
Reddit’s Female Dating Strategy offers women advice - Tomte
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/14/21137852/reddit-female-dating-advice-strategy-women-rulebook-memes
======
throwaway41968
>Women are encouraged to not disclose their sexual history to partners or have
sex too soon because they believe no man would ever love a woman who has sex
quickly.

>they do not support consensual BDSM, viewing porn, or having sex before
commitment has been established in a relationship

>Similar conservative guidelines (“don’t rush into sex,” “let him take the
lead”) were promoted as dating advice in books of the ’90s and 2000s such as
The Rules: Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right.

>Like pickup artists, Female Dating Strategy often objectifies the opposite
gender and turns dating into some sort of game to be won — just in their case,
it isn’t having sex that’s the prize, but finding a High Value Male.

Yeah this is basically redpill/PUA crap combined with a hearty dose of
American puritanism. Maybe both men and women who believe in this stuff should
find each other instead of trying to give advice to the rest of us.

~~~
econcon
>Yeah this is basically redpill/PUA crap combined with a hearty dose of
American puritanism. Maybe both men and women who believe in this stuff should
find each other instead of trying to give advice to the rest of us.

I'd say it's better to demonstrate what's wrong with their advice instead of
labeling them and rejecting everything they say or stand for outright.

>Maybe both men and women who believe in this stuff should find each other
instead of trying to give advice to the rest of us.

Their strategy doesn't work if other options are available. If you demand
herculean efforts in order to reach intimacy then highly likely the partner
will lose hope or give up and go for someone easy and if this happens many
times then the person demanding efforts is going to waste a lot of time
without running into someone who is ready to expend that much effort. But yes,
if everyone demands herculean effort then probability of finding someone who
puts herculean effort goes up drastically.

~~~
throwaway41968
I don't get this comment. Subjectively, how am I supposed to justify that I
find PUA crap repulsive? I just do. Objectively, how am I supposed to prove
that it's of any use when literal billions of people live happy relationships
without the use of any of that stuff?

>Their strategy doesn't work if other options are available.

Maybe they should rethink their _strategy_ then (by the way, what a lovely
word to use when dealing with romantic interests).

~~~
econcon
>I don't get this comment. Subjectively, how am I supposed to justify that I
find PUA crap repulsive? I just do.

FDS differs from PUA in that they want to settle for a man who is valuable to
them and PUA just goes through women one after another even if you manage to
get laid with one woman, it doesn't stop anywhere.

>Maybe they should rethink their strategy then (by the way, what a lovely word
to use when dealing with romantic interests).

>Objectively, how am I supposed to prove that it's of any use when literal
billions of people live happy relationships without the use of any of that
stuff?

We don't know that billions of those people are happy. Were slaves happy
before slavery was abolished? Were women happy before feminism?

I am a guy who never used to get much attention from women but I read FDS and
I see lots of women there have had very bad experience with men who they just
fell in love with, who they didn't clearly vet and they suffer consequence of
this in terms of abuse, being raped or consigning debt etc...

Their strategy is now focused on avoiding those men who have destroyed their
life.

------
StellarTabi
I've never posted in that sub. You can prove it by auditing those deleted
comment checkers. But, I just found out I was banned. You only get a ban PM
message on reddit if you had a post/comment.

My guess why I was banned? I made one or two comments outside the sub
promoting a non-toxic alternative called
[https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXDating](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXDating)

~~~
downerending
A lot of subs will auto-ban users that have ever posted in another sub that
they consider objectionable.

------
downerending
It's good reading for those who might want to date females as well.

~~~
heartbeats
I believe 'women' is the idiomatic usage in English.

~~~
Khelavaster
Artistic license for r/FemaleDatingStrategy

------
anonsivalley652
I have a rough, reaching hypothesis about the rise of incel, MGTOW, Hikikomori
and FDS that hinges on a number of socio-economic, technological and
population factors. Attitudes and lifestyle choices are "soft" means of
reducing an individual's procreation to reduce over-population, whereas "hard"
means such as famines, war, mass shootings, taking away healthcare and
genocide are the more painful means to reduce numbers.

The inflection point of global population happened somewhere around 1962-1965
when it went from concave up (growth phase) to concave down (slowing phase).
Population still continued to increase in many parts of the world, but it's
the rate of change that slowed. In many ways, overall population is best
modeled by a different equation, but the carrying capacity is variable
including place-to-place, time, technology, food, economic and political
concerns.

