>So men who do want to signal genuine interest in a specific woman can’t; and most women who get messages will necessarily be getting them mostly from men that are interested in not-a-long-term-thing because that’s just a much weaker filter.
This is of course why the appropriate strategy for a woman seeking men on a dating app is to make herself as particular and somewhat offputting as she reasonably can without actually misrepresenting herself. Women seeking men especially, but honestly, probably *everybody* could stand to do this more; hardly anybody is being weird enough on apps
my tactic in every situation is to do my utmost to be as off-putting as I reasonably can without actually misrepresenting myself, so this is great advice.
I think the Finance bro is actually the worst, because he’s being deeply cynical, and the woman he hurts are going to be told that they got hurt because they weren’t cynical enough.
The missing part of that conversation is what the woman in all these relationships communicated. Clearly, ex post they wanted something serious but the models never asked what the woman's stated intentions were. If they say they want something serious then he should disclose when he determines it will not be.
This is touched on later in the article when briefly discussing women looking for "no" rather than accepting the signals that the men are avoiding commitment. The "I'm not your mom" acknowledges the women have agency in these situations.
Managing expectations and proper communication goes both ways.
>I messaged him after the workshop to suggest that he look into hiring a high-class escort as the actually ethical solution to his problem.
Wait, why ???? Are we just casually assuming ALL women want commitment? Of course not, on my Bumble women who set it to "short term" or "poly" keep pop up, because those are my settings too.
Love this story. I learned the hard way recently that even if a guy tells you he wants to be a husband and father and makes it clear he wants something serious (just because he’s going out with you doesn’t mean that he even wants to be serious with you).
There is one method to signal am interested in you for a relationship (because I think we are extra-compatible). Don’t have sex with someone until you agree that you are in an exclusive, dating relationship. Of course Finance Bro is not going to do that because it will decrease the amount of sex he’s having. But for people that value ethics over more sex, it’s an effective solution.
Ambiguity is even worse in real life. On the apps, a man is at least signaling what he would ideally be open to at the highest stage of commitment if things align. In real life, no one walks around with "life partner" on their forehead.
This is where you have to communicate constantly and ask questions constantly. Women do this bullshit of leading people on just as much. It's just not talked about because saying you got used by a woman or she decided she wasn't ready to commit is not very popular. It's normalized that women will seek out highly selective men who just pump and dump them. It's considered highly abnormal for a woman to do it to a man because there's some sense in our dating economy that a woman's sex is worth so much more than a man's. Therefore, if a woman gave up sex with you but didn't want to commit to you then greater society says, "Holy shit, you must be fucking dreck."
Finance guy is really not doing anything *too wrong.* The real issue is that the women he dates are conflict avoidant and afraid of asking direct questions. If he intentionally selects such women, bad guy. If he instead is just dealing with the broader populace then c'est la vie. It is also self-selecting. Women who know what they want and ask for it will filter out of his circle quickly enough. The other women who are cowards or unsure will keep sticking around and getting damaged. He's *probably* not doing this intentionally - the crowd self-selects for this.
I wonder how finance bro would respond to a woman who said, "Well, I would never LIE to Finance Bro about birth control...but he didn't specifically ASK...I mean if he was too conflict-avoidant and cowardly to ASK...he's gotta admit it's right there in my dating profile: wants children someday."
>Women do this bullshit of leading people on just as much
This is true on the surface but generally has an entirely different mechanism. Women, especially younger women, often have a remarkably poor sense of their own desires, and end up guided by vague signals of social desirability to determine whether or not to stay in a relationship. And they're also much more likely to be excessively agreeable and disinclined to say no or decline a request in full generality--and it's generally men who are requesting things of women, not vice versa. This is also not great behavior, it can be emotionally damaging to the men who are getting inaccurate signals of how much the girl they're pursuing actually likes them, but it almost never comes down to anything as scummy as "I want to extract sex from this emotionally attached person that they would otherwise be unwilling to provide." Not that men interested in extracting sex under false implied promises of commitment are perfectly in tune with their desires and deceiving only the woman they're seeing--they're often also deceiving themselves--but it's still scumbag behavior
>The real issue is that the women he dates are conflict avoidant and afraid of asking direct questions
It is a matter of fact that women are, on average, more agreeable than men, and more likely to be emotionally attached to a sexual relationship they're in than men (because they have a higher threshold for entering such a relationship to begin with, for fairly obvious evolutionary reasons). This creates predictable imbalances, for which we used to have various now-rotted social technologies to manage, and a corresponding ethical obligation on the part of the man. "It's your own fault for letting me exploit you" is not a compelling defense.
