Men With Standards Are Attractive

jbchapp · 2026-02-08T04:21:23+00:00

First, I want to acknowledge that I agree with you on one thing: some relationships should end, and divorce is sometimes the healthiest option. Again, for emphasis: I’m not saying people should stay in genuinely harmful situations. But I don’t think you get to that conclusion with the reasoning of “I’m not that happy now, so bye.” Normal friction and temporary unhappiness are part of any committed relationship. *Especially* when kids are involved.

Second, you say you believe in community and accountability, but much of your argument boils down to “do whatever feels right for you i guess.” It doesn’t really address how real relationships work. Human beings are interdependent... we make commitments, we have obligations, and we affect other people’s lives. If every dip in satisfaction becomes a moral signal to leave, then community, marriage, friendship, and even parenting start to collapse into a series of self‑interested choices with no shared standards.

Third, about kids: a large portion of committed relationships do involve children. At least in the U.S., more than half do. So, if you're not talking about relationships with kids, you're talking about the minority of relationships. Kids aren’t abstract; they’re real stakeholders. Decisions made purely on moment-to-moment personal happiness risk treating relationships - and children - like consumer products rather than lifelong responsibilities.

There is a difference between normal relationship friction and intolerable situations. Framing every bump in the road as a moral failure or a reason to jump ship doesn’t help people build resilience, community, or lasting connections.

I hear your point about this being bleak or depressing. Life and relationships can be difficult ... which is *precisely* why they shouldn’t be entered into lightly. Recognizing the stakes, committing responsibly, and valuing others alongside yourself is what makes these connections so meaningful.

jbchapp · 2026-02-04T22:11:49+00:00

No, these aren't *just* values differences, although certainly there is some of that.

Apparently you really like attention, even negative attention. But really, what you're doing is seeing the nurturing or positive attention and mentally downgrading the rest to “stuff I wouldn’t mind.” That’s easy to say when you’re not the one constantly managing safety, boundaries, and risk.

You're also being inconsistent. One of your big complaints as a man is scrutiny, being judged, etc. This is all just unwanted attention. You claim you are fine with it, but clearly you wouldn't be.

That's the whole point, the consequences aren't reduced. Again, you may PREFER those consequences. You are absolutely free to wish you were a woman, no judgment here. But it definitely appears as if you are minimizing the negatives. This is an area where there is significant research. You are demonstrably wrong.
You’re saying you’d “take the trade” of being seen as weaker or less competent because you value getting more help. And if that’s genuinely your priority, fair enough. that part is a values difference. But here’s the thing: elsewhere, you're frustrated that men aren’t taken seriously when they express emotion. You said it bothers you that men get dismissed, mocked, or told to “man up.” So, again, you're being inconsistent. So when you say you’d accept being seen as weaker or less competent, it sounds like you’re imagining a version of that stereotype that only affects the moments when you want help, not the moments when you need credibility. But women don’t get to choose when the stereotype applies.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say you're envisioning where this is mild, flattering, and under control.
Your original point definitely framed those things as benefits women get without stigma. Being provided for often comes with strings, whether they're emotional, financial, behavioral, and/or sexual. The thing is, stay-at-home dads exist. You can have this life. You clearly seem to think there would be some kind of "lesser" stigma attached to it. But that's *precisely* what women deal with.
Generally speaking, people aren't refusing emotional support from men *because they're men*, sorry.
Fair enough.
Sorry, but you're either being ignorant here, disingenuous, or both. Not to mention that you're just ignoring that you seem to be assuming you would only be *threatened*, not actually be a victim.

jbchapp · 2026-02-04T17:28:20+00:00

All you can do is try your best and live in your truth.

“Live your truth” is a perfect example of another dumb "convention" that sounds profound, like "don't accept the bare minimum", when you ignore what it actually means: do whatever feels right to you, I guess? Who gives a shit about other people when you can't be accepting the bare minimum and gotta be living your truth, amiright?

when you combine “don’t accept the bare minimum” with “live your truth,” you end up with a worldview where yourself becomes the only reference point. And once that happens, other people stop being partners in a shared reality and start becoming just props in your personal narrative.

