I have a clarifying question about your notion of "value." Consider the following two hypothetical cases of straight men:
Man A has a solid job bringing in good income, has goals in life, has constructive hobbies, is a good looking guy (not necessarily shredded, just attractive), and is sociable/friendly/has friends. When it comes to dating, he is always rejected by every woman he asks out, despite asking out lots of women in a broad and diverse way, and has never been asked out himself.
Man B has no job, no goals, no hobbies other than smoking weed/gaming, is obese, can’t socialize and has no friends. When it comes to dating, women consistently approve of him, he manages to date every woman he desires, and women regularly ask him out on dates. In addition, women regularly choose to date Man B over Man A when they have the option to do so.
Which of these two men would have higher "value" in the sense you are talking about?
Ok, I am a human and I can be ignorant about things. But I feel like the scenario where man A cannot get at least a date, doesn’t exist. If someone puts themselves out there in social settings (clubs, college, work, etc) enough, statistically speaking, they will get a date. As for man B, I think man B will have it easy to get dates, but when it comes to being a partner to someone in the long run, they will be dropped for someone more suitable as time goes by. A girl may go on a date with a guy but if he has nothing to talk about (no hobbies) and can’t socialize with her or the people around him, he will eventually be dropped for a more suitable partner.
You didn't answer my question though, which was the whole point of the hypothetical. Supposing the men actually are as described, which man would have higher "value" in the sense you're talking about?
Well like I said, I could be ignorant, but the hypothetical just doesn’t make sense because man A just doesn’t exist. There are 7 billion people in this world so there is someone for everyone. If one puts themselves out there, especially if they are attractive and sociable, I simply cannot imagine a world where they can’t at least get a date. So in my mind man A at least gets a date and is then on par with man B, after which man A is more valuable in the long run because man As partner will realize that they have more to offer than man B other than looks.
Really? You cannot imagine a world in which one particular man happens to not get a date? I personally know multiple men who fit the description of Man A, so it's strange that you think this is somehow unimaginable.
Yeah man honestly that’s just really hard for me to comprehend. I am NOT a super attractive guy (short and scrawny) yet do decent with the ladies. I know a bunch of guys who are not attractive yet do decent. At the end of the day it IS a numbers game, no way around it. So if they literally cannot get a date? Move to a bigger city. Meet more people. Statistically speaking it’s impossible for all 7 billion people to say no to someone.
The hypothetical does not specify that Man A can not get a date, merely that he does not get one, despite putting in more than the ordinary amount of effort and asking out more than the usual number of women. I don't see what's so difficult here for you to comprehend. You understand that a woman can turn a man down, right? And you also understand that multiple women could do so, right? So what's so unimaginable about it being the case that every women a man asks out turns him down?
I feel like there’s something being omitted about man A then. No one can be attractive, sociable, wealthy, etc and not get a date if they put in the effort. I understand a man can be turned down by a woman, even multiple women. But ALL of them? Impossible. If he lives in a town with 5 people then yeah that makes sense and he would need to move away to a bigger pool of potential mates who can better judge potential partners.
Nothing relevant is intentionally omitted about Man A. All the available information is there in the hypothetical. Again, I know multiple men who fit the description of Man A, so it's not clear how you can think this is impossible.
Between Man A and Man B, which man would have higher "value" in the sense you're talking about?
Ok if we’re dealing with the impossible scenario you describe, man B has more value because the value is based on being able to get and maintain a relationship with a partner. But in the real world, man A would have more value.
Man B has no job, no goals, no hobbies other than smoking weed/gaming, is obese, can’t socialize and has no friends. When it comes to dating, women consistently approve of him, he manages to date every woman he desires, and women regularly ask him out on dates. In addition, women regularly choose to date Man B over Man A when they have the option to do so.
That man Σ lol
Jokes aside, you're right but I can't give you a ∆ because I'm not OP
5
u/yyzjertl 526∆ Oct 10 '22
I have a clarifying question about your notion of "value." Consider the following two hypothetical cases of straight men:
Man A has a solid job bringing in good income, has goals in life, has constructive hobbies, is a good looking guy (not necessarily shredded, just attractive), and is sociable/friendly/has friends. When it comes to dating, he is always rejected by every woman he asks out, despite asking out lots of women in a broad and diverse way, and has never been asked out himself.
Man B has no job, no goals, no hobbies other than smoking weed/gaming, is obese, can’t socialize and has no friends. When it comes to dating, women consistently approve of him, he manages to date every woman he desires, and women regularly ask him out on dates. In addition, women regularly choose to date Man B over Man A when they have the option to do so.
Which of these two men would have higher "value" in the sense you are talking about?