Even though population slowed, it still kept increasing. With a larger
population, resource scarcity plus labor over-supply increased in first-world
countries and so the ability to start families decreased. People who are
relatively rich have an easier time having children than most people when the
average purchasing power and average income is reduced. More inequality + more
access to reproductive services -> fewer families -> fewer children.

The sexual revolution and The Pill happened around this time, increasing the
number of divorces and reducing the number of formed family units. (Birth
control isn't anything new, as Silphium was a cash-crop in the ancient world
that was harvested to its extinction.)

Delaying marriage also reduces the number of births. It was the case in the
19th century that girls were having children at 15-16 through their late 20's,
so family sizes were on the order of 6-10 children per couple.

One point that goes against the trend is modern divorce (with a prenup and in
a non-community property state) allows a high-income earning man to start
multiple families serially.

Women gained more access to the means of income earning, removing dependency
on men. As such, many women's time and priorities were taken-up by work, and
so starting a family was no longer a primary motivation.

Alternative lifestyle became more acceptable as population increased. The
previous modality forced some people who were uncomfortable with
heterosexuality to have families and children, but who wouldn't have passed on
their genes to a new generation in the new modality. Furthermore, individuals
in the modern era, not necessarily for sexual or gender reasons, adopted new
and various subsets of lifestyles that also reduced and limited their
reproductive success.

In conclusion, I think it's important for any wise person to not capriciously
lash their identity to a random cult, external attribute or way that contains
a lot of negative, judgmental/stereotypes or arbitrary "rules," and to use
some common-sense, nuance and love rather that bitterness, scorn or hate.

~~~
heartbeats
Won't natural selection take care of this within a few generations? The
'career women' and 'divorcee' genes get heavily selected against, and those
with religiosity get heavily selected for.

We already see this in some Western countries where Muslims have much higher
birth rates. Also in the US, we have the Mormons. If this development
continues, it is not unlikely to see a return to historical, more efficient,
social norms.

~~~
throwaway41968
Ah yes, the famously identified "career women" and "divorcee" genes with well-
known genetic pathways.

~~~
heartbeats
Yes, everything is genetic. Can't speak for divorcees, but the career women
I've met have generally been more 'masculine', so to speak. We know that 2D:4D
is genetic and has a strong correlation with leadership ability, so it
wouldn't surprise me that such could come to be selected against in women.

Religiosity is genetic, and that has quite strong effects on fertility.

~~~
throwaway41968
I don't think _genetic_ means what you think it does. In the _field of
genetics_ , a trait is said to be _genetic_ when a _genetic mechanism_ has
been identified leading to the expression of that trait. Please, tell me more
about the genetic mechanism behind religiosity, let alone 'everything'. Which
genes are involved, how does the epitaxis play out, which pathways are
influenced?

~~~
econcon
>Please, tell me more about the genetic mechanism behind religiosity, let
alone 'everything'. Which genes are involved, how does the epitaxis play out,
which pathways are influenced

I've seen people here claiming that Asians are more conformists they've been
selected for conformity from the time where your books were burnt if they were
not allowed by the Chinese empire.

>Which genes are involved, how does the epitaxis play out, which pathways are
influenced?

We know tall stature is genetic trait and we've many genes which correlate to
tall strature. We don't know pathway which causes tall structure. So can you
tell me which pathway makes a person tall? Should we stop believing tall
strature is a genetic trait even if partially?

Similarly, there are gay or transexual people - we don't know pathway, are you
going to claim that its cultural? There are many gay in Muslim countries or
India where they were not socially accepted for long time.

There have been experiments on mouse where when they injected q mouse with
testosterone, they became more dominant and fought more fiercely against the
bully.

Similarly, there are accounts of trans people who went from female to male -
and became more competitive, aggressive, dominant.

It's not far fetched to think there are hormones which turn depend on genes or
environment which make a person more "individualistic"

In psychology, we know of this disorder Borderline Personality Disorder which
sometimes is genetic and sometimes not. It's a very individualistic disorder
and person suffering from it finds it hard to keep meaningful relationships
for long term.

We don't know if it's caused by hormonal imbalance or genetics or some brain
anomaly.

Similarly, depression is contender for genetic trait yet we don't know any
pathway.

So what's my point? Asking for specific genes or pathway is not going to
invalidate the hypothesis that a particular personality trait might have
genetic basis