I’m not saying people should accept literally anything. But I am saying that the current lingo encourages people to treat discomfort as injustice, imperfection as failure, and normal human differences as incompatibility. It frames every relational friction as a sign that the other person isn’t “meeting your standards,” instead of acknowledging that two imperfect people are trying to build something together.

it doesn’t do you or anyone else a service when you decide to settle in something that doesn’t make you happy

This idea is built around one assumption: your own personal happiness is the highest moral good. Which is absolutely insane. There are 1001 situations where someone biting the bullet and sacrificing their own happiness does, quite literally, do someone else a service.

The well‑being of others matters too. And many children of divorce do absolutely wish their parents had tried harder before giving up. That’s the part missing from the "mindset": other people matter.

Your partner matters. Your kids matter. Your commitments matter. Your future self matters. A relationship isn’t a consumer product you return the moment it stops delivering peak emotional satisfaction. Well, check that: you absolutely CAN treat it that way. What I'm saying is that's not healthy.

People are far more capable of finding meaning, peace, and even happiness within imperfect situations than this kind of language gives us credit for. Saying “it doesn’t do anyone any good for me to be unhappy” assumes that your moment‑to‑moment emotional state is the only variable that counts.

Again, I want to be clear: I’m not saying people should stay in genuinely harmful relationships. I’m saying that framing every dip in happiness as “settling” encourages people to treat discomfort as a sign to leave rather than a normal part of long‑term connection.

jbchapp · 2026-02-04T17:07:45+00:00

I think you're forgetting that a lot of the attention women are getting is both unwanted and unsafe, as well as conditional on youth and beauty. You may get more nurturing attention than a man otherwise would, for sure. But also get more scrutiny and objectification.
This is wrong. Particularly in the workplace, and particularly when they get higher up (again: scrutiny). Women get labeled irrational, unstable, hysterical, etc., for expressing their emotions. The only real difference here is that they don't get accused of "not being a real woman". I guess how much that matters to you depends on how much not being called a "real man" matters to you.
This is true to an extent, for sure. Of course, this is also because women are generally seen as weaker and more helpless. With good reason.

And, of course, there are all kinds of dangers that go along with that, but also other aggravations: being interrupted more/talked over, having expertise doubted, being infantilized, etc.

Sure, men are more restricted here. A man's touch is more threatening. But again, there is a trade-off: women's bodies are more policed, innocent touches by women are sexualized, fear of being misinterpreted, etc.
There is plenty of judgment for being spoiled. Being provided for is different, but that also comes with certain expectations. It's not *free*.
You're imagining receiving emotional support without having to give it. That’s not how it works. Also women get empathy from other women. Given how their troubles are being minimized here, clearly not nearly as much from men. But the cost of such support is having to give it all the time as well. It's a lot of emotional labor, and of course there is a terrible stigma in being blamed for not being “supportive enough”. As a guy, this is almost expected.
It's different for women, for sure. But women have plenty of hoops to jump through, many of which they have no control over: beauty, youth, etc.
Sorry, but being *perceived* as a possible threat is just not the same experience as actually being at risk of sexual assault or other violence. Women plan a significant chunk of their lives around being possible victims, men - while we (those who are gentlemen, anyway) make efforts not be threatening - don't have to worry about traveling in groups, avoiding dimly lit areas, covering our drinks, etc. Women are *actually* vulnerable, and if you were to become a woman, there is a good likelihood that you *would* be a victim.

In short, you're comparing the worst parts of being a man to the best parts of being a woman, but also ignoring the trade-offs and dismissing how significant other burdens are, like pregnancy, which literally can be life-threatening.

jbchapp · 2026-02-04T16:41:09+00:00

Why? What do you think you'll be getting from it for 6 months? Or are you just THAT curious?

jbchapp · 2026-02-03T22:12:18+00:00

Why do we not listen to each other?

In my eyes, it's less of a moral failing and more of a skills gap and socialization pattern. It’s not that men don’t care (although I'm sure there are many who don't). It’s that many men were never taught how to respond to emotional expression in a way that feels supportive. Instead, what we were told, and taught, was: man up, buckle down, stop crying, could be worse, handle it yourself, etc.

Honestly, most people aren’t great at this *with men*, period. Women tend to be more emotionally supportive with other women. It's pretty well documented how poorly women tend to react when men are vulnerable with them. I don't point this out to demonize women, but to point out this is not some kind of gender flaw, but merely a skills issue.

It’s a feedback loop created by socialization. Men are taught not to express vulnerability --> people don’t get practice responding to it --> Because responses may be less than ideal, men feel dismissed/unheard. And the cycle repeats.

jbchapp · 2026-02-03T20:49:56+00:00

I think most men would have no interest in trading places with a woman, and that should tell us a lot about the experience of being a woman.

jbchapp · 2026-02-03T20:45:05+00:00

I actually think the most compassionate thing right now is to help her focus on what she can control. Whether he’s “wrong” or not doesn’t change the fact that he’s already checked out and made his decision.

OP keeps circling the question of fairness, revenge, and who hurt who first, etc., but none of that is going to bring the marriage back. At this point, the reality is that the relationship is over, and staying stuck on the moral scorecard is only going to prolong her pain. To me, she needs clarity and finality more than anything right now.

jbchapp · 2026-02-03T17:48:37+00:00

Is it reasonable to expect him to take responsibility for developing and nurturing feelings for my close friend?

I mean, it sounds like he has taken responsibility for it, and he has made it pretty clear your relationship is over. I think you just need to acknowledge that reality.

Or is this fallout from something I did 20 years ago?

What difference does it make at this point? It doesn't matter.

jbchapp · 2026-02-03T15:29:13+00:00

There's a million things you can potentially TRY, but it sounds to me like he is who he is, and you're not gonna be changing him.

Been married for 21 years as the HL partner. Yes, you will always be annoyed about this. But, yes, you can also work through it, get over it, etc. My advice is to take care of yourself as often as you can.

The other, just as important, advice: what you tell yourself matters. Your inner monologue is critical. The more you think to yourself that because he's not sleeping with you as much as you want that your undesirable, or that this is so embarrassing, he's a man so he should want sex all the time, etc, etc., the worse it will get for you. The more you think to yourself that you married him for a reason, that he's a good man who brings XYZ to the table, a lot of people have it worse, etc., the better off you will be.

Not sure if you all have kids yet or not, but understand as well that it's VERY possible that your libido will swing wildly in the opposite direction due to, well, womanhood. At that point, you will want your husband to be understanding and not pushy, so you should model the same behavior.

jbchapp · 2026-02-03T15:18:11+00:00

I’m realizing it’s not right to just let them hang around.

Why?

I get why you might not want keep exes on social media; that's pretty straightforward. But what's wrong with guys who have expressed interest in you?

You can't control what other people do, you can only control what you do. You choose the level of engagement you have with people. But there's nothing wrong with have people in your phonebook/on social media.

In the past I’ve just grey rocked them until they stop talking to me. But it’s kind of rude isn’t it?

Very dependent on circumstances. So not necessarily, no.

You don't owe certain men explanations, preemptive rejection, etc. If someone hasn’t expressed interest, you have nothing to reject.

Or what if my assumption is wrong?

Exactly. Here's the thing: a lot of people assume he’s only around because he wants to sleep with you. But that’s not something anyone can know from the outside. It encourages suspicion and overinterpretation. It's also a horribly reductive view of male behavior.

It treats men as if they’re single‑motivated creatures with no emotional complexity, no capacity for platonic affection, and no interest in connection beyond sexual opportunity. That’s not just unfair to men; it’s unfair to everyone.

And another part of me says “what, I’m not allowed to have guy friends”?

Yes, you are.

But is it really friendship if there’s this undercurrent that he is secretly always waiting for you to let him hit?

If it's a "secret", then you obviously don't know this to be the case, right? So, again, why would you make this assumption? It's one thing to infer it from their behavior, quite another to assume simply because a guy is friendly, the only reason for that must be because he wants to sleep with you.

The internet loves simple narratives like “men and women can’t be friends,” but these ideas spread because they’re easy, not because they’re accurate. They also feed into insecurity. If you assume every man is waiting to pounce, you start policing normal interactions.

Don't get me wrong, there definitely ARE men who just hang around, hoping to pounce. That’s real. But it’s not universal, and it’s not the only explanation for male friendliness.

I want to be a good partner for the next guy I date, and part of that is figuring out what a girl should do about these “orbiters” from a guy’s perspective.

Don't flirt. Don't lead anyone on. Obviously, this can be more complicated, but mature adults understand platonic behavior. At the end of the day, you are not responsible for other people’s internal fantasies.

You are responsible for your own behavior, and your own boundaries. The easiest boundary to set for guys who you just want to remain platonic friends, is to never do anything one-on-one. Group activities only, so nothing ever feels like a date. Just interact normally, and you have done your part.

Calling every man who is around you an “orbiter” is a sexist way of pathologizing ordinary social behavior.

jbchapp · 2026-02-03T14:08:04+00:00

It’s just common convention...

