Rational approach to finding life partners

It's straightforward to make a list of how to be poor and then by not doing those things to possibly not be poor. But it's hard to make a list of how to be rich and do those things and be rich. Similarly, it's easy to make a list of how to be alone and then by not doing those things possibly not be alone. But it's hard to make a list of how to be with someone and then do those things and be with someone. So - eliminate all the negatives first. If wearing clothes that don't fit, ignoring cleanliness and avoiding people makes for being alone, don't do those things. Don't do those negative things first and always, then keep an eye open for chances for the positive things. The negative things ruin the positive things you have going on. Eliminate the negatives first.

The Correct Rational Approach to Finding Life Partners:

Start with two facts: First, the vast majority of women are not, in fact, suitable life partners for you. Second, you are not a suitable life partner for the vast majority of women.

These imply a course of action which starts with elimination. If building an online dating profile? Your goal is not to attract as many suitable people as possible. Your goal is to -reject- as many unsuitable people as possible; this is the entry point for people looking for you, and there are far, far more unsuitable people than suitable people. The same is true in real life, which can be as simple as avoiding locations which are primarily populated by unsuitable people. (Bars, as a rule, for pretty much anybody who would be reading this.)

Likewise, when searching for people, your goal is -rejection-. If you're looking for the hottest girl in the bar - you've already failed, because you're not looking to reject people. Also, you're in a bar. Reject the locations, first. "Is this somewhere I'm likely to meet somebody who fits my interests, who who would be interested in me?" Maximize the ratio of acceptable to unacceptable people.

This is Less Wrong - go to Lindy Hop or otherwise swing dance classes. It's the nerdiest dance community you'll find, and the gender proportions, depending on where you are, will probably favor you if you're male. Also, it will help with your proprioception, which, given that you're on Less Wrong, could probably use some help anyways.

Once you've eliminated the unsuitable, do -not- pick the "best". You're probably pretty good at identifying what won't work, but you're probably pretty terrible at identifying what will.

So be open to short-term flings. These can turn into long-term relationships - although you shouldn't expect them to.

Hell, be open to casual sex. These encounters can -also- turn into long-term relationships - although, again, you shouldn't expect them to.

Be open to friendships. Once again, expect nothing.

In general - once you've eliminated the unsuitable, be open. You're looking for pearls; once you've sorted them out, don't toss the oysters overboard before you've checked. They may surprise you.

Don't seduce people into long-term relationships in any terms, let long-term relationships happen on their own. If it takes a special effort to make somebody fall in love with you, it will take a special effort, constantly, forever, for them to stay in love with you.

I find that the Orthodox Jewish system seems to work quite well, at least for religious most people I know. I grew up and married in that system, and I've never "dated" in the normal Western sense, so I have no idea how the system compares or might be applicable in the "normal" world.

[Note: There isn't really one Orthodox Judaism system. Different communities have very different systems, ranging from basically arranged marriages in many Hassidic communities, to almost-normal Western dating in Modern Orthodox communities. I grew up in what's called the "yeshivish" or Lithuanian community, and that's the system about which I said it seems to work pretty well. Even in the yeshivish community there are different ways of doing it, but this is the way they usually do it where I come from.]

Basically, the most important parts of the system the way I see it are:

• Before the first date there's a lot of research done by both parties. Usually someone who knows both sides recommends the match, and then there are a lot of phone calls made to "references" provided by both sides. At this stage both sides are usually looking for a basic personality match as well as compatible goals and world outlook.
• Both sides usually have a checklist (sometimes just in their minds, but often on paper) of what they're looking for, and dating is primarily geared towards (a) making sure there's a good personality match, and (b) checking things off on the checklist.
• Ideally both sides have someone older and more experienced they can discuss their concerns with.
• If any concerns are raised during the dating process, then yet more research is called for.
• A romantic feeling is great, and if it's not there after a few dates then that's a warning sign (but not fatal - powerful love often develops later), but it's actually not necessary for the first few dates.
• Scheduling dates very close together is often not advised, since it doesn't allow enough time for both parties to reflect on what they learned and what they should be looking for next.

Basically, the process of looking for a life partner becomes comparable to the process of taking on a business partner. References need to be called and background checks need to be made. You need to establish a level of trust, shared goals, shared basic approach, etc. You need to make sure there's a good personality match.

No idea if that'll help anybody, but for the religious people I know it seems to usually lead to stable, happy marriages. And when it doesn't it's often because not enough research was done initially, or they didn't date long enough to really be certain that they got what they wanted.

I don't see the point of getting married at all, especially when you're royally screwed once you're divorced.

Many articles at that blog are worth reading, not just this one.

This actually isn't a gendered issue. "Fat acceptance" and "Nerd acceptance" are two sides of the same coin, but both sides insist it is gendered.

Sexual deprivation has real psychological effects. Shit, we should -expect- it to have real psychological effects; you're failing to function as the wind-up toy evolution designed you as. Why do people deny the psychological effects? Why do -you- deny the psychological effects, and insist they can just be overcome?

Because, by the standard morality of our society, problems must be solved. Admitting that it's a genuine issue for these people implies some obligation to do something about it, which implies some obligation by some people to have sex with other people, and that's just wrong.

