be with them.

Again, another time, it is not a matter of obligation. Rape, manipulation and selfishness are different things.

If I don't like what they have to offer, I won't date them.

And even if you like what they have to offer but they ask to change something about you, you will not do that because it is not worth it and you put your own interests and benefits first. You are way more concerned to your own advantages, interests and happiness over a request to change yourself (which may as well be not that crazy) to pleasure the other. That's selfishness

I would hope they have the same outlook, because I certainly don't want to date a person dumb enough to think that you can change someone lol

For sure we had never saw any men that start to workout im the Gim or change himself as much as he can (not necessary mentally but even just physically; when i wrote "changing yourself" it wasn't restricted to only personality traits) to impress a girl they like...never happen in the history of humanity...at all...

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First and foremost, that'd make me lose any interest in them.

Of course it does😂😂😂I already knew that. It does not match your benefits, you see as disadvantagious and as something not worthed and your tastes match such selfish inclination, so that should be the expected outcome, nothing special.

So because men are pathetic, I have to accommodate them?

Altruism is the "disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others". You see, because some of these men try to pleasure their partner, to improve themeselves to give to their loved one more that what she think to deserved, because they may concern for counterpart happiness, joy and pleasure for you it's pathetic behaviour. Due to your experiences (maybe some of them tragic) you are unable to see in them some genuine act of altruism. "If someone change it must be pathetic and i will not be like them". You right, you will not be like them. Some of them may as well be honestly altruistic, while you are too selfish and filled with the will to preserve your self-interest first to the point your unable to listen to your potential partner critique and even conceive the possibility to be concerned to make those little changes to improve the relationship or his well-being. This may also the reason why you are unable to listen or understand to the criticism i'm giving to you. Too selfish to ever consider to change for something that is beyond your interest, too stubborn to see where you lacking. By accounting also the fact that improving your flaws is not even a consideration, at this point you may as well consider yourself to be perfect.

I wouldn't date someone who already meets my standards.

What? Seems weird. I believe there is a typo here.

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You talk about selfishness but have yet to give a sensible example of how I'm selfish

Bruh... I literally point it out more than time where you are selfish, made 3 or more metaphors and demostrate what i was talking about with multiple examples. But you are right, ypur lack of understanding of my arguments may be one of the problems.

Refusing to change for a potential partner would only make sense if I expected the potential partner to change for me.

No, because you can still selfish also when you don't have any consideration for others, not just if you expect something.

You can have food and not expecting nothing from other, but when somebody ask for it because is starving you can still deny him the food because you satisfaction is more important. You do not expected nothing from him neither you may have ever thought to ask him for food, but you are still a selfish person. You can have a car and not expect nothing from anyone, but if someone ask you the favour to move your car, you can still deny it because for you your time is more important and moving your car for such person is not worth it, so the other person just have to accept it and go away. You didn't want to change nothing because wasn't in your interest to do so.

You made it clear before that you will not change your potential flaws for someone else because you are not concerned if such flaws impact another person well being or not in such relationship, because it's not worth it since your personal interests come first. Whether it is for a biological predisposition or not, that's indeed textbook selfishness.

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But that person who doesn't approve of me isn't entitled to expect me to change for them.

Exactly, but you will never change anyway because you will always put your interest firsts. You made it clear that there is no possibility of an act of kidness towards your partner for that because it will not be advantagious for you under your standard. Your interest suppress any type of possible concern for others. This is selfishness

because they aren't entitled to date me at all.

But this is not just in relationship of a dating, we are talking also during a relationship and at the possibility (again not forced obbligations) of you doing an act of kidness towards your partner and improve yourself or some of your flaws. If that is an impossible scenario for you, where this type of act of kidness for you are inconceivable because of your personal interest, then by many measures you have a selfish side (a thing that indeed cannot accept because you cannot even consider to have a trait that you may have often considered negative)

A sensible person would say "You don't meet my standards, so no thanks."

Not necessary, because a more sensible person that don't put his happiness first may actually understand you because that person may be more concerned with the partner happiness that his own, to the point he may change his opinion or don't mind the flaw just to not ruin the relationship and make the other unhappy. Like i said before, this logic can apply in the middle of a relationship, not just during dating.

