= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pjeby comments on Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (647)
Why do you think women are advised not to have sex on the first date, and not to be a man's "booty call", if they want a relationship?
Why do you think men routinely have affairs with women who'll have sex with them, while remaining married to a woman who's not?
I'm not saying guys like this -- I'm saying that this is an example of controversial mating advice that works for "women's goals", in the same way that PUA does for "men's goals".
(Both phrases being in quotes because not all men and women have the same goals.)
That is good evidence.
That I do not find nearly persuasive. Men are less likely to have affairs when their sex life within the marriage is healthy. They are also less likely to end the marriage.
That's what I was allowing for when I said 'act like' (economic 'want').
Do you believe that 'be less interested in sex' would be helpful advice for maintaining a long term relationship that has already formed? I don't deny the possibility, just assert that (concrete evidence indicates) this is definitely not works with me.
A relevant quote:
The quote is rather tongue in cheek but I would not rule out an element of truth (to the suggestion that without the externally enforced obligation more sex is required for maintenance and to secure marriage). In fact, high quality sources of dating advice often give suggestions on how manage such dynamics for the benefit of both parties.
I think you're misinterpreting the scope of what I said. I didn't say that lack of interest in sex was attractive - it isn't.
I said, "isn't always interested" - i.e., variable reinforcement. I think it's the case that a man will be most satisfied in a relationship when his partner expresses sexual interest and attraction on an ongoing basis, but nonetheless does not say "yes" to all requests to do something about it, or has variability in how far that interaction proceeds. Having sex whenever a guy wants to is potentially as damaging to a relationship as never having sex at all, in the same way that too-difficult and too-easy tasks don't lead to a "flow" state.
I've seen relationship advice for women that actually described a relationship in terms of a video game, advising that there always be new challenges and levels to unlock, so to speak, so that things don't get too predictable. For that matter, I've seen relationship advice for men that was basically the same, although I find it amusing that it was the advice for women that used the videogame analogy. (And written by a female author, at that.)
(OTOH, men are stereotypically interested in videogames, so I guess explaining that you need to be like a videogame to keep a man interested would make more sense than the reverse analogy.)
Got you! (Although even so, observation suggest that isn't what works best on me.)
I've actually seen a lot of good advice for guys of the form "If a girl did that how would you react? No, really. Well, it's the same for girls." Once people actually have a strongly developed self awareness that sort of direct empathy actually works rather well.
(OTOH, men are stereotypically interested in videogames, so I guess explaining that you need to be like a videogame to keep a man interested would make more sense than the reverse analogy.) True.
Be aware that I'm saying in the ideal case, the woman isn't saying no because she doesn't want to have sex, or doesn't find you attractive at that moment. (Or even that she's necessarily saying "no" at all.)
I'm saying that the "flow" experience comes about from having obstacles that are a good match for your skill at overcoming them. It can easily appear to the man in such a circumstance that he is in fact getting sex as often as he wants, just not as soon as he might want it. A good "courtship" videogame may provide hours or days of enjoyment for both parties, prior to unlocking a new level. ;-)
(In contrast, having "god mode" on for a game might be interesting for a time, but quickly become boring. The reason "crazy chicks" have a reputation for being good in bed may well be as much about the crazy before, as the bed after.)
So, I think we've now succeeded in having a conversation about what works to attract men, that might be able to be found as offensive as the reverse. Let's see what happens. ;-)
I think you're right. (And our conversation has also reached an agreement).
So, the sound bite version is "To get a man to commit, be a tease?"
Only in the same way that the pejorative and inaccurate soundbite for PUA is, "To get a woman to have sex, be a jerk." There's an awful lot lost in both translations. ;-)
Perhaps, I would say that better paraphrases the earlier comments in he conversation than the later ones.