>FB: “Oh come on, what do you want me to do? Give a disclosure speech on date three? ‘Hey just so you know I find you attractive but I’m not sure you’re the mother of my children?’ That’s insane.”
Model: “No, we want you to say something when you figure out the answer is no. On whatever date it becomes clear to you.”
---
I feel like this question is harder than Finance Bro is being given credit for. And it also seems to assume that everyone he dates wants commitment from him. How do we know that? My question: What do you actually want him to do? Because it sounds like the models are actually saying "Yes." they DO want him to give a disclosure speech as soon as he knows how he feels. Which feels insane (or at least "not obviously correct") to me too, at least in the situation where it is answering a question that has not been asked or implied.
It sounds like he is answering the question honestly when it is asked. Asked either explicitly ("Hey, so what are we?") or implicitly (through his partner ramping up the commitment pressure).
---
Great essay, love your writing. I had never heard anyone articulate the difficulties of the Hinge "Relationship goals" tag before. I've experienced that same thorny thicket. And I really like your framing of ambiguity as signal. That feels true, and is also a helpful frame to examine my own feelings through.
I've given disclosure speeches, it’s uncomfortable but totally possible. I think it can be pretty attractive to: Being able to have integrity correlates with abundance (preselection), and some women prioritise honesty over commitment, especially when they’ve recently been lied to
Genuinely curious… why would it feel “insane” to give a disclosure speech as soon as he knows how he feels? Especially if he knows he’s not interested in long term with the specific woman he’s dating
"I've been having a lot of fun with you and find you really attractive. I'd love to continue exploring the casual side of things, but I don't think it's a good fit long-term."
I feel like all versions of this boil down to "I don't like you enough to date you long-term. Wanna fuck?"
And that feels bad. Very jarring and emotionally dissonant. And sure, you can definitely imagine cases where they feel similarly about the long-term prospects and they do want to fuck. But almost every time, I've felt too weird about it to take that swing and just broke things off.
Maybe other people have a different vision of this? I'd love to hear the specifics of a disclosure speech someone has given / thinks is good, or generally how people would reframe it, or untangle the knot I tied above.
>So men who do want to signal genuine interest in a specific woman can’t; and most women who get messages will necessarily be getting them mostly from men that are interested in not-a-long-term-thing because that’s just a much weaker filter.
This is of course why the appropriate strategy for a woman seeking men on a dating app is to make herself as particular and somewhat offputting as she reasonably can without actually misrepresenting herself. Women seeking men especially, but honestly, probably *everybody* could stand to do this more; hardly anybody is being weird enough on apps
my tactic in every situation is to do my utmost to be as off-putting as I reasonably can without actually misrepresenting myself, so this is great advice.
I think this might just be straightforwardly true
I think the Finance bro is actually the worst, because he’s being deeply cynical, and the woman he hurts are going to be told that they got hurt because they weren’t cynical enough.
The missing part of that conversation is what the woman in all these relationships communicated. Clearly, ex post they wanted something serious but the models never asked what the woman's stated intentions were. If they say they want something serious then he should disclose when he determines it will not be.
This is touched on later in the article when briefly discussing women looking for "no" rather than accepting the signals that the men are avoiding commitment. The "I'm not your mom" acknowledges the women have agency in these situations.
Managing expectations and proper communication goes both ways.
This is brilliant. Best take on the flowers thing I’ve seen, and just correct at every point
>I messaged him after the workshop to suggest that he look into hiring a high-class escort as the actually ethical solution to his problem.
Wait, why ???? Are we just casually assuming ALL women want commitment? Of course not, on my Bumble women who set it to "short term" or "poly" keep pop up, because those are my settings too.
Love this story. I learned the hard way recently that even if a guy tells you he wants to be a husband and father and makes it clear he wants something serious (just because he’s going out with you doesn’t mean that he even wants to be serious with you).
Oh how tedious. So wait until date 10 to bang the guy. Problem solved. Finance bro isn't waiting that out.
There is one method to signal am interested in you for a relationship (because I think we are extra-compatible). Don’t have sex with someone until you agree that you are in an exclusive, dating relationship. Of course Finance Bro is not going to do that because it will decrease the amount of sex he’s having. But for people that value ethics over more sex, it’s an effective solution.
Ambiguity is even worse in real life. On the apps, a man is at least signaling what he would ideally be open to at the highest stage of commitment if things align. In real life, no one walks around with "life partner" on their forehead.