Also, comparing starvation to not getting a relationship is idiotic

So you are just learning how methaphor works, uh? Weren't you the one that compared eating out with building a potential relationship or dating? At least in that case i provided a motivation when i criticized you.

Anyway, the metaphor objective is not to denote the possible consequences of your actions (since i already know that your complain is mostly focused on the difference in gravity of the consequences of the lack of your concern of other well being or happiness; if not, feel free to share further motivations) but on the similarities related on the unrequired presence of mutual expectations when it comes to selfishness. You may as well replace the word "starving" with "hungry" (which was the first word i was about to put), "midly hungry", "wanted to taste/eat a bit of your food" or anything else that is not even related to hunger, the point of the metaphor would stay the same as the similarity that the metaphor wanted to point out and denote was the lack of any mutual expectation from the individual that putted his personal interest firsts over the concern of the ones of others (aka selfishness)

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm talking about people I'm not dating, not people I am. You seem to be confusing the two lol

You literally said, quoting words by words:"The whole point is that a relationship isn't worth changing myself for (neither is sex)." You express you unwillingless to change yourself in a relationship because isn't worth it meaning in a relationship there is no chance that you will never put an effort to change or improve parts of yourself. If this isn't true, then that statement will become immediatly false

Settling for me is an act of desperation, not an act of kindness.

Settling can also be having realistical expectations and reach anyway happiness. The definition of settle/settling can be indeed "to be content with" or " begin to feel comfortable or established in a new situation". Settling in fact is not necessary an act of kidness, but i simply made you notice that it is possible that a sensible person may have the opposite line of reasoning and accept your flaws because it is more concern with your happiness rather than his personal interests.

I do not consider it kind for someone to say "I don't actually want you, but I'll be with you anyway and try to change you."

Which, if your read the statement that you made that i was refering to, this is indeed not my point.

You said that you think that a relationship isn't worth to change yourself for. I addressed this and said that indeed a selfish inclination since you prioritize what you think it is WORTHY (this word came out previously in another context if you remember, just check few replies above) for you and your personal interests.

You said that "A sensible person would say "You don't meet my standards, so no thanks." I said that is not necessary true because that behaviour it is more likely of someone that don't care how you feel and want to maximize his personal interests. I made you notice in fact that a sensible person would more likely try to understand why you don't want to change and eventually accept you as who you are.

Notice that the 2 previous observations refer to 2 different statements inside discussion but they are also nuances of the same phenomena (which you instead grouped togheter in 1 single event).

The first observation address the choice you have from your prospective between valorizing your self interests (selfish inclination) or the concern over your partner well being/happiness.

The second observation address the choices from the prospective of your partner between valorizing their self interests (and leave you because you are unable or don't have any will to change and uphold to their standards, which like you may think or even had implied doesn't seem that kind or sensible, if anything may seems...entitled; in fact it may sound familiar) or valorizing the concern of your well being/happiness, understand you and why you don't want to change and accept you for who you are (here there is a degree of empathy, in the other decision the main concern is his personal interests; notice that it is also possible that someone exactly because is concerned with a person well being want his flaws changed or see the person improve and be more likely happier with the feedback it gets).

In both cases both people can take the decision that valorize their self interests. They can do what they want and it is not indeed an act of absolute evil, but acknowledging that it is indeed a selfish act is not wrong either.

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If I had been specifying "in a relationship" I would have said "in"...not "for." "For" indicates something I don't already already have.

For doesn't not necessary indicate something you don't already have, it can also indicate something you already have and you need to change "for it" indeed (lessical examples: "i have a child but i wouldn't die for it", "i'm also in a relationship but i would never do this stuff for it"; this phrases can be represented also by these periods "i wouldn't die for my child" or " i wouldn't do this stuff for my relationship"; despite being less explicit and more generic, the phrases can potentially still applied also towards a situation in which you have a child or you are in a relatioships).

But lets immediatly give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you a question: would you change yourself for the sake of a relationship (indeed, i'm gonna specify that in this case you are in it) ?

And how long do you think a relationship under those circumstances would last?

Considering that the majority of people do this, it depend on the couple and if he really committed to prioritize your interests. If he really prioritize your interests and your happiness then he may not be content with having kids with someone else. He will not be content with having kids with someone else because he may love you so much that he is willing to put in second place one of his interests for you and your happiness, which may become his first interests and concern as everything may as well come in second place.