Personally? I think it's fine to say that it's sad that some people lack what is probably the most fundamental kind of affirmation. And I think it's fine to say that it's sad, and I think it's fine to say that, y'know, the situation sucks for them, and they shouldn't just pretend otherwise. And I can think it's sad, and the situation sucks, without thinking that implies some kind of sexual obligation.

When you can't say there is a problem without also believing the problem can, and should, be solved, the problem to be solved often becomes the problem itself. And either the problem to be solved is that these individuals don't get sex - but the solution to that is both immediately obvious and immediately unacceptable - or the problem is the way these individuals -feel-, as a result of not getting sex. And because they can't acknowledge a problem without believing it can and should be solved, they choose the problem whose solution is acceptable to them: The problem is with the people who are suffering, rather than the suffering itself.

The best advice I have in the area is to consider what you want before you go out and get it. Where many people do not; you have the opportunity to chose something more specific before hitting the marketplace. (I can say more on this topic if there is interest)

No woman owes sex to no man. If you think that women have any kind of duty to sexually satisfy men, you are deluded and have very unhealthy and dangerous attitudes.

Contrast this with:

No boss owes a job to no potential employee. If you think that bosses have any kind of duty to employ you, you are deluded and have very unhealthy and dangerous attitudes.

Compare your reaction to the first and second sentiment. What accounts for the difference?

The problem is, I felt this way when I was, like, 16, and I don't feel that way anymore. It frightens me that there are men, who are no longer teenagers, who still live in a constant state of anxiety, that women are there to “get you” by refusing to have sex with you.

Should others have been frightened of you at 16?

Not having sex and feeling unhappy about it is strictly worse than not having sex and being ok with it.

Except that feeling unhappy about it makes one more likely to fix the situation. Seriously, this is the exact same argument made by deathists, and generally a universal argument against caring about anything.

I think it is a very bad idea. Can't imagine how rational sex would looks like. After all looking back at your life you will be asking a question I lived a life or I had existed

I've read parts of what is commonly called the "manosphere" and I can safely say, you have no idea what the f* you're talking about.

Not that would matter, 'cause your comment is a terrible ad hominem.

Sorry, when you argue based on an appeal to your life experience, ad hominem is no longer a fallacy.

But you can be happy without sex, and sex is not a need. Of course sex is a good thing, and it's great, when there's more of it (consensual, obviously). But so can be said of video games, or action films, or hiking, or chess playing. People can be happy without them, and these are not needs, and so is true of sex.

The only problem I see with young male virgins in today's world is not lack of sex, but terrible self-esteem, depression and anxiety around the belief that they ought to have sex, but because there's something wrong either with them, or the world, they don't have it. Get rid of that crap from their minds, and you'll make young men happy, confident, self-respecting, motivated and self-reliant.

Replace "sex" with "not dying" and you have the standard deathist position.

To date no one has has met my minimum long term relationship criteria.

I'll date ANYONE who is physically and sexually available, has a greater predicted lifespan, baggage free (not specifically the target of powerful law enforcement agencies or organised criminals), communicable disease free, not unattractive (sight smell touch sound taste) and proficient in the communication (vocabulary, philosophy of language, english), psychology (incl. psychometric, assessment and classification of mental disorders, psychotherapy, memory and learning, performance psychology, positive psychology) and economics (incl. game theory, decision theory, health economics, behavioural economics).

Checkmate.

I'm not like that, I have empathy, because I was just like that at some point.

The former doesn't follow from the latter. Rather, it seems more like you have disavowed empathy with your past self so that you can feel superior to people like your past self. Given that you appear to have very little otherwise to feel superior about, e.g., you apparently still can't actually get sex, this is of course an understandable reaction.

Somewhat related:

Marriage Won't Make Sense When Humans Live for 1,000 Years, by Zoltan Istvan

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/marriage-will-make-less-sense-when-humans-live-for-1000-years

I have to take a hard exception to some transhumanists' advocacy of "sex robots," "marrying robots" and similar abominations. Istvan does that in this piece.

Young men need to get into sexual relationships with women "organically," by which I mean that the women feel attracted to them, as a necessary part of men's healthy personal development. Which goes to show why having alienated sexual experiences with prostitutes don't get the job done. A prostitute can teach a man the mechanics of sex - or so I've gathered - but she can't teach him how to have these experiences with regular women. Having these organic experiences lead to the development of skills which don't exist in isolation, but instead play a role in knowing how to deal with women successfully in the rest of life.

Yet the introduction of passable sex robots would sabotage this process, and it would leave a whole generation of young men psychologically stunted. This seems obvious to me, but apparently not to the people who publish propaganda about the wonders of giving men artificial ways to jerk off, as if we have just undergone a cultural transformation which holds that most men don't deserve sexual relationships with women any more, so they should just abandon that aspiration as an unattainable fantasy, plug into these machines and leave women alone.

I can understand the appeal of this scenario to, say, some of the incels and MGTOW's. But Istvan has a wife and two daughters, so he clearly has the experiences and skills to know the difference. Why would he therefore advocate something so preposterous and so disrespectful of a lot of men, other than the fact that he wants to keep his name in circulation, so he keeps publishing these trolls as "transhumanist" proposals?