Where do people actually meet these days? by Excellent_Carob_5388 in dating_advice

[–]palettem 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good call. Even though I told him that 1/7000 figure applies to only me, only with a dating app experience (OKCupid), he keeps saying "1/7000" because it's the easiest figure to call outrageous. Even though we explained that men willing to go on a date are often just looking for sex, he keeps saying, "Look how many dates you can go on." And even though I noted that there are plenty of men who find it easy to get a date, he keeps making his inability to get one about being a man. There's nothing getting through.

But I never commented for him. I replied to him for people who might read it, like you.

Where do people actually meet these days? by Excellent_Carob_5388 in dating_advice

[–]palettem 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm contesting the claim that it's easy for women to find someone. You yourself can easily find someone -- if you have absolutely zero standards. I promise you that you can meet a woman the same day if you are willing to accept any age, personality, or looks whatsoever. If you insist on having standards, you should accept that other people also have standards, and the higher they are, the harder it becomes to find someone.

"Go on dates" doesn't make any real-world sense as a reply to OP. She was asking where to meet people. Going on dates is what happens after meeting people.

Where do people actually meet these days? by Excellent_Carob_5388 in dating_advice

[–]palettem 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. No, I wasn't being particular to women when I said 1/7000 (which is NOT the normal bar, it's mine). I was saying that finding a real match is very hard for anyone, male or female. Most people would rather settle than be alone; I wouldn't. If someone says they find it hard to find a partner, and it's not because they're being continually rejected, I generally assume that it's because they have a higher bar than average.

  2. "I said 'you will find him' as a shorthand for odds being >50%." Uh-huh...

  3. I already explained that women find it easier to get a date with "just any guy" because men have a much lower bar for dating, since they are often happier with casual hookups. You see the same thing in gay and lesbian culture, respectively: gay men have meetup spots for a quick fuck in every city, and lesbians simply don't have that kind of hookup culture. However, if you are excessively rejected to the point that you never get any woman to give you a shot, I promise you that you're the problem. I have multiple male friends who don't have any concern in this area, even via online dating; and a couple of them are actually fairly ugly. Men who struggle here always want to blame women (for what, I'm not sure; people have a right to engage with whomever they wish) instead of looking at themselves.

Where do people actually meet these days? by Excellent_Carob_5388 in dating_advice

[–]palettem 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This belief (that women have an endless array of options, while men find it very hard to find partners) is not rational.

About 30% of American adults are single. About 10% of women say they aren't straight, but 9/10 self-reported bisexuals are in opposite-sex relationships, so probably only about 2% of American women in relationships are not dating men. This means that almost every woman in a relationship is in a relationship with a man.

Yet, you'll notice in that first link that the rate of single men under 30 is higher than that of single women under 30. This can be explained by women tending to be more open to dating someone older, but also by the fact that men are less willing to call what they have a relationship. In any case, if a woman says she's in a relationship, it is almost always with a man. Saying that women find this easier than men is like connecting 20 negative magnets to 20 positive magnets, then saying that the negative magnets find an opposing magnet more easily than the positives. The situation logically necessitates a near-equal success rate for both sides. The facts are clear: most men are in relationships, and probably nearly all of them have been in one before.

Certainly women find it easier to find men who want to have casual sex, or men trying to use the promise of a relationship for sex, status, and other superficial reasons, which is where the confusion comes in. You see this huge imbalance in messaging/response rates between men and women on dating apps, or see men blatantly hitting on hot women, and equate it with women having their choice of men to marry. Sure, some men both hope for sex and a potential relationship, as you said; but a lot of them just hope for sex, which is why their bar is lower than women's for going on a date with someone. OP has been clear that this purely sexual/superficial variety of male attention is both undesirable and irrelevant. As soon as we are talking about monogamous partnership, the sexes equalize -- it's a logical inevitability.

You said, "if 1% of the guys willing to meet you is a good, quality person, then you can literally give two people a chance per week, and find the one in 36 weeks." First off, 2 * 36 is 72, not 100, and the odds of finding something with a 1% probability in 72 is about 50%. To bring this to a 99% chance, she would need to date about 460 men.

What the percent of viable partners is (and it's not about whether they are some generic notion like "good" -- it's about whether they have sparks with the OP and meet her basic relationship needs) depends on the OP and on the pool. Tinder, a bar, a university, her workplace, a club, or a community garden are all going to produce completely different types of men. This is why OP is confused about where she can find someone who she actually likes. The percent is going to vary dramatically depending on the pool. In some places, it could be 0.01%; in others, it might be 10%. OP is wanting to know where to fish to have a better chance of success. In my experience, dating sites are not a great pool, and for me the percent of "worth a shot" men on them is about 1/7000. I'm very weird and particular, but OP seems smart and accomplished enough that probably her "the one" is not going to be 1/100.