Funny enough in your example is not the fact that this sensible person decided to put your well being first to ruin the relationship, but it is instead the fact that his selfish inclinations and his own interests surclass the concern for your well being/happiness.

Disagreements are a part of virtually any Relationship (unless your are clone with the same exact experiences and tastes). Some of the partners at some point of a relationship almost always have to concede something and put down personal interests, ego, will to be right and selfishness to have healthy rapport.

As for the rest: you really seem to perceive relationships as a charitable act done as a favor for other people. That is not how I was raised to view dating, sex, or marriage.

Not at all. Like i said before you can do what you want. I'm simply pointing out the fact that some people (in this case you) prefer a selfish approach for that and prioritize maximum personal benefit as their mating strategy. You have been reised to view dating, sex and marriage with near unrealistical expectations (which realistically if applied also to everyone society would have a drastic demographic decrease and nasty consequences). There is nothing evil doing that, but it is what it is.

You made observations on male mating strategies and i did observations on yours mating strategy. Nothing too much deep.

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But lets immediatly give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you a question: would you change yourself for the sake of a relationship (indeed, i'm gonna specify that in this case you are in it) ?

Depends on the change. Take out some piercings? Sure. Quit my job and raise kids I don't want? No. I vet men to avoid things I don't like. If they had a trait I found unattractive, I wouldn't have chosen them to begin with. If a man does not do the same, he is far more desperate for a relationship than I am, and his belief that I would change for him is what is selfish, in my opinion.

Some of the partners at some point of a relationship almost always have to concede something and put down personal interests, ego, will to be right and selfishness to have healthy rapport.

That presumes a level of need for a relationship that I don't have, which is what I'm talking about. You seem to think that being single is worse than being in a relationship in most cases...I disagree. I was very happy when I was single. The only reason to date someone is if my life with them is even better.

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Depends on the change. Take out some piercings? Sure. Quit my job and raise kids I don't want? No. I vet men to avoid things I don't like. If they had a trait I found unattractive, I wouldn't have chosen them to begin with. If a man does not do the same, he is far more desperate for a relationship than I am

You notice that you would concede on things that you find of minor important. You will be fine in taking out some piercing because is not something that you mind too much. You obviously don't agree in quitting your job because is something you mind quite a bit. Both men and women vet their partner based on their tastes. Like you, men may don't mind about specific minor things while they may mind more others. They also often have standards, but the fact that they don't mind more things than you and have different standards than you doesn't mean that they are automatically pathetic for that.

and his belief that I would change for him is what is selfish, in my opinion.

Which is something we agree on, since a sensitive person would actually take the non-selfish approach to ultimally accept how you are (and like i said before someone may want you to change for your well being). If he want you to change it is from his prospective because there is valorization of personal interests; if you don't want to change for that or at all in a relationship (the latter statement is an example) then you are valorizing your personal interests over his. Both of these decisions are due to selfish inclination. Even if you are both not in a relationship and nobody asked you to change or if you like to ""change someone"" in a way that fit your expectations, the fact that you may already firmly believe that you want to change a person if necessary for your interests or that you will not willing to change any of your potential flaws for the other expose selfish inclinations.

That presumes a level of need for a relationship that I don't have, which is what I'm talking about.

Hold up. You said that you will be fine for specific changes depend on the change itself. That is what i was talking about when i said "concede something at some point", because i don't think you or your partner will agree with literally everything (it may even be boring; at this point if you wanted a complete eflection of yourself you may as used a mirror)

You seem to think that being single is worse than being in a relationship in most cases...I disagree.

Wait, what? How did you come up to such conclusion?😐

I was very happy when I was single.

Same...but that wasn't my point tho. Plus you used remote past, meaning you are in a relationship now. Do you and your partner have the same exact opinions, hobbies, preferences and interests in everything + have you ever disagree on something (even minor stuff, like choosing something, not necessary full blown discussions)?

I was very happy when I was single. The only reason to date someone is if my life with them is even better.

The last statements seems to weaken your last criticism because you said that i stated that "that being single is worse than being in a relationship in most cases" (which wasn't my point by the way), but here you states that you disagree but you also think that the reason to date is if your life is better with your partner...

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

but the fact that they don't mind more things than you and have different standards than you doesn't mean that they are automatically pathetic for that.