This is where you have to communicate constantly and ask questions constantly. Women do this bullshit of leading people on just as much. It's just not talked about because saying you got used by a woman or she decided she wasn't ready to commit is not very popular. It's normalized that women will seek out highly selective men who just pump and dump them. It's considered highly abnormal for a woman to do it to a man because there's some sense in our dating economy that a woman's sex is worth so much more than a man's. Therefore, if a woman gave up sex with you but didn't want to commit to you then greater society says, "Holy shit, you must be fucking dreck."
Finance guy is really not doing anything *too wrong.* The real issue is that the women he dates are conflict avoidant and afraid of asking direct questions. If he intentionally selects such women, bad guy. If he instead is just dealing with the broader populace then c'est la vie. It is also self-selecting. Women who know what they want and ask for it will filter out of his circle quickly enough. The other women who are cowards or unsure will keep sticking around and getting damaged. He's *probably* not doing this intentionally - the crowd self-selects for this.
I wonder how finance bro would respond to a woman who said, "Well, I would never LIE to Finance Bro about birth control...but he didn't specifically ASK...I mean if he was too conflict-avoidant and cowardly to ASK...he's gotta admit it's right there in my dating profile: wants children someday."
I mean, yeah. If you’re not asking then assume the worst dude.
>Women do this bullshit of leading people on just as much
This is true on the surface but generally has an entirely different mechanism. Women, especially younger women, often have a remarkably poor sense of their own desires, and end up guided by vague signals of social desirability to determine whether or not to stay in a relationship. And they're also much more likely to be excessively agreeable and disinclined to say no or decline a request in full generality--and it's generally men who are requesting things of women, not vice versa. This is also not great behavior, it can be emotionally damaging to the men who are getting inaccurate signals of how much the girl they're pursuing actually likes them, but it almost never comes down to anything as scummy as "I want to extract sex from this emotionally attached person that they would otherwise be unwilling to provide." Not that men interested in extracting sex under false implied promises of commitment are perfectly in tune with their desires and deceiving only the woman they're seeing--they're often also deceiving themselves--but it's still scumbag behavior
>The real issue is that the women he dates are conflict avoidant and afraid of asking direct questions
"The problem with women is that they behave like women." https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/would-you-prefer-a-male-companion
It is a matter of fact that women are, on average, more agreeable than men, and more likely to be emotionally attached to a sexual relationship they're in than men (because they have a higher threshold for entering such a relationship to begin with, for fairly obvious evolutionary reasons). This creates predictable imbalances, for which we used to have various now-rotted social technologies to manage, and a corresponding ethical obligation on the part of the man. "It's your own fault for letting me exploit you" is not a compelling defense.
>FB: “Oh come on, what do you want me to do? Give a disclosure speech on date three? ‘Hey just so you know I find you attractive but I’m not sure you’re the mother of my children?’ That’s insane.”
Model: “No, we want you to say something when you figure out the answer is no. On whatever date it becomes clear to you.”
---
I feel like this question is harder than Finance Bro is being given credit for. And it also seems to assume that everyone he dates wants commitment from him. How do we know that? My question: What do you actually want him to do? Because it sounds like the models are actually saying "Yes." they DO want him to give a disclosure speech as soon as he knows how he feels. Which feels insane (or at least "not obviously correct") to me too, at least in the situation where it is answering a question that has not been asked or implied.
It sounds like he is answering the question honestly when it is asked. Asked either explicitly ("Hey, so what are we?") or implicitly (through his partner ramping up the commitment pressure).
---
Great essay, love your writing. I had never heard anyone articulate the difficulties of the Hinge "Relationship goals" tag before. I've experienced that same thorny thicket. And I really like your framing of ambiguity as signal. That feels true, and is also a helpful frame to examine my own feelings through.
I've given disclosure speeches, it’s uncomfortable but totally possible. I think it can be pretty attractive to: Being able to have integrity correlates with abundance (preselection), and some women prioritise honesty over commitment, especially when they’ve recently been lied to
Genuinely curious… why would it feel “insane” to give a disclosure speech as soon as he knows how he feels? Especially if he knows he’s not interested in long term with the specific woman he’s dating
Why is it somehow more insane to have some form of agency and ask directly?
I never even suggested that it was “more insane” to directly ask.
"I've been having a lot of fun with you and find you really attractive. I'd love to continue exploring the casual side of things, but I don't think it's a good fit long-term."
I feel like all versions of this boil down to "I don't like you enough to date you long-term. Wanna fuck?"
And that feels bad. Very jarring and emotionally dissonant. And sure, you can definitely imagine cases where they feel similarly about the long-term prospects and they do want to fuck. But almost every time, I've felt too weird about it to take that swing and just broke things off.
Maybe other people have a different vision of this? I'd love to hear the specifics of a disclosure speech someone has given / thinks is good, or generally how people would reframe it, or untangle the knot I tied above.