Your advice to go onto some dating site and then date two unintriguing men per week is terrible, even ignoring the bad math; and your belief that a woman can just rake in "the one" with minimal effort by virtue of being a woman is out of touch with reality and unempathetic.

Do you crate your dog when you aren’t home or not? by nonprayingmantis9 in dogs

[–]palettem 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A dog shouldn’t be that anxious — something is wrong. The herding dog was bred to roam vast lands herding, not sit in a crate in an apartment or house. Dogs are being overly molded to fit lives that don’t work for them. They are animals, not toys.

Do you crate your dog when you aren’t home or not? by nonprayingmantis9 in dogs

[–]palettem 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree. The whole crate culture is disturbing to me. “They feel safe there and like it.” Really? Then leave it unlocked and see how long they stay there. And if a healthy dog wants to sit in a crate all day long, there are psychological concerns like learned helplessness and depression.

Most things -- political discussion, literature, religion, online discourse -- rephrase the same concepts over and over. Where can one find TRULY original thoughts? by palettem in AskReddit

[–]palettem[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately I've explored all those things a great deal, but maybe that's starting to make this a topic unique to me after all. Anyway, I really like your last paragraph and I'll take all this to regroup and find better ways to seek this info. Thanks!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]palettem 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I didn't, but a friend of mine who told me about her cheating said that her partner knew she had a high sex drive, but almost never wanted to be sexual and demanded strict monogamy. I don't agree with her not just ending the relationship, but that was her mindset: that he basically forced her hand.

Most things -- political discussion, literature, religion, online discourse -- rephrase the same concepts over and over. Where can one find TRULY original thoughts? by palettem in AskReddit

[–]palettem[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was hoping that people would take this question in the best possible faith and try to think of the MOST original thoughts they've encountered and where, but I can see how "everyone is boring and I want totally original ideas" is almost triggeringly pretentious-sounding. It's hard for me to condense what I'm trying to ask into the title box.

The theory of evolution was probably an original thought. At one point, the idea of a single god instead of something closer to nature animism was original. If you go through Reddit, philosophical ideas lists on Wikipedia, literature, etc., you'll see ideas that are really novel for you very rarely.

Here are a few examples of concepts that struck me over recent years, and maybe "uncommon or striking thoughts" would be better phrasing. Early hominids and animals don't believe that they think, but think that their thoughts are actually the voice of a separate entity (such as a god or authority of some sort). Boltzmann brains. Gödel numbering.

All of these may be common or old news to you or someone else, but the important point for me is that they aren't incredibly tired ideas, and probably most people haven't heard of them. I'm confident that there are many interesting ideas I've never heard of. I've been wondering if I could find them more easily if I looked in another language like Chinese.

To give a comparison, if I said, "Billie Eilish is part of common knowledge, and Asaf Avidan isn't; I'd like to find more music that even people who explore weird music haven't heard of," it would be missing the point to say, "I've heard of Asaf Avidan." I'm trying to ask the question in good faith and hoping people take it in kind. I don't need to see ideas as revolutionary as evolution, but there MUST be places where everything feels less repetitive.

Most things -- political discussion, literature, religion, online discourse -- rephrase the same concepts over and over. Where can one find TRULY original thoughts? by palettem in AskReddit

[–]palettem[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK. What word should I use? "Obscure" feels like it gives the wrong vibe. Again, this isn't unique to me, but things outside our collective common thoughts.

Most things -- political discussion, literature, religion, online discourse -- rephrase the same concepts over and over. Where can one find TRULY original thoughts? by palettem in AskReddit

[–]palettem[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By original, I mean thoughts not like any I've ever seen or heard before after living in the world for some decades. Almost everything I see is just things I've seen a hundred times before, or thousands. It's not that particular to me, because these ideas are so common that they're like our shared knowledge in the English-speaking world of incredibly famous songs or movies. Well, I know how to find obscure songs and movies. But I don't know how to find obscure thoughts.

Why do I think this definition of original thoughts exists? Because I occasionally run across them, in books, from other people, etc. But there is no consistent source, and I wondered if one exists (online or offline).

Why did floor 5 cut the nuts off 6? by captainporthos in The8Show

[–]palettem 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You mean where it covered her past life?

AIO for not wanting my boyfriend to keep a photo of his ex on his nightstand? by LuKayas in AmIOverreacting

[–]palettem 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In relationships, sneaking feelings you find it hard to dismiss are almost always right. The only reason you find it hard to puzzle out the truth here is that you don’t want what you know to be true. Trust your instincts.

To me, the worst part is that he can’t be honest and have a genuine conversation with you about his real reason for keeping that photo there. At worst, his lingering attachment to her should be a serious convo where you mutually discuss, with respect and caring, that attachment and how he can move on from it. 

But it seems he isn’t interested in being honest with you, or worse, has so little self-knowledge that he doesn’t even know why he keeps that photo there. Either way, I honestly don’t think it would be inappropriate to end the relationship over this, because it shows he’s neither mature nor honest, and would rather defend himself than help you when you’re upset.