I'm calling them pathetic for choosing someone with the intent of changing them.

or that you will not willing to change any of your potential flaws

I expect other adults to vet as well as I do. If they don't, that is not my problem.

That is what i was talking about when i said "concede something at some point",

Which I would do for no other reason than that I love my partner. If I don't love him, I'm not changing anything just for him. You're missing the part where the status of being in a relationship is irrelevant to me.

Wait, what? How did you come up to such conclusion?😐

Because you think it's selfish to not change for a relationship, even though you don't care whether you have said relationship.

Do you and your partner have the same exact opinions, hobbies, preferences and interests in everything + have you ever disagree on something (even minor stuff, like choosing something, not necessary full blown discussions)?

Hobbies: no. But we don't demand that the other person participate in our hobbies. He watches baseball without me, and I do yoga without him. We only do things together if we both enjoy it.

Preferences: on things we expect to share with each other, yes. On things we don't, no. Example: we don't usually eat together because of our work schedules, so I often eat food he doesn't like and vice versa.

Opinions: the last thing we disagreed on is which boy band was the best. We've never disagreed on anything more serious than that, and certainly nothing so serious that one of us felt as though we were settling for something we didn't want to make the relationship work.

Again...for me, this is the point of vetting. There's no reason to choose a relationship that I don't already know will be easy.

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm calling them pathetic for choosing someone with the intent of changing them.

The context you used pathetic was in relationship to men changing or improve themself to impress a girl to make her happy. You also said that men are not respectable because of their current standards, meaning you are criticizing other people standards that are different than yours while putting your standards in a more higher ground

I expect other adults to vet as well as I do. If they don't, that is not my problem.

Have you read the context were you took that phrase? Exactly that will not be your problem because if they don't is not something that relate to your personal interests. It still selfish behaviour and a valorization of your personal interests. The fact that you EXPECT other adults to vet as well as you doesn't make your approach less selfish (if anything it reinforce the opposite view)

Which I would do for no other reason than that I love my partner.

Which is the entire point of my argument. Quoting myself:"He will not be content with having kids with someone else because he may LOVE you so much that he is willing to put in second place one of his interests for you and your happiness, which may become his first interests and concern as everything may as well come in second place"

You would put in second place your interest because of the concern of the well being of a person you care: that is an altruistic act. If you read all the previous messages (from the beggining) we end up talking about a person that you allegedly like and eventually do some criticism toward a flaws you have. So the question relate if you are willing to concede in some of such situations some changes or if you wouldn't change yourself at all in any possible similar circumstance because is not worth it for you.

You're missing the part where the status of being in a relationship is irrelevant to me.

Which, yet again, is a point that have nothing to do with the stuff we are arguing about and doesn't add anything to this discussion.

Because you think it's selfish to not change for a relationship, even though you don't care whether you have said relationship.

And if this is the case, how did you conclude from this that being single is worse than being in a relationship?🤨

Hobby [...] work.

So, yes, you don't have completely the same hobbies, preference or opinions but you don't care about it because such things are not relevant for you. Like you may don't care about certain stuff, in the same way a person may have his own standards and don't care about other stuffs for a relationship. You see tho the latter as an act of desperation if not as selective as your standards, standards that you seem to have put in an higher moral (i meant relative to respect) ground.

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

meaning you are criticizing other people standards that are different than yours while putting your standards in a more higher ground

Anyone can have whatever standards they please. But standards are only as good as your ability to uphold them and reject people who don't meet them. If you're going to change your standards to accommodate someone, what's the point of having them to begin with?

The fact that you EXPECT other adults to vet as well as you doesn't make your approach less selfish (if anything it reinforce the opposite view)

So it's selfish for me to assume people have self-respect? lol

You would put in second place your interest because of the concern of the well being of a person you care: that is an altruistic act.

The key word there is "care." I have to actually care about them. If I'm not in a relationship with them, I don't care about them enough to change for them.

If you read all the previous messages (from the beggining) we end up talking about a person that you allegedly like and eventually do some criticism toward a flaws you have.

"Like" is not enough. I like a lot of people I would not change for.

Which, yet again, is a point that have nothing to do with the stuff we are arguing about and doesn't add anything to this discussion.

