TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

71

When I was growing up and enjoying gender-nonconformity as part of the good old teenage goth phase (wooohoo!), I often reassured myself and was sometimes told by the mass media that women like men who break the gender roles from time to time ("are willing to express their vulnerabilities" and "not afraid to order a cocktail" and lots of other stuff like that) on the grounds that doing so "shows they are secure in their masculinity" and thus appeals to women. I interpreted this as meaning that women, in our modern and post-Betty-Friedan age, were broadening their tastes to be inclusive of non-traditional men and that acts of gender-atypicality were seen as indicative of sexual desirability. It helped that at the time, rockstars like Brian Molko had devoted female fanbases, not to mention the historical examples set by Mr. Molko's predecessors (hello David Bowie).

I'm sure almost everyone with a blue flair is going to use this as an excuse to laugh and (as is typical for most people with blue flairs) blame me for not "getting it" (i.e. understanding a tacit, rarely-consciously-understood and never-directly-explained social norm). But the phenomenon I am discussing here wasn't even consciously explained or understood until 1973, and even then it was only understood in economics (Michael Spence's Job Market Signalling). Only in 1990 and 1997, with the works of Grafen (Biological Signals As Handicaps) and Zahavi (The Handicap Principle), did the phenomenon gain prominence in evolutionary biology.

I am speaking, of course, about Costly Signalling. And I think all of that talk about acts of gender-nonconformity evidencing "security in one's masculinity" are demands for such signalling. As such, these demands work out to cloaking/concealing a demand for traditional masculinity in anti-traditionalist rhetoric (something that, frankly, is very common in contemporary feminism).

Here's how costly signalling works. Person A wants to partner with Person B in some way which will confer a benefit upon Person B, however whether or not it will benefit Person A is dependent upon Person B possessing a certain quality which Person A cannot directly observe. Person A is therefore making an investment in Person B under a condition of uncertainty, where Person B has an incentive to lie (i.e. pretend they have the quality that Person A needs). In such a situation, how can Person B prove they have this quality? How can Person B overcome the information asymmetry in a way that is credible?

The answer is for Person B to engage in an action which is prohibitively costly for an entity that lacks the quality being sought after by Person A, yet isn't prohibitively costly for Person B (or any other entity with the quality being sought after). The wealthy demonstrate their wealth not merely with cheap talk but expensive purchases. The peacock proves his own evolutionary fitness through growing a tail which would render a lesser bird DOA. The smart invest the necessary time and effort in getting credentials that are beyond the means of (i.e. are too costly, broadly defined, for) the dumb. This costliness is what ensures the signal's integrity; if there is no cost to the signal, every signaller will signal identically and thus the signal will not separate out who has the underlying trait from who lacks it.

The idea that a deviance from gender norms shows "security in one's masculinity" and thus is an attractive trait is a demand for costly signalling. Masculinity (or evolutionary fitness or genetic hotness, take your pick) is the trait which isn't directly physically observable. If a non-masculine man... one who doesn't meet society's idea of masculinity (i.e. someone with a low amount of "masculine capital") acts in a gender-nonconforming manner, that doesn't make him more attractive in any way whatsoever. If a man with a moderate amount of masculine capital.... one who meets but doesn't really exceed or exemplify society's idea of masculinity... acts in a gender-nonconforming manner, this imperils his stature as a "real man" (which is why he may get all insecure). But a very masculine man... a man with an high level of masculine capital... can afford the transgression.

And this is what is considered hot. Not that he acts in a gender-nonconforming way. Not that he doesn't feel socially compelled to avoid gender-nonconforming actions or that he is able to resist the social pressure or that he is a free spirit of some kind. What is considered hot is that he is so masculine, so genetically fit that he can commit the transgression without becoming undesirable or being thought of as unmasculine.

"Security in his masculinity" thus separates highs out from mediums, but it functions as a trap for lows because it fundamentally misleads people as to what the object of attraction truly is. Not only that, but it allows women to camouflage a preference for traditional masculinity with a rhetoric that makes them sound a lot less traditionalist than they actually are.

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know that some women actually do have a sincere preference for gender-atypicality. They are, however, a minority, and I am speaking very much in terms of the general/average/typical woman.

TL;DR - Sometimes it is said that men who defy the gender norms display a "security in their masculinity" which is sexy. The reality is that being a free spirit, free thinker or transgressing the gender norms isn't sexy, but being very masculine and thus able to afford transgressions of the gender norms (i.e. being able to transgress them a few times here and there without being socially emasculated) is seen as sexy. As such, it separates highs out from mediums and lows, but it doesn't make mediums and lows sexier. And it disguises traditionalist preferences with the language of open-mindedness.

CMV


[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!10 points11 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I think this is good analysis and is probably true for a lot of cases but I think a significant number of cases, maybe the majority, are slightly different.

I think the clearest example of your analysis is the opposite case, where guys are unattractive because they are too obviously hung up about being traditionally masculine. The guy who makes it clear he's getting a beer or whisky neat or whatever because he's a "real man not a sissy" comes off like a wannabe tryhard. In most cases the standard for how traditionally masculine a guy is are just not that high and showing you're hung up on it makes you look insecure. If you just got any old mixed drink and didn't make a fuss about it you'd probably be better off. Over compensation is a very unattractive look for men and women both.

Being very genuinely traditionally masculine is one way to get girls but there are other ways too. There are other forms and interpretations of masculinity itself which are perfectly valid besides the stereotypical macho thing. Again, I don't think most girls will give much thought if a guy orders a mixed drink unless it's particularly girly or unless the guy is already coming off I some below average way. Some girls might judge but maybe the guy isn't interested in girls who care about such things anyway.

A big problem with trying to go down these lines of reasoning is the definition of masculinity. Often I see it used as a catch-all for anything that average heterosexual women are attracted to. If this is used here or becomes a circular definition and makes your argument tautological and not as interesting. Of course if men do enough things which attract women, they can signal their fitness by not being worried about the odd thing here or there that doesn't meet that criteria. So I think the weakest part of your argument is limiting it to the concept of masculinity. Really it's about confidence and what the man has to offer. If a man believes he is valuable enough and sexually fit enough to attract women without resorting to more impersonal, generic means like "ordering masculine drinks" or conforming to what traditional wisdom says is attractive, then it implies that they have other stuff going for them and women will shift their attention toward that. If they don't, it might stick out that they're relying on the generic, traditional signaling and it might make some women skeptical or see them as shallow, especially if the women are not so traditional themselves.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 11 points12 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

I think the clearest example of your analysis is the opposite case, where guys are unattractive because they are too obviously hung up about being traditionally masculine. The guy who makes it clear he's getting a beer or whisky neat or whatever because he's a "real man not a sissy" comes off like a wannabe tryhard.

That's not a counterexample. Its consistent with the three-tier model I introduced in the latter part of the original post.

There are lows, mediums and highs. Let's presume that lows are easily detectable but mediums and highs are not easily distinguished from each other. In that situation, costly signalling distinguishes highs from mediums; highs can afford to order the cosmopolitan instead of the rotgut.

