This goes too far. The vast majority of men are heterosexual, gender-normal, and the vast majority of those are most attracted to women who are not:
post-menopause/50+
ugly
lesbian (i.e. not attracted to men)
You left out:
Non-Western
Which was apparently important to your case above.
It’s an interesting claim, though I’m not buying it, and it is anyway irrelevant to my earlier claim.
Most people are not heterosexual, gender-normal men who are most attracted to women with none of those qualities. And most relationship goals are not seducing such people. And most people do not have that goal.
Probably ~40% of pepople are heterosexual, gender-normal men who are most attracted to women who are young and straight.
It seems like you are using weasel words to describe the goal of ~40% of the people on the planet as a “very specific goal”.
Let me put it another way. On a website with a strong majority heterosexual male readership, the article fails to mention what I think is the definitive body of knowledge to improve the dating lives of heterosexual men. You then criticize me because, of all people, just under half are heterosexual males, almost all of whom (surprise) like young, attractive, straight women; you use weasel words saying that my point is for a “very specific goal”, when in fact probably ~60-80% of people reading this site have the goal of attracting/keeping a young, attractive, hetero/bi woman.
TBH, I feel that you, and LW in general, are trying to use pedantry/weasel words/motivated cognition to close your eyes to the truth about attraction between men and women. Perhaps there is some subset of people here who want to know, but I feel that if I mention the subject I will end up arguing against some form of denial/motivated cognition, rather than discussing the subject in the spirit of a collaborative enquiry to get at the truth.
It seems like you are using weasel words to describe the goal of ~40% of the people on the planet as a “very specific goal”.
Theists comprise a much larger percentage of the global population than 40%, but that doesn’t mean we’d consider a goal like “being closer to God” to be particularly important or worthy of discussion here.
Let me put it another way. [ranting about definitiveness of PUA deleted]
Just FYI, some of us hate pro-PUA rants as much as we hate anti-PUA rants. Actually, I hate the pro-PUA rants more, because they do more harm than good.
Telling people they’re closing their eyes to the truth is not a rational method of persuasion in any environment, and certainly not here.
If you learned half as much from PUA as you think you have, you should have learned that if you want to catch fish, then don’t think like a fisherman, think like a fish.
In this discussion, you are not thinking like a fish.
Also note that I am just as pedantic when I’m talking about a subject that I like, and I’m sure people would back me up on this. Maybe I should step up the pedantry in general to make that clearer, to avoid this sort of accusation.
And nowhere here did I say something like “PUA should not be discussed” or “PUA is incorrect about its subject matter” or even “The particular sub-branch of PUA you have in mind is incorrect or useless”. Indeed, I think rational inquiry into relationships is a noble goal and often cite PUA as a rare area of discourse where beliefs are tested against the world in rapid iteration.
Rather, I was annoyed that you were making patently false claims and then when people called you on it you acted like they were doing something wrong. If you want to assert falsehoods, please do it elsewhere.
Ceteris paribus, I would regard pedantry as evidence of a vice in favor of truth-seeking, not in the opposite direction. I’m surprised you think otherwise.
when in fact probably ~60-80% of people reading this site have the goal of attracting/keeping a young, attractive, hetero/bi woman.
I find this hard to believe. As of the last survey only 33% are “single and looking”. If we combine that with the 24.2% that were “in a relationship”, assume they were all polyamorous, and that all of both groups were men, we still do not approach the lower bound of your estimate. It fails a basic sanity check.
I would assert that most people here would benefit more from attracting vastly atypical partners, and we are mostly outliers in more ways than one, so your generalizations are even less helpful here than in the world at large. But that belief is irrelevant to my above statements.
I find this hard to believe. As of the last survey only 33% are “single and looking”. If we combine that with the 24.2% that were “in a relationship”, assume they were all polyamorous, and that all of both groups were men, we still do not approach the lower bound of your estimate. It fails a basic sanity check.
You excluded ‘married’ from the check, which is the only thing that allows your “sanity failure” assertion to stand. This is either an error or disingenuous. ‘Married’ applies for the same reason ‘in a relationship’ applies. 24% are single but not looking, not the 57% that you suggest. The “all polyamorous” assumption is not needed given that keeping was included.
Agreed. I was not considering “attracting” and “keeping” as separate states; rather, I read it as “attracting or (attracting and keeping)” which clearly was not warranted. So if we assume everyone not “single but not looking” was male and interested in the sorts of things mentioned above, that’s 76%, which while still a stretch falls well within the range above.
You left out:
Which was apparently important to your case above.
It’s an interesting claim, though I’m not buying it, and it is anyway irrelevant to my earlier claim.
Most people are not heterosexual, gender-normal men who are most attracted to women with none of those qualities. And most relationship goals are not seducing such people. And most people do not have that goal.
Probably ~40% of pepople are heterosexual, gender-normal men who are most attracted to women who are young and straight.
It seems like you are using weasel words to describe the goal of ~40% of the people on the planet as a “very specific goal”.
Let me put it another way. On a website with a strong majority heterosexual male readership, the article fails to mention what I think is the definitive body of knowledge to improve the dating lives of heterosexual men. You then criticize me because, of all people, just under half are heterosexual males, almost all of whom (surprise) like young, attractive, straight women; you use weasel words saying that my point is for a “very specific goal”, when in fact probably ~60-80% of people reading this site have the goal of attracting/keeping a young, attractive, hetero/bi woman.
TBH, I feel that you, and LW in general, are trying to use pedantry/weasel words/motivated cognition to close your eyes to the truth about attraction between men and women. Perhaps there is some subset of people here who want to know, but I feel that if I mention the subject I will end up arguing against some form of denial/motivated cognition, rather than discussing the subject in the spirit of a collaborative enquiry to get at the truth.
Theists comprise a much larger percentage of the global population than 40%, but that doesn’t mean we’d consider a goal like “being closer to God” to be particularly important or worthy of discussion here.
Just FYI, some of us hate pro-PUA rants as much as we hate anti-PUA rants. Actually, I hate the pro-PUA rants more, because they do more harm than good.
Telling people they’re closing their eyes to the truth is not a rational method of persuasion in any environment, and certainly not here.
If you learned half as much from PUA as you think you have, you should have learned that if you want to catch fish, then don’t think like a fisherman, think like a fish.
In this discussion, you are not thinking like a fish.
Like the saying goes, you catch more flies with fly pheremones...
Also note that I am just as pedantic when I’m talking about a subject that I like, and I’m sure people would back me up on this. Maybe I should step up the pedantry in general to make that clearer, to avoid this sort of accusation.
And nowhere here did I say something like “PUA should not be discussed” or “PUA is incorrect about its subject matter” or even “The particular sub-branch of PUA you have in mind is incorrect or useless”. Indeed, I think rational inquiry into relationships is a noble goal and often cite PUA as a rare area of discourse where beliefs are tested against the world in rapid iteration.
Rather, I was annoyed that you were making patently false claims and then when people called you on it you acted like they were doing something wrong. If you want to assert falsehoods, please do it elsewhere.
I don’t think that means what you think it means.
Ceteris paribus, I would regard pedantry as evidence of a vice in favor of truth-seeking, not in the opposite direction. I’m surprised you think otherwise.
I find this hard to believe. As of the last survey only 33% are “single and looking”. If we combine that with the 24.2% that were “in a relationship”, assume they were all polyamorous, and that all of both groups were men, we still do not approach the lower bound of your estimate. It fails a basic sanity check.
I would assert that most people here would benefit more from attracting vastly atypical partners, and we are mostly outliers in more ways than one, so your generalizations are even less helpful here than in the world at large. But that belief is irrelevant to my above statements.
ETA: bad sanity check.
You excluded ‘married’ from the check, which is the only thing that allows your “sanity failure” assertion to stand. This is either an error or disingenuous. ‘Married’ applies for the same reason ‘in a relationship’ applies. 24% are single but not looking, not the 57% that you suggest. The “all polyamorous” assumption is not needed given that keeping was included.
Agreed. I was not considering “attracting” and “keeping” as separate states; rather, I read it as “attracting or (attracting and keeping)” which clearly was not warranted. So if we assume everyone not “single but not looking” was male and interested in the sorts of things mentioned above, that’s 76%, which while still a stretch falls well within the range above.