Then I'm lost as to what the point of the discussion is. Again... I don't think it's selfish to uphold my standards. You apparently do, and I think you're wrong.

And if this is the case, how did you conclude from this that being single is worse than being in a relationship?🤨

Why would I change for anything other than my own happiness?

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Anyone can have whatever standards they please. But standards are only as good as your ability to uphold them and reject people who don't meet them. If you're going to change your standards to accommodate someone, what's the point of having them to begin with?

Because one can also says that someone actually didn't change that much their own standards and they still have them but they may not care about certain things over other. It is not to accomodate someone, it is being comfortable in a particular situation like you are comfortable having your boyfriend with other interests, some minor disagreement or other things. You don't see them as extremely disadvantagious or as something that matter too much in the grand scheme of things therefore you had no reasons to not try to date him or be with him. There are people that may be with a partner that don't have crazy aestethics (or the exact aestethic they want) but they like their personality so much that such thing become irrelevant for them (a thing near and akin to demisexuality...which more typically women tend to be). This is literally what many women do already. Other people may valorize instead other thing rather to care that much on things that can easily go in second place or not be a concern at all for them, meaning these type of stuff are still part of a person standard.

So it's selfish for me to assume people have self-respect? lol

It is put your interests first over the concern of the other in a specific situation. For you that may as well be "self-respect" but it remain an action that valorize personal interests over the concern for other, in short words, selfishness. Like i said before you can do what you want if you find it advantagious for you and makes you happy and your are not evil or wrong in doing that, doesn't mean i'm not gonna call the action for what it is.

The key word there is "care." I have to actually care about them. If I'm not in a relationship with them, I don't care about them enough to change for them.

See the context in which the words refere to. We are refering at some point in a relationship and about a guy you like.

Requoting my self:"Some of the partners at some point OF A RELATIONSHIP almost always have to concede something and put down personal interests, ego, will to be right and selfishness to have healthy rapport..."

And "Hold up. You said that you will be fine for specific changes depend on the change itself (//refering you answering the question if you would change IN A RELATIONSHIP). That is what i was talking about when i said "concede something at some point", because i don't think you or your partner will agree with literally everything (it may even be boring; at this point if you wanted a complete reflection of yourself you may as well used a mirror)

"Like" is not enough. I like a lot of people I would not change for.

The problem is that you expressed your will to potentially change for a relationship if you end up caring for them, meaning when you date you accept the possibility that if you and him end up togheter, you may be open to the possibility of some changes during a relationship (even ones that for you are minor or irrelevant). That's the whole point i'm trying to make.

Then I'm lost as to what the point of the discussion is.

The discussion is me explaining why your approach is indeed a selfish inclination, the consequences from a systematic prospective (as if everyone will be like you human society will have a lot of problem dempgraphically and economically, and more expose to negative events; calling that approach respectable and an approach that emerge from nature and it is logical pathetic it is almost calling suicide/harakiri during a battle respectable and trying to survive to fight another day pathetic; you may perceive under your subjective opinions one as more respectable of the other...doesn't mean it is actually efficient or rational) and why the ones you refering to as less respectable may still be standards just different than yours. You don't wanting to remaining single because you didn't find the perfect guy you want under your standards, does not weaken such points, if anything it reinforce them.

Again... I don't think it's selfish to uphold my standards. You apparently do, and I think you're wrong.

Simple question, when you uphold your standards are you valorizing your personal interests over the ones of the other that you think are not your personal concern, yes or no?

Why would I change for anything other than my own happiness?

Hold up, because your argument and questions are still weakening your points. In fact, imagine now that i say that "yes, you right, why should you change for anything other than your own happines?"...this phrase would either reinforce the fact that being single is better than being in a relationship or not reinforce neither of the two since such phrase would relate to the fact that you should not change for anything other than your own happiness, regardless you are in a relationship or not. Both circumstances (even in a situation i would answer your question in such way) would not relate or being opposite to the statement you claim i made or implied.

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because one can also says that someone actually didn't change that much their own standards and they still have them but they may not care about certain things over other.

Then I would consider those preferences, not standards. For me, standards function as the way to filter out people who I'm not compatible with under any circumstance. Having or wanting kids, being financially dependent, expecting me to practice their religion, etc. It would make no sense to make exceptions for those things, because eventually they will become points of conflict.

