[kikokikokiko]

I don't know if it's just another example of my complete immunity towards advertising and marketing in all of it's forms, but one of the requirements I set early on when I started to think seriously about settling down was "she can't give any value, at all, to useless things like an idiotic ring with a dumb whisperer's rock on it". I found my girl thank God. Not being an american neither having lived in the US at any point in my life, it always amazed me that your society accepted as common knowledge that "you must spend X months of your salary on a dumb whisperer's rock to prove to your woman that you value her. The DeBeers corporation sure did a good job on you guys.

[isykt]

Companies are staffed by hundreds of people whose entire job, day and and day out, is to influence how you think about their products. You are not immune to advertising, and thinking that you are is naive. If your goal is reduce how influenced you are by people who sell things, understanding how they influence you and why is a better strategy.

[hfuyf65]

While we are likely aligned with regards to advertising, I would like you to consider a counter argument.

The rock is a rock, but its exaorbitant price serves as a threshold for potential mate selection. We may consider it crass, but animal kingdom is full of examples of females considering males based on specific criteria.

[kikokikokiko]

Yes, it's perfectly expected for females (on average) to give a lot of value to "useless" demonstrations of fitness when selecting a mate. The peacock exists.

But it's also perfectly expected for a male, if he's aware of these innate traits, when selecting a female partner, if he's looking for more important things other than looks and physical attractiveness, to give more "points" to different traits. In my case, intelligence was factor number 1. If she reaaally needs that stupid ring, she's out. In the end I got myself a PhD girlfriend, that is way smarter than me, and with whom I can have conversations way into my 80s. Mission accomplished. Thank you DeBeers for creating a standardized test to put potential wives through.

[corethree]

We like to tell ourselves intelligence is a factor. But really male attraction preferences are based on physical looks.

Personality is a close second but males are very simple in this department too. Men just want someone chill and nice and not crazy.

Intelligence and career come in next as mostly not considered at all. The young hot girl working at Starbucks does better than a older jaded PhD girl. Especially if that PhD girl is superficially fat. Good conversation isn't a factor here.

This is how most men operate. There are clearly exceptions. But more than exceptions there are men who lie to themselves and claim their base nature is above that.

Additionally I will say that intelligence doesn't wipe away a womens instinct. They still covet some sort of tribute from a romantic standpoint. Women can have high intelligence and still desire a ring. They can suppress this desire but this suppression isn't related to intelligence. Think about it, it doesn't take high IQ to understand what a blood diamond is.

Anyway sometimes in rare cases a man is highly desirable and extremely high value. If a man has a bunch of options among hot young women to choose from that is the only situation where intelligence plays a big role. Why not? Every woman is hot and nice and the only differentiator is intelligence. Go for it. That's probably your case. I imagine you have a bunch of hot super model esque girls pining for you and you picked the one who didn't want a ring and had a PhD. Good for you! Seriously. But note you are the exception not the rule.

[nwellinghoff]

I don’t think this is the case for most men I know. If you are just looking for “hot” you can date almost indefinitely these days. Marriage is a partnership and with the cost of living these days it might not be wise to choose “hot works at starbucks” over “smart and can contribute to the family”

[corethree]

The majority of men place looks as the primary factor. Even for marriage.

For millions of years women have contributed only child care and house work to the family unit. For millions of years it is only men and the capability to hunt, strategize, use their strength to build shelter and farm that was critical to the survival of the family unit. Feminism and equal occupations is only a very recent phenomenon.

Therefore when it comes to marriage men are biologically inclined to not look at "capability" or intelligence as a big factor. Evolutionarily speaking men are driven primarily by the fertility of the woman and personality as a second factor. Make no mistake, It is fair and just to give women equal rights but our biology is not equipped to fully account for this new reality.

This female dating match maker with years of experience illustrates the preferences for both men utterly clearly:

https://youtu.be/pAF0Ebg48A0?si=SmECgNA0Tsv2Cu0c

Additionally most men cannot date "indefinitely". Statistics show among dating apps women are exclusively dating a small pool of high value men. The majority of men do not get very many matches.

Most of this is evident to most men. There are a few cases where this isn't evident:

1. You are a woman. Women tend not to be aware. This is the most likely scenario.

2. You are a high value man. Therefore you have an abundance of choices. Your reality is therefore different from most men.

3. You are a man and an exception to the rule. You are low value but you still value intelligence over looks. This is the least likely scenario.

[hfuyf65]

<< Additionally most men cannot date "indefinitely".

I followed the argument and was on the fence for most of it, but here I clearly disagree. This is one advantage for a male in a dating pool. He can absolutely date ( and sire children ) longer than women. I have an anecdote about it, but it is just that.

Now... women have a lot less time to find a suitable mate. Men can wait.. if they choose to do so.

[kikokikokiko]

I am aware that I have some attributes that made me very efective in the dating pool. I became single again in my early 30s, when the dating app boom was starting, circa 2014. I have always been in shape throughout my life, I am a house owner, and know how to write well and mantain a healthy conversation (I do not live in an english speaking country and it's not my native tongue).

Basically, the dating market available through dating apps is an infinite holodeck of available women, for men that have a reasonable enough sense of humor and specially, ARE NOT CREEPY AND NEVER, EVER, SEND A DICK PICK TO A WOMAN.

Really, it's that simple. Even when, eventually, a girl asks a guy for a "nude", NEVER, EVER, send one.

There's only two possibilities: it's either a real woman, and sending it or not will NOT make any difference in terms of the date going through or not, or the most probable possibility, it's a man on the other side of the conversation. No heterosexual man got extra points for sending nudes to a woman, ever.

After 2 and a half years of LITERALLY having dates every weekend, the revolving door of Starbucks 20 somethings becomes very boring. A non creepy man with middle class finances in his 30s can date anywhere from 18 to 40 year olds easily, and over time you start to realise that you prefer the company of the 35yo girls, but the looks of the 21s.

So I made a conscious decision to stop the machine at a certain point and settle down for a 26 year old girl 2 years away from defending her thesis. Now we're 6 years into a relationship and finally thinking about kids.

A man's instinct is to keep dating indefinitely for as long as he can, but believe me, EVERYTHING gets boring given enough time. I have no religion or any ideia about why we are on this world after all, but I believe that happiness is basically following our nature and doing what most fulfills our life from an experiences point of view.

I believe that a young man NEEDS to experience this phase of over polygamy, as well as I believe that having kids and passing your knowledge on to a new generation is an essential part of what being a human being is.

In the end, yes I was probably one of the few "high value men" that those apps tend to be so good at elevating. But once again I can tell you guys: I was never a great ladies man when it came to the traditional dating scene in the 90s and early 2000s. In person dating, on parties and the like, I was really average. On a dating app, it was really easy. Just don't be creepy.

And do not waste your early 30s guys. It's the most amazing time for a man to be on the dating scene, believe me. It's probably the closest a man can feel of what it's like to be a woman at the top of her powers, 18 to 25.

[corethree]

>Basically, the dating market available through dating apps is an infinite holodeck of available women, for men that have a reasonable enough sense of humor and specially, ARE NOT CREEPY AND NEVER, EVER, SEND A DICK PICK TO A WOMAN.

Your tips are irrelevant. The majority of men dont fit your criteria. How dumb do you have to be to send a dick pic? Very few men are that stupid. In fact this isn't even criteria women are judging you based on. If Chris Hemsworth sent a girl a dick pic, he won't be judged as a creeper.

Why? Because he's good looking, high status, over 6ft, rich and women would gobble up his penis no questions asked. There is never really a wrong thing to do or say to a woman, your worth is almost entirely derived from superficial features. Women just call the guy who sent them a dick pic a creeper because that guy had no chance in the first place. They reject and degrade men who make a move but aren't in their league. That's where the entire concept comes from. Women are kind of cruel this way.

Let me spell out the reality. The overwhelming majority of men do not have an endless supply of women to date. Maybe you do, but to be that way you are most likely white, over 6ft, very fit and very rich. Game is a factor here but from your tips you just dished out you basically have none.

You're born lucky and your circumstance is good. The advice of don't send dick pics is absolute garbage because it's blindingly obvious. Do you really think your the only genius who's figured out "don't be creepy"? Come on man. It sounds like you don't need any game and you're succeeding based on circumstance there's nothing insightful you have to offer.

Stay in the clouds bro. I'm serious.

[kikokikokiko]

If you had met the type of guys I know, that are "ugly" in every definition of the word, and are not rich by any means, but are always drowning in poonang, you would not be saying what you are saying. I consider myself average looking, and I have a tendency to get fat very easily. Because of that I've been training martial arts for pretty much all my life since puberty. I realized very early that just by virtue of keeping myself in shape, I started from zero instead of from a negative point. We, as men, have the luxury of not depending (almost) exclusively on our looks to attract women. It helps but is easily forgivable, way easier than for us men to accept a fat woman for instance.

I dated, literally, dozens of women during my years of dating app cruising, and ALL of them would emphatically explain that the main reason that they accepted to go out with me, was that I NEVER ASKED for, nor sent/asked permission for sending nude pics to them. IT REALLY is a deal breaker and a huge advantage on this market, to know these simple rules.

Don't be fat. Don't be unemployed. Pay for the dinner. Do not put sex in the conversation. It's so easy to not creep women out, there's really no secret to it. If you're fat, it's your prerogative to close your mouth. If you're (too) poor, work hard, learn how to save money and it's easy to get to your 30s on a decent enough life situation. I live in a freaking 3rd world country and was able to do it, on a place where a current year iPhone costs the same as 2 years minimum wage salary.

I can't stand men that make excuses in the style of yours, sorry dude. Evolutionary psychology is true, I saw your other comments. And exactly because of that, you should know that it's way easier for a man that started on the bottom tier of the dating rankings to pull himself up by his own decisions, than to a woman. If a woman is born "ugly", it's game over. She's probably going to be a bottom feeder on the dating market. I feel REALLY sorry for ugly women when I meet one, I have a sister that is in this situation and it is not a good life.

Choose your destiny dude.

[matisseverduyn]

> But it's also perfectly expected for a male, if he's aware ... looking for more important things ...

I wonder if any Bowerbirds have shared your revelation.

[hfuyf65]

This a fascinating wiki entry. Thank you for making HN a more interesting place for all.

On a separate note, it seems the ornate courtship is offset with regular polygamy. I might be reading too much into it and try to extrapolate to human behavior, which is way more messy.

[matisseverduyn]

Thanks! I thought those who hadn't heard about Bowerbirds yet might find their habits interesting :) There are a few good documentaries as well.

[rad_gruchalski]

> In the end I got myself a PhD girlfriend

Did you have them lined up and you picked one?

[kikokikokiko]

Pretty much. That's what dating apps are for.

[Roark66]

>The rock is a rock, but its exaorbitant price serves as a threshold for potential mate selection.

Indeed, but don't we already have much more practical things that serve the same purpose? For example a nice house/apartment or a car. Things we own, even what kind of furniture we have. All this communicates ones ability to provide for a family better than a rock. Gold itself is much better (preferably in bars or coins, not jewellery).

The problem with diamonds isn't that they are only a token of value. The problem is that they are extremely overvalued during the first purchase in jewellery. If one could buy an engagement ring for $10k then 10 years later sell it and make profit with regards to inflation (like it was a gold coin/bar) I would have no problem with it.

[corethree]

Those don't work. The sacrifice must have zero utility.

It's unequivocally clear to a woman and to all other women who she shows the ring too that the ring was 100 percent a tribute to her and only to her and only for that purpose.

Like peacocking the peacocks feather has zero utility. It is purely a mating ritual. A car or a house is not as clear because it has shared utility.

[corethree]

The keyword is "romance" any romantic gesture tends to have zero utility.

Buying a car or a house for a woman is not romantic at all. in terms of "romance" women tend to be looking for a clear and unequivocal display of devotion.

[yencabulator]

I'm married and neither of us has a ring of any kind. It is possible to find reasonable, non-materialistic, people, even in the US. The average mindset can be quite disappointing for sure -- but hey, we're aiming for above-average mates right?

(Pro-tip: If you find yourself surrounded by people with incredibly old school value systems and no desire to think for themselves, move to one of the bigger melting pot cities on the coasts. You'll find others like you already did.)

[friend_and_foe]

For me it was the opposite: move to the middle of nowhere because big city girls are materialistic and more often than not unscrupulous in my experience. It worked.

[friend_and_foe]

I'm an american but I found mine too. She gets the diamond thing, but I believe in real tradition and the power of some of these organic customs. A valuable gift upon engagement is a collateralized commitment. I told her I'd get her something valuable, not just expensive, because there's a difference. She gets it.