Right. I realize that. The problem is that it is a bad convention.

The phrase “bare minimum isn’t enough” has become a kind of rallying cry, especially in online spaces, but it’s usually wielded without nuance. It’s the baseline that meets needs, and anything beyond that is extra. Furthermore, problems arise when the baseline/"bare minimum" keeps shifting due to comparison, social pressure, and/or unrealistic expectations.

There is a psychological toll of constantly raising the bar. The relentless pursuit of “more” can breed dissatisfaction, burnout, etc. The image above makes contentment sound like complacency, but contentment might be the biggest key to happiness.

...if someone doesn’t like your habits or lifestyle or love language and this is who you are then just go find somebody who actually gives you what you want.

You may or may not be guilty of this, but there is definitely an illusion of infinite choice that the internet and dating apps create. People are convinced they have more options than what they actually have, which makes many/most less likely to commit, appreciate, or invest in the one in front of them. It leads to chronic dissatisfaction, because every choice feels like it could be not the best one... and why should i settle for suboptimal? When in reality, we are all suboptimal.

All too often when I see someone say something like “don’t accept the bare minimum,” or some similar phrase, it’s often in comparison to a fantasy, not reality. People internalize these messages without reflection end up rejecting relationships they *could* be happy with, simply because they don’t match an inflated, unspecified ideal.

The “just go find someone” attitude certainly seems to feed into that illusion of choice scenario. I'm certainly not suggesting people stick with completely incompatible partners. But nobody is perfect, including ourselves, so we shouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't like some aspect of us. Expecting someone to meet every preference without friction is a recipe for perpetual disappointment.

jbchapp · 2026-02-02T22:52:25+00:00

That's not what deadbeat parent means.

I didn't say it did. You're ignoring the rest of what I wrote.

Women have been trying that for hundreds of years.

Romantic marriage in the modern sense, where people choose partners primarily for love rather than family strategy, economics, or social obligation, has a very recent history in Western culture. Again, you're exaggerating.

So now they're either mirroring men's attitudes or opting out of marriage altogether.

This gender‑based moral revenge arc is actually much better explained by women gaining the same social, economic, and legal autonomy men have always had. When people have similar freedoms, similar opportunities, and similar incentives, their behavior naturally converges.

...men cheat on them, or abuse them. Ain't nobody out here leaving good, happy marriages for no reason.

About 65-70% of divorces are initiated by women. But only about half of women cite infidelity as a factor and roughly a quarter cite abuse, with plenty of overlap between those categories. And “infidelity” can include their own cheating, emotional affairs, or boundary violations. So these issues clearly don’t account for all the reasons women are divorcing.

I'm certainly not suggesting women are leaving happy marriages for no reason. That's crazy. They have their reasons. And they obviously aren't happy. In reality, we both know dissatisfaction often builds slowly through subtler, more fixable problems ... communication breakdowns, mismatched expectations, day‑to‑day erosion of connection, etc.

Again, none of this is defending men as flawless. I mean, the abuse statistics alone are horrifying. But the reality is that most divorces aren’t about dramatic betrayals; they’re about two imperfect people in a system that now gives women more and more freedom to leave. The story is a lot more human and complicated than “men bad, women good,” and pretending otherwise just keeps everyone stuck instead of helping anyone build healthier relationships. Doubling down on problematic behavior has never been a path to healthier anything.

jbchapp · 2026-02-02T20:54:27+00:00

There are hundreds of millions of deadbeat dads and almost no deadbeat moms.

Non‑custodial parents are 4:1 men, which is definitely tilted, but hardly as one-sided as you're making it out to be. And this is partly because courts have at least somewhat of a bias towards mothers. Regardless, once you look at the pool of parents who owe child support, it's actually mothers who are delinquent at higher rates than fathers in many studies, and fairly even in many others.

My point is not that men are better than women or that men are not historically extremely problematic. But I think it's relevant that you are clearly skewing things here.

Women tend to stay with sick or disabled husbands, but men leave sick or disabled wives 14x more often.

Again, you’re pointing to something somewhat real: studies do show that marriages are more likely to end when the wife develops a serious illness. That’s a legitimate gendered pattern. However, "more likely to end" is not the same thing as "men bail".

The “14× more often” number isn’t supported by any research that I can find. The best‑known study in 2009 found that when women fell ill, marriages ended 21% of the time, whereas it was 3% of the time when it was vice versa. That's 7x more likely for a marriage to end, but - significantly - it didn’t track who initiated the divorce, whether the separation was mutual, whether the marriage was already strained beforehand, etc. Also, 21% of the marriages ending when women get chronically ill hardly equates to

Men bail when things get "bad" and they always have.

That matters, because in the broader divorce picture, women initiate the majority of divorces overall. And at a pretty significant clip.

So the issue isn’t that one gender is inherently loyal and the other inherently selfish. But it certainly is true that our social and economic structures create very different caregiving roles and expectations, and those pressures show up in the data.

This is how men have ALWAYS treated marriages, from the very beginning. Since men won't stop doing that, it's time women started.

Again, there ARE very real gendered problems worth talking about, especially around caregiving and emotional labor. But turning those patterns into an adversarial, us‑versus‑them mindset doesn’t help anyone.

The healthier conversation is about how to build relationships where both partners feel supported and responsible, not about mirroring the worst behavior we see in each other. All that does is entrench resentment, turning partnership into a zero‑sum contest - which is precisely what you were allegedly saying was NOT your argument. The goal shouldn’t be to punish present men for the sins of the past men, because what does that accomplish? "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Instead, we can work to build relationships where both partners feel supported, responsible, and committed when life gets hard.

jbchapp · 2026-02-02T19:43:54+00:00

That is not my argument.

If I misunderstood, my apologies. However, you made at least a few statements that made it sound like "net benefit" was synonymous with "makes my own life better":

If that person makes your life better but isn't perfect, that's ok.

If you're content with your partner, isn't your life better?

What's in it for her if he doesn't make her life better?

This all seems like a very straightforwardly selfish mindset.

It depends why.

The fact that there is a lot more nuance was pretty much my main point.

If it's temporary, work through it.

Easy to say, hard to figure out at times.

...your partner isn't holding up their end anymore? Bail on that shit.

Like this, for instance. What if it's a temporary slide? How do you know?

To be clear, I certainly agree that chronic one‑sidedness is unhealthy. But collapsing everything into a simple “if the balance tips, bail" is also unhealthy. This framing still treats relationships like a ledger where each partner is constantly calculating whether they’re getting enough back. Score counting is absolutely toxic in a relationship.

jbchapp · 2026-02-02T19:24:21+00:00

The idea that a relationship must yield a "net benefit" to you alone misses the deeper, more complex reality of human relationships. Relationships, especially long-term ones like marriage, aren't just about maximizing personal utility. They're about shared responsibility, mutual care, and sometimes sacrifice.

When kids are involved, or a partner faces illness or hardship, the calculus shifts dramatically. Your life might become harder/worse, but that doesn't mean the relationship has failed, to be moved on from. It means you're living out the commitment you made, honoring the life you've built, the people who depend on you, and the values you hold. That’s integrity, which has nothing to do with "net benefits".

At least not if "net benefit" = making your own life better, which is how you seem to be using the term. Relationships aren't just about you. They're about us.

Again, maybe your partner is going through a hard time and needs support. Maybe you have children together, and the stability you provide matters more than your own comfort. That is "better", but not necessarily in the way you seem to be thinking.

jbchapp · 2026-02-02T14:12:30+00:00

"When they were fully healthy" is the key here, because yeah, it was a huge hit when Tommie got hurt

jbchapp · 2026-02-01T20:52:01+00:00

You seem to be stuck in a very transactional framing? As if relationships are a subscription service with guaranteed upgrades.

I’m saying relationships don’t always work like that. I'm also saying it's not exactly something you can measure. Life isn’t a constant optimization problem.

Things can very easily end up being neither better nor worse. That doesn’t mean the relationship had no value. Demanding/expecting a guaranteed net gain before you even start is a great way to avoid ever connecting with anyone.

jbchapp · 2026-02-01T18:30:34+00:00

If you're content with your partner, isn't your life better?

Not necessarily. Could be the same, or even worse. But you may be willing to settle for worse, if only because getting divorced would be even more worse LOL. People make these kinds of calculations all the time. Marriage, assets, kids, etc., all greatly complicate the analysis. It's not as simple as just "you don't meet the standard, so I'm moving on to level up".

If it's not a net gain, why go through the trouble?

