[nhchris]

You've assumed a great deal more about their behavior than was written. The professor even states "no unwanted advances are taking place", contradicting your characterization. Indeed, your extra assumptions would qualify as 'disruption', and I imagine the professor would be well within her rights to expel such students.

But merely offering, not pushing, assistance, or even less "showboating", letting students in search of help come to them if they want to, isn't disruption or even untoward.

> No, you just to treat women with respect.

We've really come to a point where even the purest romantic intentions (the post talks of wife material, not one night stands) are "disrespectful", have we?

[ImaCake]

>Some of the young students in my class take up these offers, and this further demoralizes other female students seeing this happen (i.e. only attractive women being offered tutoring sessions). This is further compounded by the condescension involved (i.e. one self-admitted user of the app told me "this material that others struggle with is so easy for me, and I'm doing it for laughs and phone numbers.").

This suggests otherwise. I personally would be very upset if someone helped me purely because they thought I was attractive.

[ifyoubuildit]

Don't want to make you mad, but odds are someone has done something positive for you at some point solely for one trait about you that they coveted, be it money, your network, your sense of humor, the way you dressed that day, or yes, possibly even the physical shape of your face and/or body.

Why be upset about the sky being blue?

[ImaCake]

Emotions aside, why are we not allowed to discourage bad faith behaviour here? It doesn't have to be a legal rule, a social rule seems to exist already. We do the same for many other actions.

[ifyoubuildit]

On HN? Or in this scenario?

Either way I think you're allowed to discourage whatever you want (assuming you do it in a civil way). Not everyone's going to agree though.

Some people are going to think/do things that you/I don't like. And sometimes there doesn't have to be some kind of resolution that comes out of it, some kind of trial and adjudication. Life can just go on regardless.

[ImaCake]

>Either way I think you're allowed to discourage whatever you want (assuming you do it in a civil way).

Yeah I think this is a good way to approach this. Absolutist views tend to be problematic. Society functions by breaking a lot of rules.

[TheHappyOddish]

> I personally would be very upset if someone helped me purely because they thought I was attractive.

What if they helped you because you were funny, or kind, or intelligent, or any number of traits that are primarily related back to your genetics or upbringing?

This is how humans interact. It's rarely a concious consideration of the reason we help others, but it's almost always based on our perception of them.

[I-love-india]

> You've assumed a great deal more about their behavior than was written. The professor even states "no unwanted advances are taking place", contradicting your characterization

where did I say anything about unwanted advances?

> We've really come to a point where even the purest romantic intentions (the post talks of wife material, not one night stands) are "disrespectful", have we?

that's not what was said. read again. The romantic intention is fine and human, what's at point here is when its totally lacking empathy or any sense of the other person.

You want to know what's romantic?

Respect. Caring about another. Understanding. Doing selfless actions to support another (including by consciously doing nothing because it may be disruptive).

Or do you want to be just like all the other bros who think there's a "trick" and you kinda like have to 'do A, B + C' then you "get" someone? That's a creep who see's women as some sort of prize.

EDIT: I don't know what you've assumed about this post but I'm a guy. If you are actually interested in someone for who they are, try to do good stuff and try not to do bad stuff and respectful you won't have much trouble. Just trying to be a decent human is a universal turn on.

[boppo1]

Rule 1. Be attractive.

Rule 2. Don't be unattractive.

It's not a joke.

[xupybd]

While this is true, you have a lot more control over this than you may realize. Especially if you're a male seeking a female. Most men think they same physical characteristics they're interested in will be appealing to the opposite sex. There are many physical traits that women prefer but they're less shallow than us men.

Confidence and the ability to talk are huge. You're social status among your peer group. How well you dress. Do you look after yourself physically. All of these things can be developed.

[boppo1]

Oh I'm plenty aware. I wish someone had explained it to me when I was 16 though.

"There's truly nothing you can do today to change her mind. All the things that would have made her say 'yes' are things you had to start working on 2 years ago. Today you can start working on who you will be in 2 years and persuading the girl you meet then to say 'yes'."

[zozbot234]

I disagree that guys will only see results from self-improvement in two years; there are behavioral changes that should be mastered immediately. Learning to treat women with proper respect and still come across as attractive to them can be highly beneficial, and is not exactly something that society strives to teach. The earlier you master this, the better.

[boppo1]

>Learning to treat women with proper respect and still come across as attractive to them

The unfortunate thing is that not only is this totally opaque, but society actually gives instruction that doesn't work, i.e. bad advice. That's how we get 'nice guys' and pickup artists. Young men have an overwhelming need for intimacy that they're driven to satisfy and there. are. no. guides. on how to obtain it.

I do pretty okay in that department now, but only from 20 miserable years of trial-and-error. Looking back, I had no opportunity to learn the things I know despite desperately looking for them. Felt like I was playing a game where everyone but me and my friends knew the rules. An older brother or maybe a coach might have been a help, but that's all I can think of.

[zozbot234]

I might agree that the situation 20 years ago was this bad; but things have changed quite a bit. We now know a whole lot more as to how women generally relate to this sex and relationships thing - because they've been telling us first-hand! We have not exactly come to a general realization throughout society that there is such a thing as behaving and relating to others in a more attractive way, but we're not far from it either.

And we also know a lot more about what doesn't work. As it turns out, nice guys simply have no need to gaslight or bamboozle others into doing things they don't actually want, quite unlike the males in OP's story; they have way better things to care about. And the best part is that women can tell; these are not things you can fool anyone about for very long.

[caskstrength]

> There are many physical traits that women prefer but they're less shallow than us men.

> Confidence and the ability to talk are huge. You're social status among your peer group. How well you dress. Do you look after yourself physically. All of these things can be developed.

So, "fit smooth-talking alpha guy"? I'm not sure I agree with it, but your description seems _very_ shallow TBH.

[xupybd]

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.

What traits, that are found attractive, would you describe as less shallow?

[caskstrength]

> What traits, that are found attractive, would you describe as less shallow?

You got it backwards - my point was that your description of "many physical traits that women prefer but they're less shallow than us men" is as shallow as "hot lustful babe with big tits" or some other stereotypical horny teenager's dream partner that you probably meant by "shallow".

Also, you know that "gender X is less shallow than Y" is sexist statement, right?

[xupybd]

I say less shallow as they are personality traits not purely physical. I'm interested in knowing what you would consider less shallow. Unless your point is that attraction is shallow. That I could see.

>Also, you know that "gender X is less shallow than Y" is sexist statement, right?

I strongly disagree. It's like saying women on average prefer people and men on average prefer things. It's not a judgment just an observation.

[sinity]

Confidence - falsifying your personality. Social status. Yeah, not shallow at all.

[bitmunk]

>he purest romantic intentions (the post talks of wife material, not one night stands)

Sure, using academic data to statically enter the easiest class with most chicks exudes pure romanticism. I'm sure the upperclassmen playing professor in a lab or doing the work of women they find attractive is totally helping the students learning. No unwanted advances are taking place is code for "no forced touch or stalking is happening".

[gverrilla]

> marriage

> purest romantic intention