Like i said before you can do what you want if you find it advantagious for you and makes you happy and your are not evil or wrong in doing that, doesn't mean i'm not gonna call the action for what it is.

You can call it whatever you like, but you haven't actually demonstrated it's accurate lol

That is what i was talking about when i said "concede something at some point",

And I'm talking strictly about what I use to vet a person before even getting into a relationship with them.

That's the whole point i'm trying to make.

See my above comment.

The discussion is me explaining why your approach is indeed a selfish inclination,

And I'm not buying it, because you have to prove that agreeing to date someone should be treated as a charitable decision.

Simple question, when you uphold your standards are you valorizing your personal interests over the ones of the other that you think are not your personal concern, yes or no?

I have no clue what you're even talking about so...no?

his phrase would either reinforce the fact that being single is better than being in a relationship or not reinforce neither of the two since such phrase would relate to the fact that you should not change for anything other than your own happiness, regardless you are in a relationship or not.

But you're arguing that I should be willing to change to acquire a relationship, which would only happen if that relationship was an improvement over being single. Since I'm not dating them yet, the only way I can vet for that is through my standards, which you argue I'm selfish for following.

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Then I would consider those preferences, not standards

What's the difference? Aren't standards made by preferences? If this wasn't true we all have the same standards (even the ones that have selective ones).

For me, standards function as the way to filter out people who I'm not compatible with under any circumstance.

It can be true for another person that have a different standard than yours but think instead that the majority of people fit in his standards (because for example their preferences that they value more are all matched).

Having or wanting kids, being financially dependent, expecting me to practice their religion, etc. It would make no sense to make exceptions for those things, because eventually they will become points of conflict.

Indeed, you are listings the stuff that are important for you (many of them are mostly related to gender stereotypes), in the same way another person may think that some things are less relevant than some others and may don't think that they can become a point of conflict. Even if they may not exclude as many people as yours, they are still their own standard.

You can call it whatever you like, but you haven't actually demonstrated it's accurate lol

I literally provided the definition and applied to the word. That's quite more enough of a demostration

https://www.google.com/search?q=selfish&oq=selfish&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59l3.1984j0j7&client=ms-android-samsung-gs-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/selfish

I call "whatever i like" because i'm using the official definition of the words. Simple as that

And I'm talking strictly about what I use to vet a person before even getting into a relationship with them.

Did you read the previous reply? Have you noticed that the argument evolved during the conversation (with different path of reasoning and discussions that are tied up with the original statements but evolved in contexts) and different point were made in different various context ? We went from dating and entitlement to questions related to selfishness before and during a relationship. A debate can evolve and you should be able to reply in the context of the arguments made in a specific point of the discussion.

See my above comment.

See my above comment.

And I'm not buying it, because you have to prove that agreeing to date someone should be treated as a charitable decision.

Who said that it should be treated as a charitable decision? I said what you doing is not evil, if anything you are even proving more my point because in fact the opposite of charity is selfishness.

I have no clue what you're even talking about so...no?

How can you answer a question without even knowing what i have asked. Your "no" in fact does not match what you said so far and you likely just answered no because the question may have seemed to refer something ethically questionable (and maybe you didn't wanted to risk to look bad) Anyway, i will split the question in more simple ones:

Do you value your personal preferences when you dating a person and make a decision around such dating? Do you value your personal interests when you are vetting? Are you valorizing your personal interests over the ones of the other?

Now Full question: When you uphold your standards (which in this case is a set of subjective preferences), are you valorizing your personal interests over the ones of the other that are not your personal concern?

But you're arguing that I should be willing to change to acquire a relationship,

Never argued that, which expose once again that you didn't understand nothing of what i said. You can end up in a relationship even if you don't will to change. I'm pointing out the selfish inclination if your approach. You can still acquire a relatioship while having selfish inclinations (indeed you are engaged now). Having the will to change sometimes for are relationship is not a necessary requirement to have a relationship, it is simply a different mentality. That's it.

which would only happen if that relationship was an improvement over being single.

Uh? What's even the logic of that?

"You arguing that to have a relationship you need the will to change ===> therefore being single is worse than a relationship"

This is a clear non sequitor fallacy. Not only have a premise that wasn't expressed by me, but it have a quite false conclusion. The premise:"You arguing that to have a relationship you need the will to change" Such premises do not justify the conclusion because the fact that <<you need the will to change to have a relationship>> does not justify a causal relationship with <<being single is worse than a relationship>> since the premise doesn't inheretly justify that in it's meaning. In fact, i may even "argued" that for a relationship you need the will to change and thinking that for this reason being single is better or i may have "argued" that without implying any other conclusion. Therefore, because of the lack on any logical causal relationship, you relied on a broken line of reasoning.

You can see here some examples and a more detailed explaination : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

which you argue I'm selfish for following.

You are literally valuing your personal interests ( define what a standard is and what rely on) above the concern of the other . It is a selfish inclination by definition. Not bad, evil or absolutely wrong, just selfish.

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It can be true for another person that have a different standard than yours but think instead that the majority of people fit in his standards (because for example their preferences that they value more are all matched).

Okay...? Again, someone else's standards are theirs to uphold. It'd be pointless to have standards and then get mad when someone doesn't meet them. Most men don't meet mine. That's never bothered me.

Even if they may not exclude as many people as yours, they are still their own standard.

Again ..so?

A debate can evolve and you should be able to reply in the context of the arguments made in a specific point of the discussion.

I'm trying to stay on topic because it seems like you're moving the focus just so you can be right lol

Are you valorizing your personal interests over the ones of the other?

That's where you're losing me. What on earth do you mean by valorizing?

I'm pointing out the selfish inclination if your approach.

Unsuccessfully lol

You are literally valuing your personal interests ( define what a standard is and what rely on) above the concern of the other

How so? I don't expect someone to change for me, so why would it be selfish to not change for them? Do you think I use my standards as a way to change people? Is that how you use your standards?

You are literally valuing your personal interests ( define what a standard is and what rely on) above the concern of the other .

What concern? The person I'm vetting is free to vet me in turn. Do you imagine me getting upset when I don't meet someone's standards or something?

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay...? Again, someone else's standards are theirs to uphold. It'd be pointless to have standards and then get mad when someone doesn't meet them. Most men don't meet mine. That's never bothered me.

You struggle a lot to follow the context of the argument of a discussion and you make a lot of confusion. That point was brought up to make you notice that even people that "settle" or have less selective standards are still using their own standards to decide what things they value the most and what things they ultimally don't care. Such standard are not necessary inferiors or less respectable than yours but just different.

Again ..so?

So your entire point is inconsistent, because if you don't have nothing against other people standards that are not equal to yours, then having different standard than yours it shouldn't be less respectable, regardless on how selective their standards are.

I'm trying to stay on topic because it seems like you're moving the focus just so you can be right lol

The context of the argument is different but the focus is the same, in fact previous statements relate to your initial comments in this thread (see the one above)

That's where you're losing me. What on earth do you mean by valorizing?

I don't think the word valorizing is that complicated to understand with simple deductive reasoning (or google)

Valorizing (from valorize) definition:"give or ascribe value or validity to" or "to assign value or merit to" or "to think or state that something has value or is valuable" or "to make something valuable or useful from an existing substance".

Assign one of the aforementioned definitions to the word in the phrase that perplexes you and arrive to the potential meaning:"Do you give more value to your personal interests over the ones of the other?"

Unsuccessfully lol

Bruh,

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/selfish

I'm mean, of course for you is unsuccessful. You tend to not like criticism, have selfish inclinations and an underline ego. That's why you keep reply to this comments more for the sake of the last word rather than to do more rational thoughts.

You were quite unsuccesfull to even given a proper answer to the previous questions. If you hold your own self-interest as the standard for decision making (which like you made it clear from the beggining it is the case) then that would literally match the definition of selfish word by word. You can apply other personal meaning to that word if you want and make you feel more comfortable, but officially that what such word mean.

How so? I don't expect someone to change for me, so why would it be selfish to not change for them?

Oh, my god, this is quite literally the 5+ time that i repeat this. Selfishness does not rely necessary on the expectations you have in someone changing for you. Selfishness is having regard for oneself above without being concern about other people well being or happiness and holding one's own self-interest as the standard for decision making. Like you quite clearly said before you would not give much of a fuck if someone become sad or less happy because of your decision since your interests and happiness are more important than the one of the other guy and such event does not concern that much your decision making.

Do you think I use my standards as a way to change people? Is that how you use your standards?

Not only your statements, like i said before, have nothing to do with the line of reasoning on why you have selfish inclinations, but you made a question that is quite result of another fallacy of reasoning, because even if i'm hypothetical actually accusing and criticizing you to use your standards to change people, then the potential conclusion that it is how i use such standard may be considered illogical as at that point it should be implied that if i'm actually criticizing you (which i'm not) for using your standard to change people then it should be quite obvious or likely that it wouldn't be how i use such standards. Notice that this last explaination was only to make you understand why the latter question is quite naive (to not say other things that may sound meaner) if you account the assumptions you made before.

What concern?

Exactly, none

The person I'm vetting is free to vet me in turn

The problem is not applying the justice system of Hammurabi of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". We are simply denoting and highlighting the selfish nature of the action. Two people can do an action towards each other and it can still be the product of selfishness, pride or ego. Like i said before, not forcing the other person to change or not vetting is not the relevant trait that lead to your action to be considered selfish.

You are not concern about the other person interest in such context, but you are just trying to optimize yours. How the other person is affected by your decision is not a problem of your main concern. You hold your own self-interest as the standard for decision making.

Do you imagine me getting upset when I don't meet someone's standards or something?

See above and all other 20+ comments. You getting or not upset is not the event that defined and can alter the previous consideration.

[–]bunnakay1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marksmithfrost1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ruboyuri 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TodTheRod011 points 3 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ruboyuri 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TodTheRod011 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ruboyuri 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiveoneandahalf 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]NakedStreets 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyV89 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiveoneandahalf 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TodTheRod01 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyV89 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Specialist_Heat60011 points 3 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]NakedStreets1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Specialist_Heat60011 points 3 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zavier2211 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NakedStreets 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiveoneandahalf 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TodTheRod01 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pilling_it 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_FatGuy_Strangler 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pilling_it 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kronbopulus 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_FatGuy_Strangler1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kronbopulus1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ruboyuri 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]John_OakmanLVM advocate 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Magnito-was-right 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]lordbongius 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Magnito-was-right 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zavier221 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Magnito-was-right 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Magnito-was-right 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Magnito-was-right 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Magnito-was-right1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TodTheRod013 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]insertcredit2Purple Pill Man - Married - INTP 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkvalleys 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]prettymuchredpilledRed Pilled Black Man (Left Wing Male Advocate) 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]staggerlee718nyc 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]-royalmilktea- 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Specialist_Heat6001 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]lordbongius 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]staggerlee718nyc 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Specialist_Heat6001 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RahLyt -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neptune-Jr -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]staggerlee718nyc 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neptune-Jr 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Specialist_Heat60011 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mrs_DrgreeNow Accepting Simp Applications[M] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]staggerlee718nyc -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iwasneverherehaha 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MikeyIa 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TodTheRod01 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]funlightmandarin 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]midwesternMDNo Pill 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]flyingpilgrim 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EsterwindeNo Pill 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pikecatNo Pill 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Laytheblameonluck 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MarBittNo Pill 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Much less sex in general. Sex between men and women is mainly driven by the male sex drive and the fact that men strive for that sex. Not only do women want sex less overall, but a significant portion of their sexual desire is reactive (being turned on and attracted to a man wanting them sexually and showing it), so if men weren't interested, many women wouldn't be either.

Most people who don't want children would live single. The relationships would be mainly for starting a family.

The classic approach would be that single people would have virtually no sex (no hookup culture). Sex would be in the beginnings of relationships and for the procreation of children. Some people would still have sex even in long-term relationships, and somewhere, sex between people would be driven by female sexual desire. But it would be more of an exception.

Lesbian relationships would suddenly jump from the type of relationship with the least sex to the type of relationship with the most sex. Gay relationships would be largely asexual.

Men would be considered reasonable, restrained. Women emotional, sex driven and insatiable. Which is not entirely new in history, this view.

[–]roastpork99 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]geometersbane 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Choice_Ad_6230 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Think_History_5682 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_FatGuy_Strangler 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Think_History_5682 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mcouve 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ylduts 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]festival-papiPrince in Purple 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NewWayNowPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peacesquad 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drew8311 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kellydayscruff 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]acmemetalworks 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YtBlue 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealNiceLady 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DesertSweat 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter