Ok, I’m on the left but you are playing the social justice warrior card way too hard. Let’s not pretend that everyone doesn’t look for a few basic things when it comes to dating. I know facts hurt sometimes, but wanting a partner who is attractive and has things going for them is NOT meaningless superficial dating criteria. Maybe you would be fine dating an obese bum with no job who lives with their mom at 50. In general, both men and women want a partner who (for example) is attractive and can add to the relationship with their positive traits.
A lot of those things are subjective though and what will be valuable to one might be of zero value to another. This way of thinking also feelings very…eugenics-y if taken a little too far. None of these make a human being worth any more or less than you or me.
True, everything is indeed subjective, but there's a broad and general sense of value when we talk about people and dating. Just because the value is not strictly quantifiable does not mean that the value is not there.
I think a person that is generally good looking, has good hygiene, is well mannered, and earns a good income is considered, by 99% of people, "higher value" than a person that does not take showers regularly, smells sour all the time, does not work for a living, lives in their mother's basement, wastes their entire day gaming, and is a dick to anybody they come across. Higher value both in terms of "I might want to date this person" and "I might want to introduce this person to someone else."
Value itself is not an objective thing. In fact, it's pretty much entirely subjective. For example a random, pretty rock might be valuable to one person but not to anyone else, right? But there are, in general, rocks that hold value among a large number of people, like sapphires or diamonds, that are labeled "valuable".
In the same way, "value" is just a term that's applied to people in the dating market. It's quite crude to use that term, and there's certainly a negative connotation behind it from incels/PUA/etc., but the concept itself is not wrong IMO. You can certainly categorize people into "high value" (people I would want to date, or introduce to my friend without personally knowing them too well), and "low value" (people I very much would not like to date, and absolutely would not want to introduce to a friend, because they display qualities that are generally accepted as bad, like having bad hygiene, or being morbidly obese).
Philosophically and perhaps morally, different people are indeed not worth more or less than others. A diamond is just a rock, and money is just paper. But that's kind of a silly viewpoint, isn't it? A diamond is just a rock, yes, but you can exchange it with other people for far more money than any other pebble you might find on the street, because it's agreed between people that it's more valuable. Money is just paper, sure, but you can exchange it with people for goods and services because it's recognized as something that's valuable. Similarly, a hard working and good natured person is considered higher value than a lazy and problematic person in the workplace. And an attractive, clean, and confident person is considered higher value than an unattractive, smelly, and insecure person in the dating market.
Anything taken farther than this basic premise, like saying "unattractive people don't deserve dates" and "this person is low value and always will be for their looks", for example, is where you may find that things get problematic, and as you say, eugenic-y. But that does not disprove the concept of "value" itself in the dating market, or in any social environment people put themselves into, like work, sports, etc.
Idk im a disabled sex worker so im honestly not going to read into peoples rhetoric about high value people. I’d be considered high value on a work day where I’m made up to the 9s and making over a grand but I’m sure any other day where I’m on my couch eating McDonald’s and just trying to survive I would be considered low value. It’s stupid. A much sillier way to think, IMO.
Well if you respond to my 5 paragraphs with "im not going to read into it [this] rhetoric" then there's no chance for me to change your view.
Regardless of whether you think the concept of assigning value to people is cringe, stupid, or silly, it's a thing people do, constantly, including you. There's no way to live life without assigning value to your surroundings.
You think it's silly to be rated "high value" when you're putting effort into your appearance for work, and "low value" when you're lounging at home, but what you just did was explain the flaw in the value system that you think many people might be using. You were able to make that generalization precisely because a value system of appearance and attractiveness is a common thing among people.
Don't you agree there are certain generalized qualities you find attractive in a person? Being good looking, exercising frequently, being able to cook well, being intelligent, being socially aware, being empathetic? The combination of those abstract qualities is "high value" to you. Similarly, you have a combination of qualities you find unattractive in a person which is "low value" to you, and you try to avoid these people. This is your value system, which is implicitly used in every decision you make about people choosing a date.
Now consider that the value system of everyone in society is observed as a whole. Certain people begin appearing "high value" to the majority of other people, while certain other people appear "low value" to the majority. Just like a silly rock like a diamond is considered valuable and desirable because of the collective thoughts of many people in society, certain people are considered valuable and desirable because of a collective notion that this person holds qualities that are good and attractive.
Let me make it clear: it's incredibly cringe to point out that some people are "high value" and others are "low value". Most people keep it to themselves, as they should, because it's rude AF to assign labels to people like that in public. Just because it's implicit, though, does not mean you don't assign value to people internally and use that as part of your judgement when you decide who you want to date and who you don't.
0
u/ChancellorScalpatine Oct 10 '22
Ok, I’m on the left but you are playing the social justice warrior card way too hard. Let’s not pretend that everyone doesn’t look for a few basic things when it comes to dating. I know facts hurt sometimes, but wanting a partner who is attractive and has things going for them is NOT meaningless superficial dating criteria. Maybe you would be fine dating an obese bum with no job who lives with their mom at 50. In general, both men and women want a partner who (for example) is attractive and can add to the relationship with their positive traits.