Also, note that I'm not necessarily talking about uber-cliche hypermachoness, but masculinity-as-desired-by-the-majority-of-women.

Being very genuinely traditionally masculine is one way to get girls but there are other ways too. There are other forms and interpretations of masculinity itself which are perfectly valid besides the stereotypical macho thing.

Sure. I'd agree with all of that. The point I am making, however, is that the majority of women (at least in the contemporary west) have generally consistent overall preferences. I'm not traditionally masculine myself and as an MHRA I'm against shaming gender nonconformism; I approve of gender nonconformism morally. I'm just speaking in terms of sexual marketplace dynamics from a descriptive standpoint here.

Often I see it used as a catch-all for anything that average heterosexual women are attracted to.

Well to the extent that women control the social incentives for men's behaviors (and they certainly have a very large influence on that), they define masculinity.

Really it's about confidence and what the man has to offer. If a man believes he is valuable enough and sexually fit enough to attract women without resorting to more impersonal, generic means like "ordering masculine drinks" or conforming to what traditional wisdom says is attractive, then it implies that they have other stuff going for them and women will shift their attention toward that.

With the exception of the word "confidence" (which doesn't do much on its own... doing drag requires a fuckload of confidence but isn't going to get you any pussy), you're actually just restating my argument in more concrete terms.

[–]SmurfESmurferson4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

That's not a counterexample. Its consistent with the three-tier model I introduced in the latter part of the original post.

As someone who has bartended off and on since 1998, I'm probably taking this too literally - but I disagree. There are the tryhards, the diehard whiskey lovers (who don't drink cocktails. They drink it straight), the people (like me right now) who are trying to understand it and love it, and the ones who order it but leave it on the bar

Well to the extent that women control the social incentives for men's behaviors (and they certainly have a very large influence on that), they define masculinity.

Again, I disagree. I work with a lot of gay men, and the ones who love masc men LOVE masc men. This isn't a female thing, it's a male gender thing

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 5 points6 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Again, I disagree. I work with a lot of gay men, and the ones who love masc men LOVE masc men. This isn't a female thing, it's a male gender thing

Yes, I know many gay men love macho dudes, but gay men are very much the minority and don't have an exceptionally large impact on the incentives that straight men face (gender-wise). Women, on the other hand, do.

I should add, as someone with a very gender-blending drink taste, I'm not trying to police people's beverage preferences.

[–]SmurfESmurferson1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

God love you and your beverage-free-love philosophy. I judge people hardest by their drinks (myself included - I very much fit the stereotype of the "vodka/soda with lemon notlimethankyouverymuch, or, I dunno, a wine? What's your best Peanut No-er?" White middle aged suburban woman)

Anyhow, back on track, I agree that gay men are a fraction of the population.However, they embody a sexual marketplace that mirrors the straight marketplace. If you think about it:

Masc men are masc men

Twinks are PYTs/gold diggers

Some bi guys come out to pretend

Otter bodies are in high demand

Professional, college educated white gay guys are the Stacies

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I judge people hardest by their drinks (myself included - I very much fit the stereotype of the "vodka/soda with lemon notlimethankyouverymuch, or, I dunno, a wine? What's your best Peanut No-er?" White middle aged suburban woman)

I wonder how you'd judge me given my preferences tend to be either bourbon, champagne, or cocktails. And my favorite cocktail is the Singapore Sling.

Anyhow, back on track, I agree that gay men are a fraction of the population.However, they embody a sexual marketplace that mirrors the straight marketplace.

To an extent. As a bi dude myself I'd argue there are differences. But the issue is how this gay sexual marketplace impacts the straight sexual marketplace, and I don't think it does.

[–]SmurfESmurferson1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I wonder how you'd judge me given my preferences tend to be either bourbon, champagne, or cocktails. And my favorite cocktail is the Singapore Sling.

I very much respect people who drink their liquor/wine as-is. And a Singapore Sling is an acceptable cocktail - up there with a Lynchburg Lemonade, Tom Collins (or even a Vodka Collins), martini, manhattan, etc.

A good cocktail is a think of beauty, honestly

As a bi dude myself I'd argue there are differences. But the issue is how this gay sexual marketplace impacts the straight sexual marketplace, and I don't think it does.

I agree with you on both points

I just think the bi/gay preference for masc men is similar to the straight female preference (I say as a straight woman. So, grain of salt and all that)

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

A good cocktail is a think of beauty, honestly

Agreed! Wow, I just had breakfast and now I want to crack open a bottle of bubbles...

I just think the bi/gay preference for masc men is similar to the straight female preference

I have to somewhat disagree. Gay men tend to be more 'androphilic' - more into a masc-4-masc dynamic. The straight dynamic tends to be more into the contrast of masculinity and femininity. This is even true of the gay BDSM scene - subs in the gay BDSM scene are not seen as women/feminine but as "boys". The dynamic is entirely different from male/female dynamics.

[–]SmurfESmurferson0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I honestly think your last point is intriguing - I would absolutely love to read a post about that, and see how this site responds/replies. Please make post; there are some bi guys on here who will have a lot to add

Also, pass the bubbles por favor

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Well that topic isn't really relevant to PPD so I probably won't make a post about it here. I did allude to it in a post over on MensRights here however: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/364xah/i_found_this_post_on_fetlife_about_the_role_of/craw2qm/

[–]circlhat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A big problem with trying to go down these lines of reasoning is the definition of masculinity. Often I see it used as a catch-all for anything that average heterosexual women are attracted to.

Masculinity definition is well defined and set in stone, the problem is most men can't achieve it thus they attack masculinity (I'm not drinking because I'm secure in my manhood).

Some and individuality hold no candle to human experience, men aren't allowed to understand women at a primal level because at a primal level women are people and people are just another animal we just have huge ego's so we can construct whatever reality we want.

So I think the weakest part of your argument is limiting it to the concept of masculinity. Really it's about confidence and what the man has to offer.

This makes no sense masculinity is what a man supposed to be, you can try and cheat nature all you want, but being yourself is the masculine thing to do and you will often end up just like everyone else

[–]sketch1620006 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree with this. It extends to beta behavior in general. Any unmasculine, beta behavior that women say they want almost always is only going to be desirable from an otherwise masculine, attractive man. It's the fact that women feel like they should never have to explain this out loud that is the source of all the confusion and misery that men go through trying to figure out what women want.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Thank you. I agree entirely.

It may also be argued that the reason women don't want to explain all these norms explicitly is that doing so would decrease the cost (i.e. increase the ease) of mimicry, thus allowing less hot men to pass themselves off as hotter (thereby subverting women's desires for the best genes).

[–]sketch1620005 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Right. It's one of the two basic reasons why Red Pill is so loathed by women. With the other being that the truth of what women actually respond to is much less flattering than the myth that women are less shallow and regressive than men are.

Taking the Red Pill is truly understanding the adversarial component of mating. It's not in a woman's best interest to make any of this easy for undesirable men.