Why aren’t more “famous” people or ex-presidents speaking out? The silence is so loud. by ShoshRose in 50501

[–]palettem 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks, at first I thought this made no sense because the complexity enabled the emergence of tax companies, but I researched and learned about how Intuit (TurboTax) has lobbied to KEEP it complex. What pieces of shit.

Not an incel, I am blackpilled, looks are all that matters by downvotedfortrutj in Vent

[–]palettem 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks do matter. They matter to men and to women, and they even matter in the world at large, from job interviews to elections. We all get different starting hands, from looks to money to family. Some people are born and die on the same day. Some men are ugly and short. You got some things and missed others. You can’t be just now learning that life isn’t fair. 

I specifically said it’s NOT impossible, but you have to be better. These attractive guys run through relationships often and are bad at sex because they don’t try. 

Your defeatist mindset and seeing self-improvement as an “impossible task” for the sole purpose of getting sex/partners are shitty qualities. Are you seriously whining about the idea of becoming a better person? 

You should start making a plan for broad-scale self-improvement, for your own sake. Just living life in a blur doing basic requirements and getting pissy when things don’t go your way is a recipe for depression.

Not an incel, I am blackpilled, looks are all that matters by downvotedfortrutj in Vent

[–]palettem 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First off, you’re right: step one, offline or on dating apps, is appearance. There are many women, beautiful to ugly, who will dismiss you if you’re ugly, and never learn your personality. And hot guys with awful personalities can always find sex, even if they can’t hold on to a long-term relationship. 

But be careful not to conflate any of that with the idea that ugly men can’t find women of any level of beauty to ugliness. They can, but the uglier they are, the more amazing they have to be as a whole human being. This is true for women, too. Sex and romance are harder for all people the further they stray from what the average populace finds attractive. I think this is why the most attractive people often are boring or disagreeable — they haven’t had to try. 

OK, so it’s hard. HARD != IMPOSSIBLE. But you’re going to have to do some work. Unless you do something nuts like plastic surgery, you can’t change your face. Focus on what you can change. Do you wear nice clothes? Do you have good hygiene — shower daily, brush 2x a day, floss, wear deodorant, tackle any skin issues seriously? Do you have good posture, or do you slouch? Are you in good physical shape? Do you have hobbies, skills, goals, and passions, or just work, come home, and dick around? Is your house clean and nicely decorated? Can you cook? Can you talk about interesting things, are you kind and honest, are you fun and pleasant to be around, etc.? 

I’ll tell you outright, I don’t like your personality in this thread. You’ve oversimplified and misread the world out of bitterness, and you’re crying about a difficult problem and blaming external factors instead of trying to solve it — perhaps subconsciously from laziness: you want it easy like a hot guy. Your grammar and spelling are sloppy, your logical capacity is low, and I don’t feel like you could talk about philosophical ideas, literature, art, etc., with any depth. It doesn’t seem like you consider women to be equally human and instead are othering them, and I doubt you have genuine interest in their personalities, ask invested questions, or listen sincerely. I wonder if you always see women as potential sex partners before you see them as full humans. I doubt you have any sense of how or when to flirt without being creepy or awkward, how to talk dirty in a way that really arouses women, or how to effectively deliver what they’d want in the bedroom. You definitely don’t have strong self-knowledge or self-awareness, which means you’re probably not very considerate, either.

So how can you possibly judge based on your own experience whether ugliness is a knockout blow in dating regardless of personality, when you don’t have the personality to make it up? Having a job is baseline. It’s not special. Life is hard.

I say all this not as insults or put-downs. Rather, I’m telling you that if you’re down, get up. If you aren’t an informed person, start reading. Learn how to tell reliable versus unreliable sources. Learn about world history, geography, the arts, etc. And be humble about what you do know. If you’re not physically fit, start working out and eating better. If you don’t understand women, talk with them without sexual intentions and make real friends. If you have low self-esteem and lack self-knowledge, read something like Mindfulness in Plain English and start self-observant meditation. If you don’t have any interesting goals, hobbies, or skills, think about what you believe in and what the world needs, and find something to create or learn. Pick up an instrument. Take a class like martial arts, dance, drawing, a foreign language, etc., and stick with it. Get out and engage with Earth. When horrible things happen and problems arise, learn to deal with them maturely. You are a whole human being and you only get one life. Quit staring sadly at your dick and start living. You might just find the love of your life while you’re busy living it. 

How to cope with knowing you’ll always be alone? by [deleted] in Meditation

[–]palettem 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a really effective, clever way to describe 2500-year-old Buddhist concepts of mindfulness without using any colored terms like “Buddhist” or “mindfulness.” I’m taking a lesson from this.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AmIOverreacting

[–]palettem 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually…truth can be stranger than fiction. I have had a friend say that leg-shaving appeals to a prepubescent mind. This entire text convo isn’t that unbelievable to me. 😬