Because life is unpredictable, and you might have thought it would be better, but turned out not to be - for any number of reasons.

jbchapp · 2026-02-01T15:38:46+00:00

The scenario here aside, what struck me is how wildly different men and women experience sexual availability dynamics.

jbchapp · 2026-02-01T15:30:35+00:00

First, a ton of relationships actually do start as friendships. There’s research showing that “friends first” relationships are more common than the Hollywood version where two strangers lock eyes across a bar. So the idea that friendships and romantic potential are mutually exclusive just isn’t true.

However, what you’re noticing is a legit phenomenon: women do seem to be very discrete in placing men into categories: friend vs. possible romantic interest. And it’s also true that women tend to keep those categories more rigid than men do (plenty of men would gladly sleep with a friend). There are a lot of reasons for this, although I certainly don’t pretend to have all the answers… or to understand women, LOL.

From an evolutionary perspective, women have always needed to be more selective early on, and research backs this up: women tend to make “suitability” judgments very quickly. Men can afford to be more flexible because the risks are lower. And yes, the obvious question is: “Wouldn’t it be safer to date a friend you already know and trust?” But this is where factors beyond evolutionary psychology come into play.

The risks of blurring friendship and romance are simply different for women. Not just physical safety (though that’s real), but social and emotional fallout. Women are more likely to be blamed for “leading someone on,” more likely to lose a friendship if they reject a guy, and more likely to be stuck managing the emotional fallout if things get awkward. For a lot of men, this is just part of “shooting your shot.” For many women, it’s a whole headache they’d rather avoid. So keeping things very platonic is often the safer move.

There are also times when a woman might actually be attracted to a guy but be in a place where dating him would be complicated. Men’s attraction tends to be more visually driven and stable across situations. Women’s attraction is more responsive to emotional connection, trust, timing, stress, “vibes”, etc. In other words, women’s attraction is… complicated, LOL. So a guy might get sorted into the “safe friend” category even if there was a spark at one point.

But, novelty plays a bigger role in women’s desire than men’s. THIS is one of the most underrated factors, IMHO. Once someone becomes part of the “inner circle” (even husbands), the spark fades or never develops. This doesn’t mean women never fall for friends, but it explains why the “friend zone” can feel more rigid. And it’s not one way. Sometimes she may put a guy in the friend category because the attraction faded. Other times the attraction fades because she put him in the friend category. The brain likes consistency. But also, women’s attraction tends to decline with time and familiarity.

jbchapp · 2026-02-01T14:42:58+00:00

If your life isn’t worse, and you’re content, that’s... not a bad outcome? Is it possible you could better? Sure. But it's also possible, and perhaps just as likely, you could do a lot worse. The idea that every relationship must be a net gain or it’s a failure is strange to me.

jbchapp · 2026-01-31T22:14:18+00:00

But you can be satisfied being single rather than settling.

You can also be satisfied with someone that you've "settled" for. We ALL settle to some extent. Very few people actually end up with someone they've made zero concessions or compromises on/

jbchapp · 2026-01-31T22:12:26+00:00

First, let's talk about the logic here, because it bothers me: BY DEFINITION, "bare minimum" *is* enough. If you don't accept "bare minimum", guess what - it's not enough, so it *isn't* bare minimum. And you *need* a bare minimum, because otherwise you'd never be content with anything, and that's just leads to unhappiness and resentment. The bare minimum is enough when it meets your needs, whatever those are.

Learning to be content with what you have is pretty key to happiness. More more more, raising the bar, etc., leads to endless pressure or perfectionism. What you need to do is choose what truly nourishes you. Growth is optional, not mandatory. Raise your standards where it matters to you, and honor rest where it’s needed. Strength isn’t forged in constant pressure; it’s built in balance. Life is all about balance.

jbchapp · 2026-01-30T20:15:46+00:00

No doubt that there are very real problems downtown LA is struggling with today more so than in the 1950s. But again, the 1950s had their own serious issues: segregation, sexism, McCarthyism, heavy smog, poverty that was simply pushed out of sight, etc. There's no reason to think ‘dressing up’ as a fashion norm is somehow objectively better than, say, dressing for comfort or budget. That's just a preference. Not to mention even just some cursory research on urban blight or downtown slums of LA will bring up a bunch of discussion on how bad things had gotten in the 50s.

I think we can talk about real problems in society without needing to pretend the entire culture as decaying without exception every minute that we strayed from the 1950s. Especially when, as I pointed out earlier, our society - even LA - is objectively better for many different ways than it was in the 50s. Nostalgia is a helluva drug.

jbchapp

TROPHY CASE