[–]HammockSwingin22 points23 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

A masculine man can afford to bend the gender stereotypes and come out with their masculinity in tact.

But doing these things does not make the man MORE attractive. They are still attractive despite doing the feminine thing.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 9 points10 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Exactly the point I am making.

[–]HammockSwingin1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

but being very masculine and thus able to afford transgressions of the gender norms (i.e. being able to transgress them a few times here and there without being socially emasculated) is seen as sexy.

Can you explain this more then? I'm saying it isn't seen as sexy.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 8 points9 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You're misreading me. I was saying that it is being sufficiently masculine so that one is able to afford the transgressions which is seen as sexy. The transgressions themselves are not.

[–]HammockSwingin2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

No, I understood.

Being able to afford the transgressions means they're attractive/masculine in the first place.

However, simply being able to afford the transgressions is not sexy.

Do you see the difference in the two statements?

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Being able to afford the transgressions means they're attractive/masculine in the first place.

Agreed. That's what I'm saying.

However, simply being able to afford the transgressions is not sexy.

When I speak of "afford" or "costs" and "benefits" I'm speaking in terms of "masculine capital" (or masculine attractiveness, represented as a stock/resource). So to be able to afford the transgression logically presupposes the possession of sufficient masculine capital.

Someone without sufficient masculine capital can still engage in the transgression... they just get socially emasculated for doing so (which is what I mean by "cannot afford it" in this particular situation).

[–]ayywumao 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

However, simply being able to afford the transgressions is not sexy.

So you're saying having money is sexy, not being able to spend it. ok.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So you're saying having money is sexy, not being able to spend it.

No.

I'm saying that the act by which the expenditure takes place isn't sexy, but being able to afford it (which is evidenced through actually doing it) is.

[–]HammockSwingin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I was making a point that the two statements are different...

[–]IRunYourRiver12 points13 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The best running back of all time at my high school wore pink shoes with friendship beads weaved into the laces in all of the games. He was daring anyone to comment on those shoes. And whether they commented or not they would end the next few moments of their life with cleat marks on their chest as he barreled them over. What a bad ass.

[–]The3liGator25 points26 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Which proves OPs point.

[–]IRunYourRiver0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No doubt. I just love this story.

[–]MindTheFuture4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. Feminine men can be hot if they can pull the ”he has his life going so good that he doesn’t have to give a fuck if someone disses him or not”. But not if he signals less.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

some of this may be more readily understood with related but different concept of counter signalling. instead of conspicuously doing something costly to show that you can afford it, countersignalling is basically the next step in this progression when a person does the opposite to signal that they are even better than the costly signallers.

so as an example, let's simplify and say everyone is either poor, rich, or average. the average people will try to use costly signalling (say by buying an expensive new luxury car) to distinguish themselves from poor people (because the poors can't afford it). but the rich often won't costly-signal as much, because it's so much more obvious to everyone that they are rich. and sometimes they will even do things that seem more like something a poor would do (like driving an old car), because the rich are trying to distinguish themselves from all the costly-signalling average people (who drive expensive new cars), and no one would ever confuse them with a poor (who also drive old cars because thats all they can afford). that's countersignalling.

so for your masculinity examples, when a famous rock star puts on makeup and dresses androgenously, he gets away with it (and can paradoxicallly even seem more masculine) because he is countersignalling. most average guys are trying to seem as masculine and manly as possible, so the sex symbol rock star can distinguish himself from all of those guys by intentionally looking/acting unmasculine.

the reason that countersignalling is effective, and the reason why an average dude can't simply start dressing like a fruity homo and get lots of girls is because it's possible to send the wrong signal and seem like you are actually part of the worst group.

if an average guy tries to countersignal by driving around in an old shitty car, it won't work because everyone will assume that he is simply poor and that's all he can afford. so we're back to costly signalling.

or if an average kid tries to emulate an androgenous rock star, it's likely to backfire and make him just look gay or extremely unmasculine.

and you'll see similar patterns all over the pillosphere. it's very important to keep in mind when thinking about anecdotal experiences or when observing people at different levels of the sexual/dating marketplace. sometimes it can be very effective for a guy to emulate a more successful guy, other times it can be very bad if the guy he is emulating is doing some kind of countersignalling that the emulator can't believably pull off. if a high SMV, very popular, socially skilled Chad does something and it works well for him, that doesn't necessarily mean that the same thing will be just as effective for you.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Ahh yes, Countersignalling (see Feltovich, Harbough and To). I hate to say it but you're confusing countersignalling with costly signalling.

Countersignalling is when mediums act to differentiate themselves out from lows. Lows don't act because they can't afford to do so. Highs, however, have some additional (and independent from the signal) "noisy" information about them that validates them as high already, and as so in such an equilibrium the highs act like lows and refrain from signalling.

That is countersignalling. It is refraining from signalling and it becomes a signal of its own, showing confidence in the reliability of the noisy information.

What is happening here is costly signalling rather than countersignalling. I should clarify that in my model, the information asymmetry is distinguishing between mediums and highs (I presume basic Lookism filters the lows out), and I am not permitting any "noisy extra information."

Apart from that you're entirely right.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

i get what you're saying, and i may have dumbed it down a little too much.

and yes, the most basic and model of countersignalling involves Highs not acting and instead relying on "noise" (which is really a side channel of good but imperfect information outside of their control). but the truly important part of Feltovich et al is the noise and the explanation for why a High's behavior (or lack thereof) can counterintuitively more closely resemble that of a Low rather than a Medium.

if you focus too much on the "inaction" aspect as the distinguishing feature of countersignalling, that leads down a pointless rabbithole of trying to decide what counts as an inaction vs choosing to act in a different way. if passive inaction can give certain individuals an advantage in certain situations, individuals will start trying to actively explout that and gain the advantage for themselves if possible. in the end, everyone is sending signals and communicating information, what really matters is the type of signal and information that they are sending.

I should clarify that in my model, the information asymmetry is distinguishing between mediums and highs (I presume basic Lookism filters the lows out), and I am not permitting any "noisy extra information."

those are some very big presumptions, and they mean your model isn't going to be very relevant to the real world.

Low quality males do exist, and everyone knows they exist (and what they look like and act like). they might not have a realistic chance of succeeding due to Lookism and all that, but that doesn't mean that a Medium quality male won't get lumped in with the Lows if he looks and acts like a Low.

and the noisy extra information also does exist. if it didn't exist, then the most efficient strategy would be for everyone to go around trying to out-costly signal each other. but in the real world, that noisy side channel does exist. the androgynous rock star does have the fame and stage presence and throngs of adoring groupies that helps to very clearly distinguish him from an average joe on the street, who would probably be mistaken for a mentally ill homeless person if he started walking around wearing elaborate makeup and heels.

another problem with looking at it as a form of costly signalling is that we don't see a gradual progression toward the costly gender non-conformance. lesser quality peacocks who can't afford to grow tails as large as those of higher quality peacocks do still have tails, they're just not as big. and if gender non conformance worked in the same way, then we would see almost all men displaying as much gender non confomity as they could afford because it would still give them an advantage over lesser men who couldn't even afford that much. and since gender non-conformity doesn't really cost much, we would see a lot more men trying it.

i get what you're saying and it is costly signalling in a way. but it really only makes sense when you zoom in on one very particular part of the sexual marketplace (the boundary between gender conforming Medium quality and gender non conforming High quality).

when you zoom out and look at the whole spectrum of male attractiveness, that boundary area is just a tiny part. the much larger trend is a positive correlation between gender conformity and attractiveness. the hotter men are generally taller, more muscular, more aggressive and generally show the signs of higher testosterone levels. being taller and more muscular is clearly costly signalling because you will require more calories to survive and become a bigger target. being socially aggressive is costly because you run a greater risk of getting killed in a dumb bar fight or something. that's the real link between gender conformity and attractiveness.

you may be correct that this doesn't strictly fit the technical definition of countersignalling. but the general concept of countersignalling is a much more straightforward way of explaining why gender non conforming rock starts can be considered extremely attractive while an equally non-gender-conforming guy who doesn't have the benefit of "noise" usually won't see the same benefits.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew8 points9 points  (72 children) | Copy Link

i dated a guy we called "the effeminate heterosexual", he was a new wave guy, he smoked eve cigarettes

know what he didnt do?

suck any dicks

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 12 points13 points  (71 children) | Copy Link

"Gender-nonconforming" =/= "queer." I know gay men so macho that they can out-butch any straight man on earth with absolutely no effort whatsoever.

My post has nothing whatsoever to do with fellatio.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew0 points1 point  (70 children) | Copy Link

are you bisexual

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 7 points8 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

I am, but that wasn't what my post was about.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew2 points3 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

well i mean, thats my point. thats the actual problem. i was young in the 80s and loved 100s of "gender bending" straight guys, and was attracted to them and had sex with them. they were 100% heterosexual and came off that way

theres peacocking and being expressive and theres actually engagign in homosexuality. women are viscerally repusled by male homosexuality in terms of attraction. this is just reality

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 10 points11 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Again, you're conflating two separate issues here. Not to mention you're trying to make this some sort of personal interrogation over my sexuality, when I'm trying to broadly explain a common cultural sentiment I encountered.

they were 100% heterosexual and came off that way

How exactly can someone "come off as 100% heterosexual" in a way that's distinct from the social signalling mechanisms I'm discussing? Are you relying on some sort of intuition or 'gaydar'?

theres peacocking and being expressive and theres actually engagign in homosexuality.

If you haven't got the message yet, I was speaking about peacocking.

[–]beachredwhineCongratulations!-3 points-2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

How exactly can someone "come off as 100% heterosexual" in a way that's distinct

By doing the penetration not being the one being penetrated

[–]ImsomnilandNo Pills thnx4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

By doing the penetration not being the one being penetrated

PAX ROMANA

[–]heretikMy safe word is "harder"2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think that's really true anymore and frankly it is a vestigial trope of rape culture. A guy putting his penis in another guy is either a rapist or bi/homosexual. Straight guys don't do dudes.

[–]ImsomnilandNo Pills thnx10 points11 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

theres peacocking and being expressive and theres actually engagign in homosexuality. women are viscerally repusled by male homosexuality in terms of attraction. this is just reality

lmao Bi guy here. Women are NOT repulsed by homosexuality, lmao where'd you get that idea? I know LOTS of women who masturbate to male on male porn. Women are absolutely NOT turned off by the reality of me being attracted to other men. I shit you not 100% of the time it makes me more interesting, more mature and it has had the opposite effect of repulsing them.

[–]deadsandsushi2 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not repulsed by it, but it is in no way attractive to me. Metro men turn me off.

[–]ImsomnilandNo Pills thnx1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Metro men turn me off.

Not uncommon. I'm not metro and there are many many gay men who aren't metro either. They look and act like straight guys, except they're emotionally self-aware, emotionally available and they like men.

[–]OfSpock2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It repulses some women. About 20% enjoy it.

[–]ImsomnilandNo Pills thnx1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It repulses some women, like maybe 10%. The other 90% disagree with you. See? I can also make numbers up.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I didn't make them up. I was curious about why gay fanfic was so prevalent since I personally find it repulsive. About 20% of women like the thought of two men together. I don't know what percentage is indifferent vs grossed out but that's the percentage for liking it.

[–]ImsomnilandNo Pills thnx1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I was curious about why gay fanfic was so prevalent since I personally find it repulsive. About 20% of women like the thought of two men together.

Where's that hyperlink yo

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah and the whole fanfic community is full of girls getting off on fantasies of guys doing gay shit.

But let's be real tho they are likely a minority.

[–]ImsomnilandNo Pills thnx1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

But let's be real tho they are likely a minority.

Let's REALLY be real though, how many honest conversations have you had with women about the intersection of their sexuality with male homosexuality?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I used to be active on Tumblr so literally thousands.

[–]rathyAro5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

What's all the shipping gay couples about?

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I hate to say it but I think /u/Atlas_B_Shruggin is right to a substantial degree.

Most people who 'ship gay couples frankly write terrible fanfic that reads like the very worst in heterosexual porn. They make the "bottom" partner into an utter parody of an hysterical dependent woman. They're writing a straight romance novel, for women, but with two penises.

Sure, some slash fangirls are actually into actual male/male, but I think a majority of them are really just after (bad) straight porn with more cock.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

And, according to an article I read, it's about 20% of women.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Honestly thats SO culturally new I font know

It's not about wanting to fuck gay men

[–]crumblesnatch 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not really; slash fiction goes back to the early 70s at least.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

yeh well thats a nice internet back formation discovered on wikipedia. it may "go back" the the 70s in some tiny niche form but it didnt exist as a cultural phenomenon and was 100% and completely and totally unknown about

[–]beachredwhineCongratulations!-5 points-4 points  (46 children) | Copy Link

You mean gay

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew2 points3 points  (45 children) | Copy Link

A person who has sex with both men and women is bisexual

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (37 children) | Copy Link

By that definition you are bisexual

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin 1 points [recovered]  (36 children) | Copy Link

and youre gay

[–]justtypingcuz 1 points [recovered]  (35 children) | Copy Link

U too

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin 1 points [recovered]  (34 children) | Copy Link

except being a bisexual woman makes you cool and being a gay homo man makes you a queer and a fag

[–]justtypingcuz 1 points [recovered]  (15 children) | Copy Link

Edgy old ladies on Reddit don't get to say what's cool in 2018 😆

[–]justtypingcuz 1 points [recovered]  (17 children) | Copy Link

Fag can describe a male or female homosexual..

Fag

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to MRS_DRgree[M] 1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is an interesting post for sure, it's telling that virtually all the examples of non-masculine men who are popular with the ladies are rich celebrities. I'm pretty sure a normal guy dying his hair pink, putting it into pigtails, and getting "crybaby" tattooed on his head would not exactly be swimming in pussy. But do all those things while being a famous and successful recording artist and you're set.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

This seems like a roundabout way of saying that women are attracted to confidence and that confidence is an essential feature of masculinity. A confident man can pull off gender non-conformity and still be attractive to women, and I've even known a few guys like this. On the other hand, it doesn't matter what identity a non-confident man takes on. He still won't be attractive to any woman until he gains confidence. Once he does, he'll begin attracting women who are a proper looks and personality match with him.

[–]WhatIsTheMeaningHere6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I've said this 1000 times but I still don't understand what the fuck people mean when they say confidence. It sounds like some magic state of being that gets you the pussy 100% of the time. I don't know how to garner confidence, and I don't even know what it feels like. All I know is that I'm not shy anymore. I can go up to any woman I want and get rejected as many times as I want, but apparently if I had this mystical enlightenment, or confidence, I'd be getting pussy. Apparently having the balls to approach in the first place is not even confidence, and I had to reach level zero from some negative number.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you're truly confident then I would guess that you're just approaching women out of your league. Just aim lower and you'll find someone who appreciates your qualities. There are almost as many single women out there as there are single men. To attract the higher quality women that you're being rejected by, you have to improve yourself somehow and just being confident won't work.

[–]dylang92Clear Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Really he just needs to improve his looks to get those women. He’s probably going for women 2, 3, hell maybe 4 points above in attractiveness. Confidence isn’t gonna make an average or ugly guy more attractive, it can’t make a 4 go to a 7. Idk what he looks like, but if he changes his looks and maximizes them however he can (gym, clothing, surgery) he’ll find that his confidence will be much better received.

[–]bonusfruit2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They can't say tall and good looking, so they say confident. Case closed

[–]Dweller_of_the_Abyss0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Confidence means "easily readable." In other words, don't be a faker/poser/sperg.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This seems like a roundabout way of saying that women are attracted to confidence and that confidence is an essential feature of masculinity.

Not exactly. Flagrant acts of gender nonconformity require a lot of confidence to pull off in the first place. Doing drag requires an absurd amount of confidence but it doesn't mean you get perceived as more masculine. There aren't legions of women who dream over the prospect of a straight drag-queen they can bang.

A confident man can pull off gender non-conformity and still be attractive to women

Only if he has other stocks of masculine capital. Merely being confident isn't enough.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I can imagine that there are some women out there attracted to men who are not gender conforming. Nevertheless, I think you have a point in that the confidence that a man has has to translate into a woman being instinctually assured that a man has the ability to defend her and her offspring in a dangerous situation. The confidence to dress in drag probably doesn't translate into this assurance, while male confidence displayed in other ways is more likely to do so.

Only if he has other stocks of masculine capital. Merely being confident isn't enough.

It depends upon what you mean by "masculine capital." I've known several non-masculine men who have had no problems attracting women. I'm not particularly physically masculine myself (short, slight of build and have never lifted) and I haven't had trouble attracting women once I learned how to find the type of women who might more likely to be attracted to the good qualities that I do have.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I can imagine that there are some women out there attracted to men who are not gender conforming.

Sure, but they're a minority. If we're trying to build general theories we need to focus primarily on the majority.

I think you have a point in that the confidence that a man has has to translate into a woman being instinctually assured that a man has the ability to defend her and her offspring in a dangerous situation. The confidence to dress in drag probably doesn't translate into this assurance, while male confidence displayed in other ways is more likely to do so.

Indeed, so it isn't merely confidence which is required. And thus the idea that men become sexier through displaying the confidence required to transgress gender norms is false.

It depends upon what you mean by "masculine capital."

The traits which most women find attractive in men. The stuff that makes you sexually successful with respect to the mainstream market.

I haven't had trouble attracting women once I learned how to find the type of women who might more likely to be attracted to the good qualities that I do have.

Niche marketing is a perfectly legitimate strategy, but its inherently confined to niche women. Do remember that dating advice is meant to be general.

[–]PBRScagsquad(((Prima Illuminatus)))2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's okay you know, you can come out of the closet and into the light if you really want, there are no monsters out here promise. whispers faggggggggggggggggggggggg

[–]mtgordon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Some guys feel the need to drive immense extended cab pickups, and some guys don’t.

I remember recently being in a major city and seeing an extended cab pickup from a neighboring, more rural state. The driver of the truck was having difficulty parking the truck in an urban parking space, and I remember thinking to myself, “I feel sorry for the women in [neighboring state] if so many men there feel such a compelling need to compensate.”

[–]hammerhauntsbread pill1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

tl;dr?

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There's a TL;DR section down in the lower part of the post. Below the "disclaimer" and above "CMV"

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

TL DR you can walk as softly as you like if you carry a big enough stick

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Why cant I ever just like what I like?

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Everyone can like what they like. No one's saying you can't like what you like.

[–]mori_forthestreamer 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Thank you for this explanation. This explains a lot considering that I'm a 6' 4'' sensitive male with broad shoulders etc. This post is making my head spin.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you very much. I'm always greatly flattered when my posts make people think.

[–]NeedingAdvice861 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This discussion isn't going to reveal any usable information...

Being effeminate\non-gender conforming still might allow you to be attractive to a small niche group but that is simply self-limiting yourself to the much larger and primary group of women in the world.

But where this endeavor really falls apart is because reddit is in itself a very niche community which is overpopulated with those very niche inhabitants...so you ask the group that is a outside the mainstream but wants to believe that they are the pinnacle of mainstream this question and you get the associated responses about how all the cheerleaders at university are just dying to date the goth dudes in their black trenchcoats and 50's black combat boots.

Just keep in mind that as you walk down the street in the US or likely most of Canada...that only about 1% of those hot girls you see sitting at the cafes or rooftop bars or attending Saturday afternoon tailgates have a fucking clue what reddit even is........

[–]IceHot881 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply. A nerdy and or meek man being afraid of a spider would not make me less sexually attracted to him.

[–]OfSpock3 points4 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

Masculinity isn't fixed over time. Take pink for example, it used to be a boys colour. So it's it's ridiculous that men went through a period of treating pink as though they were afraid it made them look gay. Ditto long hair, colourful clothing, art. All these have been considered masculine over the years.

When someone is 'secure in his masculinity' it means he is not being a wuss and letting fashion dictate his behaviour.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 10 points11 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

Take pink for example, it used to be a boys colour. So it's it's ridiculous that men went through a period of treating pink as though they were afraid it made them look gay. Ditto long hair, colourful clothing, art. All these have been considered masculine over the years.

I agree entirely but I think you're not entirely getting the point I am making.

When someone is 'secure in his masculinity' it means he is not being a wuss and letting fashion dictate his behaviour.

Sure, but if being "secure in your masculinity" were in and of itself considered sexually attractive, then we wouldn't see the persistent preferences for conventionally masculine men which are so evident.

And that's the point I'm making. Gender transgressiveness, by itself, is not considered hot or attractive (by the majority of women). When an already attractive/masculine/whatever-you-want-to-call-it guy makes one or two minor transgressions however, it provides evidence of having so many "man points" you can afford to throw them away.

This is costly signaling behavior.

[–]OfSpock2 points3 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Or, conforming to semi-random fashions of what masculinity is, in itself, unmasculine.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 9 points10 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Again, the problem with this reasoning is that it logically implies that the most masculine guys are those who break the gender roles most thoroughly.

Clearly, our society does NOT believe that highly gender-transgressive men are the apex of manhood.

Hence, statements like "I think men who aren't afraid to order a cocktail/get a manicure/[etc.] are really secure in their masculinity" are paradoxical, unless you interpret them as demands for costly signalling.

[–]OfSpock5 points6 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

The most masculine men are those who do what they want and don't worry about the opinions of others. Leaders not followers.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 11 points12 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

You're systematically avoiding the actual point being made.

The most masculine men are those who do what they want and don't worry about the opinions of others.

If that is true then huge numbers of gender-nonconforming cultural deviants become "the most masculine men." Maybe they fit your definition of masculine but they don't fit the socially operative definition (i.e. the definition most people follow). And as this is a subreddit devoted to discussing how social norms regarding gender and dating operate, the socially operative definition seems to be the appropriate one.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You're literally listening to the same type of thoughtless lefty/feminists who lied to you about this right now.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I know where OfSpock's ideological sympathies lie. I'm still happy to have a rational discussion should they choose to try to have one.

[–]beachredwhineCongratulations!3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No he is listening to a woman tell him that asking the question is itself unmasculine.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

The socially operative definition changes a lot. Due to things like millions of women throwing themselves at David Bowie while straight guys stand there going "But she should be attracted to me."

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Again, I will believe you when mass culture starts celebrating freethinkers and gender-nonconformists as the height of real manhood. It doesn't, and it so obviously doesn't that either you must be in some sort of subcultural circle but think everyone in the "mainstream" world is like that, or you're being intellectually dishonest.

[–]OfSpock-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You mean like Khal Drogo and his eyeshadow? I hear the long haired men of Vikings have lots of fans. Again with the 80s rockstars and their perms of awesome. Which were copied, in milder forms by men everywhere, who sported short perms and pink shirts. Until 90s grunge rockers came along and men abandoned those fashions for flannies and stubble. What is it these days? Those awful man buns. Hope those don't last long.

[–]Mad_Luddite2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

He's not saying masculine fashion doesn't change. Rather, that the "masculine" aspect still remains a good thing.

David Bowie and Khal Drogo are both tall, fit, wealthy men who have more masculine capital than they know what to do with.

[–]Gamer_Jack_Gameson0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You're systematically avoiding the actual point being made.

Disagreed whole-heartedly my friend. I thought you really had it there and was rooting for you, but if you don't understand that the person you replied to above just distilled your entire argument into one sentence, then you definitely missed the point. There are many ways a confident man can show himself. Most men have at least some preferences that are traditionally feminine, and the confident ones will do whatever the hell they want, thus allowing their non-conforming side show. A heavily androgynous man can still be confident and sexy as hell--his preferences for fashion and activities have little to do with it.

I agree that this can be a signal to women like you said (there's a whole body of research on this. They call it something with "handicap" in the title, and peacocks are the type species for the study of this behavior).

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

if you don't understand that the person you replied to above just distilled your entire argument into one sentence, then you definitely missed the point.

The person I replied to was not distilling my arguments, but rather misinterpreting them after I made several clarifications.

I agree that this can be a signal to women like you said (there's a whole body of research on this. They call it something with "handicap" in the title, and peacocks are the type species for the study of this behavior).

I referenced that research in my original post (Zahavi, Grafen, Spence). Its called Costly Signalling (Economics) or the Handicap Principle (Evolutionary Biology). I'm very familiar with it, and it was the basis of my argument.

[–]Gamer_Jack_Gameson1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If the person was misinterpreting your argument then you are missing some very critical parts of the bigger picture. I'm not trying to CYV so I'll back out.

[–]IceHot881 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Maybe this I’m missing the point, I have to admit I am a’dumb’ who found it hard to follow your argument.

Could it be that when men with a lot of masculine capital engage in feminine behavior, that the contrast is starker, and therefore, easier to see/appreciate?

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Could it be that when men with a lot of masculine capital engage in feminine behavior, that the contrast is starker, and therefore, easier to see/appreciate?

That's a reasonable point, but the issue I have is the value significance attached to the action.

Let's say some guy who's clearly rather... fabulous... comes up to a bar and orders a cosmopolitan. This would reduce his stash of "man points" or at least not increase it.

Then let's say some obviously macho sunglasses-indoors broski comes in and does the same thing, and suddenly girls are like "you're so secure in your masculinity!!!"

Let us then presume the "fabulous" guy is a Camp Straight (yes, they do exist). You can see what I'm talking about?

A more simple example that's harder to quibble with. Let's say a big buff manly dude reveals to a woman one of his psychological issues... say... a fear of spiders. She goes "well it shows a lot of security in your masculinity that you'd say that!"

Scrawny nerdy kid admits that to a woman? Woman is all "you're weak and pathetic."

Same act. Evaluated differently depending on the perceived masculinity/masculine value/etc. of the person doing it.

THIS is what I am trying to explain.

Does that make sense?

[–]IceHot881 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes it does, thanks for the clarification. Speaking as a straight woman though, I don’t think anything less of the scrawny, nerdy kid because he’s afraid of spiders.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well you may be an outlier and/or at least more reasonable than most people. Or an arachnophobe yourself, which would mean you could empathize with that fear.

That said, to be entirely blunt I was speaking in terms of these men being assessed as sexual prospects (or sexual/romantic prospects). Perhaps you wouldn't think of the nerdy kid any worse because you had already ruled him out of contention? (That said, you're totally entitled to your preferences and I'm not saying you're a bad person).

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

The only query I have with this point is that, in my experience, Straight and camp guys get a lot of female attention. I remember my guy friends at uni being flabbergasted over how many girls threw themselves at one particular example we knew quite well.

So, to at least a specific and significant subset of women, this is very attractive, at least in the short term.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

So, to at least a specific and significant subset of women, this is very attractive, at least in the short term.

That's a good point but there are two important things to note.

  1. This specific subset is very much a minority.
  2. Camp Straights are sometimes mistaken for gay initially and a lot of the girls are "OMG NEW GAY BESTIE!" That said, I'm actually not saying that Camp Straights are unattractive. Indeed, being a Camp Straight is one of the things that the Costly Signalling theory explains perfectly. The point is that his campness isn't what makes him hot, but the fact he can be so camp whilst still retaining sufficient attractiveness to women.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

This specific subset is very much a minority

Do you have figures to back this up? My experience is very much the opposite of this, and whilst I accept other anecdotal experiences will vary, I’d be interested if the actual figures agree.

Camp Straights are sometimes mistaken for gay initially

I’m talking about actively hitting on. From what I’ve seen, approaching a camp guy is easier for women (or maybe the subset of women who like that are just bolder) and more women actually approach them.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you have figures to back this up?

I don't have hard stats, only my experience, which I fully admit is partially dependent on my cultural context (so obviously there would be differences between our experiences).

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I mean, most of the men I know aren’t afraid to order a girly cocktail or scream at a spider or something like that. I don’t know any stereotypically ‘manly men’ who only do masculine things.

My own OH has plenty of feminine traits as well as masculine ones, because he’s a person and not a cardboard cut out. I find him extremely sexy.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm not saying you don't find him sexy. What I am suggesting is that the typical woman, when she says she thinks doing [gender-nonconforming thing x] is evidence of a man having "confidence in his masculinity," is basically trying to get a man to show evidence of not merely being conventionally masculine but having sufficient masculinity that he's able to afford moments of not being conventionally masculine (whereas less masculine men would not be able to do this without making themselves appear insufficiently masculine).

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

having sufficient masculinity that he's able to afford moments of not being conventionally masculine

I mean, this is literally the definition of being confident enough in your masculinity, right?

I don’t agree on the premise that women aren’t attracted to less typically masculine men sexually (if anything, I would be less attracted to my OH if I didn’t truly admire his character including his emotional sensitivity etc as much as I do), but surely the phrase ‘confidence/security in his masculinity’ is literally saying that a guy can afford to act in a more feminine way because he’s already masculine?

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean, this is literally the definition of being confident enough in your masculinity, right?

Its not the literal definition. Its the in practice meaning, which is what I am arguing for.

The literal definition isn't very precise. For example, imagine a man who is completely cognitively independent from societal gender standards and sees no reason to comply with them. This is very, VERY much a kind of security in himself, in his maleness/masculinity, because he doesn't see any reason to prove himself. Indeed, it shows a confidence that is stereotypically considered a "masculine" trait.

Yet he would fail in the sexual marketplace (except perhaps with a niche market).

[–]RoyalAugur920 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

in some way which will confer a benefit upon Person B, however whether or not it will benefit Person A

Did you get person A and person B mixed up here?

Masculinity (or evolutionary fitness or genetic hotness, take your pick) ... is the trait which isn't directly physically observable

Those two are not the same - they might overlap at times, but they are two distinct concepts. And traits of evolutionary fitness are most definitiely observable. I don't disagree with your conclusion, but what you said here is just flat-out wrong.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you get person A and person B mixed up here?

I don't think I did. The point is that the signal-ee is the person who lacks the knowledge of the quality of the signal-er, and the signal-ee needs to know the quality in order to assess whether or not they'll get a good payoff.

Those two are not the same - they might overlap at the times, but they are two distinct concepts.

You're not wrong, but the point I am making is that there are some traits relevant to judging someone's worth as a mate which aren't observable immediately. Some certainly are, which is why I invoked a three-tier analysis of "lows/mediums/highs" where mediums and highs aren't instantly able to be told apart, but lows are easily able to be detected.

[–]Industrialbonecraft0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

If: Person wants to spend their lives conforming to some external concepts of what they should be/do regardless of what they actually want to do, then they're a coward, they're going to end up frustrated but widely acceptable. That said, whatever. That's their issue. May end up fucking people they don't actually want to fuck and turning off people that they do want to fuck.

If: Person is gender atypical they will run into varied opposition depending on surrounding culture, degree of boat rocking, and aggression in the response to attack. They may find people attack them for "non-conformity", but those people are worthless so they can be forgotten. The majority of people don't really care. Assuming we're coming from a western perspective, we live in flexible times so people are disposable and there's always more to replace the old. We have easy access to moving location, so it's not like you're stuck anywhere. If mating so important to that person, they've just got to move. So their potential pool of mates may be more niche, but they're there, and given the population of humans there's probably more potential mates than they have time for anyway.

Does access to quantity actually matter if we're not in any way trying to prop up the species? Couching sex as a social responsibility per se, seems to violate the action/intent. Other people don't factor into the equation. Social opinions are irrelevant in the face of abundance as the amount that they realistically dictate is negligible. Transgressions? Conformity? Cultural sentiment? Irrelevant.

The individual's desire for themselves is the only thing that actually matter in this context. All else is beneath consideration.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you morally. But this isn't an ethics subreddit. Its a subreddit to discuss sexual marketplace dynamics in contemporary western societies.

I wasn't trying to make a normative case. Like I said, I agree with you morally. But I was being descriptive, not normative.

[–]BlueFairyPainter 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think that deviating from traditional masculinity is costly per se. The curve for attractiveness as feminine traits increase would first go up, and after a while go down exponentially.

Being uptight about your fragile masculinity is unattractive and unfun. When I say that I like men who break a few rules, the point lies in a few. It's directed at the men who are too afraid to be more open with what to try and what to like. I think that's the point that gets misinterpreted. It's directed at a specific audience and does not hold true for everyone.

If you are already on the more feminine side, going for some flamboyant trap queen look is not what's going to make you more attractive to the general audience. Celebrities and special trends are an obvious exception. But that's for another day.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Being uptight about your fragile masculinity is unattractive and unfun. When I say that I like men who break a few rules, the point lies in a few.

So you're conceding I'm correct. Thank you.

[–]RadChadswell 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

But the phenomenon I am discussing here wasn't even consciously explained or understood until 1973, and even then it was only understood in economics (Michael Spence's Job Market Signalling). Only in 1990 and 1997, with the works of Grafen (Biological Signals As Handicaps) and Zahavi (The Handicap Principle), did the phenomenon gain prominence in evolutionary biology.

It wasn't formally explained in academia as a theory, but do you really think most neurotypicals didn't intuitively understand this concept? (e.g. expensive clothes and fancy car signal wealth better than words, Harvard lawyer signals intelligence better than something any average guy could pull off). Most "normies" I know vet partners by what they've done in their lives (looking for signals that would be very costly/difficult for people without those qualities).

Fuck, I knew intuitively as a freshman that when I went to the bar in a pink shirt, it was about showing I was confident enough in my masculinity to not give a fuck, not insecure about masculinity like most guys. Confidence is the other signal they're looking for with nonconforming behaviors.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

It wasn't formally explained in academia as a theory, but do you really think most neurotypicals didn't intuitively understand this concept?

Intuitively/tacitly, sure. But I think its important, especially as a non-neurotypical person myself, these concepts are brought to light and made explicit.

it wasn't because the color pink was somehow intrinsically attractive on all guys (i.e. this trap for lows). It was about showing I was confident enough in my masculinity to not give a fuck. Confidence is the other signal they're looking for with nonconforming behaviors.

But this is the point I'm making. Confidence... the internal state of being willing to stick with one's guns and defy social norms... isn't enough. If it were, consistent defiance of such norms would get a dude laid, and the reality is that it doesn't. So confidence per se cannot be the root of women's attraction.

Therefore, it isn't about being sufficiently confident to defy the gender norms. The defiance of the gender norms in and of itself doesn't add sexiness.

[–]RadChadswell 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

But this is the point I'm making. Confidence... the internal state of being willing to stick with one's guns and defy social norms... isn't enough.

See above where I wrote "confidence is the other signal". Notice the words "the other". In other words, it is one of many signals that increases your perceived value but not a sufficient condition for attraction (i.e. not enough on its own).

I think neurotypicals understand the implications of this sort of phrasing much more easily than non-neurotypicals do, because I keep saying the same damn fallacy made over and over again on this subreddit. (e.g. "Women want a good man. I'm a Good Man. Why don't they want me?" Ignoring that "goodness" is subjectively evaluated by different parties here, there's a bigger problem. They treat it as a logical syllogism, falsely assuming "good" is being stated as a sufficient condition for attraction, an exhaustive list of all the qualities they require. It isn't. It's one of many qualities in a multi-factor model.)

I can try to be more anal-retentive and pedantic about explicitly explaining that every time I make statemets, to avoid misunderstandings with non-neurotypicals on here.

The defiance of the gender norms in and of itself doesn't add sexiness.

No, of course not. Wearing the pink shirt doesn't in and of itself add sexiness either (i.e. not just any guy could repeat the same thing and achieve the same result, therefore it's not a complete scientific model on its own). It's the signal.

In college women kept wanting to see me crossdress, as a hairy 6'3 dude with broad shoulders busting through the fabrics and large feet crammed into heels too small. If some slim 5'5 guy with effeminate features did it, it would just make him seem even more effeminate. People intuitively understand this.

It's not the act itself, but the irony and juxtaposition and qualities it signals. Among those many signals, but not the only signal, is confidence. It shows I know I'm masculine enough and don't need to obsessively curate a macho image (a behavior other men exhibit that signals insecurity about one's perceived value). Confidence is not the only signal of course. There is also "sense of humor", "doesn't take self too seriously", and other signals not listed here.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

So where exactly are you disagreeing with me?

[–]RadChadswell 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

  1. Sounded like you were arguing against my first comment (re: confidence), but my first comment was correct.

  2. That this theory is important with regards to dating. Neurotypicals intuitively "get" this and apply it when evaluating people, without any theory making it explicit. Maybe other guys need the economics to understand.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Maybe other guys need the economics to understand.

Well yes, that's who dating advice is targeted towards... people who don't understand.

It seems some people are hostile to the mere idea of trying to give advice to people who don't understand.

[–]RadChadswell 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

People are hostile to the arrogance of presenting these weird "scientific" (but inadequately validated) theories on dating as these revolutionary groundbreaking truths, instead of just something helpful that low-tier confused guys can use to better understand social interactions.

For the CMV "Because he is secure in his masculinity" is an important part of it. No one had ever claimed that ANY man automatically becomes attractive by gender-nonconforming. It seems like such a strawman.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

People are hostile because the dating advice gets presented as these weird "scientific" (but inadequately validated) theories, instead of just a helpful model for low-EQ confused guys to better understand basic social interactions.

But science is full of "helpful models." Trying to claim a massive gulf between "helpful models" and "scientific" is to equate "scientific" with "absolute 100% acontextual unerring truths which apply at all times to all people and cannot be contested"... which is certainly not what science is.

No one had ever claimed that ANY man automatically becomes attractive by gender-nonconforming. It seems like such a strawman.

Again, I think the confusion is something that many men experience. Tons of men are frustrated at the "mixed signals" and general lack of cultural clarity about "what women want." Making this stuff clear and explicit is part of addressing the problem.

[–]TriadFamilyTimesEverything I know I learned from group sex0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I have to say I am a gender nonconforming man in many ways and girls do seem to enjoy it.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I never said women don't think gender nonconformism can be hot. I'm proposing a theory to explain why they find it hot and in what circumstances they find it hot.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

TL;DR - Sometimes it is said that men who defy the gender norms display a "security in their masculinity" which is sexy.

People who say this are sticking up for faggy guys cos they get bullied. Goth guys are fags, and it's only their culture that affords them to be like that. They want to "make a statement" about their gender and are basically attention seeking teenagers.

Isn't it funny how like 95% of them drop the act when they get to the age when they need to work full time? Phonies

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

im curious who exactly "told" you this?

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Its a common cultural sentiment. Or at least it was when I was growing up.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think I grew up when you grew up. I think you misunderstood

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well yeah, I misunderstood the sentiment. I describe the nature of this misunderstanding in the post itself. I thought it meant "x" but it really meant "y". I'm suggesting that the "y" is a demand for costly signalling.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

No, it’s like this.

Doing something out of the ordinary because you want somebody to think you’re sexy = insecure and approval seeking.

Doing something out of the ordinary because it’s who the fuck you are and you’re going to be who you are regardless of what society tells you to be = confident, masculine, and secure.

If you are intentionally expressing Bull shit vulnerability because you think it will get you laid, you’re not sexy. You’re whiny and manipulative. If you just express your true feelings because you are willing to trust somebody to not judge you, you are connecting.

You basically said it yourself in your OP that you acted more feminine because you thought it would get you laid, not because it was who you were. That’s why it didn’t work. The same thing goes for fake masculinity. If you act super macho when it’s not who you are, women will see through the facade and you’ll just come off as try hard.

To;Dr - don’t be fake. Be you. The truest form of you. Then make that you better by improving your sense of style, your fitness, and your speaking/communication skills.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

That entire post is just ridiculous "be yourself" propaganda.

Women are not telepaths. Nor are men. We cannot tell the motivation of anyone's actions unless they disclose it to us and even then we have no reason to trust them. So the idea that anyone can "tell" if you do X "for attention/to crush puss" or for some "honest reason" is bullshit.

You basically said it yourself in your OP that you acted more feminine because you thought it would get you laid, not because it was who you were.

That's untrue. And the fact you decided to run immediately to the scant and incomplete details of personal context I provided in order to try and twist this around into "me being a bad person" just proves you're hostile in principle to this argument.

The reality is that I liked the style, I cultivated it because I liked the music and I thought it looked cool.

At the same time however I was confronted with the claim that women found it hot because gender-nonconformity showed "security in your masculinity." I didn't cultivate this style because I thought it would get me laid.

women will see through the facade

They can't see through the facades of psychopaths and sociopaths. They aren't telepaths.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You’re 100% wrong my dude. Neediness oozes out of your communication. Your body language, vocal tonality, etc all give you away, and there are some things like micro expressions that aren’t even possible to manipulate, which is why “fake it till you make it” is actually shitty advice. If you’re not confident, you need to figure out what it is about yourself that you don’t like, and start changing it.

PUA/TRP is basically a get rich quick scheme. You sucker people in by promising to offer an easier solution than the real fix...and the more time one wastes on fake solutions, the longer it will be before they start seeing true dating success.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You’re 100% wrong my dude. Neediness oozes out of your communication. Your body language, vocal tonality, etc all give you away, and there are some things like micro expressions that aren’t even possible to manipulate

Tell that to Ted Bundy. Apparently women's "personality detectors" can't save them from psychotic serial killers.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter