Simps Will Ruin Dating For Everyone In 5 Years

Post Reply New Topic

So what you really mean is that “dating” is code for “prostitution”. Women who used to be willing to meet up with guys and exchange sex they didn’t want for food/gifts/etc. are now making a living from online porn instead.

I’m quite sure that women who actually want sex are still willing to go out and find a partner.

The most interesting thing about the video is that he explains what the mainstream wants you to think. Most people responding here, in turn, are parroting the mainstream view. It's okay to disagree, but no one responding here seems to go beyond what the author of the video says around 9:15, seemingly providing the point.

I think there are social frictions leading to videos like this. Dismissing them and trying to sweep them under the rug is merely an attempt at wish-away. There wouldn't be so much of this sort of content is something wasn't wrong.

You could argue that the modern meaning - of men who put money into the parasocial relationship they have with women on Only Fans, some in the hopes that the women will actually develop feelings for them, also fit into the older meaning - a simpleton. Chumps also works. I think fools is the most fitting.

Frankly it's a lot like walking into a strip bar and expecting the workers, who are solely there because it earns money, to come home with you.

However, sites such as Only Fans don't quite sit well with me. I think that they exploit a very particular demographic - single, lonely, isolated men who are otherwise starved of contact. Adult content has been around for a long time, but such sites break the forth wall - there is interaction which is otherwise missing from traditional pornography.

Which is quite a dangerous development. It is a safety issue for the workers, since men could potentially track them down. On the other side, it creates a one sided power dynamic where the audience puts the performer on a pedestal and pours money into the stream with the expectation that it'll go beyond the unwritten agreement (aka that this is just an online performance to earn profit and nothing more - although I suspect this is probably written in the terms and conditions of the site).

Really? Are you sure these two phenomena are connected the way you think they are?

Internet porn has been around a lot longer than OnlyFans. And, for at least the past two decades or so, there have always been lots of small porn producers that sold their stuff via larger platforms.

Long-distance interactive erotic entertainment, without physical sex, is nothing new either. Years before the Internet became popular, one of my best friends made her living doing phone sex.

Exactly what new feature(s) of OnlyFans do you think has resulted in such a huge increase in the number of women able to earn a living in the erotic entertainment business that vast numbers of women would no longer be interested in sex?

(I'll also point out that my friend the phone sex worker didn't stop having sex, on her own time, as a result.)

If indeed there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of women interested in casual sex with people they meet online, are you sure there isn't some other explanation? For example, if there was a sudden decrease a little less than three years ago, perhaps the most likely explanation might be the COVID crisis?

Here's my theory.

10 years ago, there were only a few main dating sites (and again, "dating" was often code for "sex" on these websites). Plenty of Fish, Ok Cupid, Craigslist, etc

I speak from experience when I say this: Quite a few of the women on those websites would meet up for totally free casual sex.

Then a few years later (as smartphones became more and more common), lots of new dating apps came out. These new dating apps quickly became loaded with escorts. It's like their logic was "Why meet up with guys for free sex when I could charge?"

Then another few years later, Only Fans became big. At which point, the escorts from dating apps realized "I don't even have to meet up for sex anymore to make a living. I can sell pictures/videos on Only Fans"

Granted, Only Fans became big shortly before the pandemic started. It's possible the pandemic could have played a role in the fact that the sex marketplace has dried up. But then again, the pandemic is over (and the sex marketplace started drying up before we even knew a pandemic was on the way)

And even these sites weren't yet as popular as some of them later became?

Craigslist has always had a reputation for discreetly worded prostitute ads, even 15 to 20 years ago, if I remember correctly.


As some of the old sites/apps were also getting more and more popular, also due to the increase in smartphone use?


Or perhaps, as the sites/apps got bigger, more numerous, and more competitive, it became harder and harder for them to enforce their terms of service? I would expect ads for illegal prostitution to be a violation of the terms of service of most (perhaps even all) of these sites/apps?

Also, as any scene (of any kind) grows, it tends to attract more and more people hoping to make a living from it, by whatever means might be relevant.

I would hazard a guess that the earlier non-prostitutes and the subsequent escorts were, in most cases, NOT the same women. While some women might indeed have made the kind of decision you suggested, I strongly doubt that this is the entire explanation of the changes you observed.

I would also expect that, as dating apps have continued to grow in popularity, women in general would not use them as much as men, and the relatively few women who do use them for casual hookups wouldn't need to spend very much time on these sites/apps.


Do you know the actual personal histories of these content creators? Or are you just drawing conclusions based on a perceived waxing and waning of the numbers of escorts on dating apps?

There are other possible explanations of the waxing and waning of escorts on dating apps. For example, if the number of escorts on dating apps has gone down, perhaps this might be at least partly because the dating sites/apps might have finally found better ways to crack down on ads for illegal prostitution?

I would hazard a guess that at least some, maybe even most, of the OnlyFans creators might be already-existing porn stars, for whom OnlyFans gives them more control over their content and a better way to earn money from it.

It's certainly possible, indeed likely, that some OnlyFans creators are former in-person sex workers who decided that OnlyFans was a safer and easier alternative to in-person prostitution. But I would expect OnlyFans creators to have a variety of possible life histories, not just the particular one you suggested.


No the pandemic is not over.


I think part of the problem may be that too many people have come to think of even nonprofessional sex as a "marketplace."

Well, yeah. Hopefully not many clients actually expect such a thing. Hopefully even most of the "simps" in this context are just frequent clients and don't expect anything more.


Obviously.


Interactive long-distance erotic entertainment is not new. Before Internet porn, there was phone sex. As for interactive erotic entertainment via the Internet, I just now googled "interactive porn," and apparently that's not new or unique to OnlyFans either.


Agreed about the dangers. Hopefully the women's identities are well-hidden? I wonder what kind of advice, if any, OnlyFans gives performers on how to protect their identities? If no such advice is given, that would certainly be a concern.

The author is engaging in a tactic called "Poisoning the Well" -- an example of which would be me saying that anyone who disagrees with my claim is a Dog-Kicking Commie and a Traitor to America.

Oh look!  Someone is about to disagree with me!  Now I can accuse them of animal abuse, being a Bolshevik, and not being a True American!

I just now watched the video again.
My understanding of it is a bit different the second time around.

I notice now that the video starts out by talking briefly about OnlyFans -- and "simps" in the OnlyFans sense of the word -- but then quickly shades over into talking about dating for (nonprofessional) casual sex, and then dating for relationships -- without clearly indicating that he is changing the subject in each case. The video confusingly blurs together the following 3 categories, which most people regard as distinct:

1) Paying for sex or erotic entertainment.
2) Dating with the aim of casual sex.
3) Dating with the aim of relationships.

If OnlyFans is set up in such a way as to encourage men to confuse category #1 with categories #2 and #3, then I would agree that that's a problem. But that's not what Wheat Waffles is complaining about. Rather, he himself seems to be confused.

Spending huge amounts of money on erotic entertainment is obviously not the best possible use of a limited budget. Thus, being too much of a "simp" -- in the OnlyFans sense -- is obviously not a good thing, at least if the man isn't wealthy enough to afford it easily.

If I understand correctly, Wheat Waffles's main objection to "simping" in the OnlyFans sense seems to be that he thinks it will encourage other women (NOT the OnlyFans creators themselves, and NOT just other sex workers either) to expect men to spend lots of money on ordinary (non-sex-work) real-life dates.

That's what he seems to be worried about, as far as I can tell, but he doesn't spell it out that clearly. Rather, he just mushes together sex work, casual sex, and relationships. And he uses the word "simping" to refer to a man spending money in any of these contexts.

Personally, I don't think it's likely that most women would even be fully aware of, much less take inspiration from, what sex workers are doing -- on OnlyFans or anywhere else. So I doubt that the existence of OnlyFans is going to raise most women's expectations about how much money men spend on dates.

I think it's the old modern society is changing the way we date and have sex debate. It has some merits I imagine because in the space of just one generation, technology has improved beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

I don't really know what to make of it. Birth rates are dropping (at least for men born in developed nations) and supposedly rates of male virginity in particular are sky rocketing which I believe myself anyway irrespective of studies and data.

I think something has happened and not for the best with sex and relationships in the space of just one generation, but I cant really put a finger on it. Me along with the video creator can only speculate.

I think being a "Chump" aka "SIMP' in this modern world has become far to easy from the comfort that spiffing behind a screen provides. I heard that it's common for men to wait hours in a queue to give their favourite porn stars expensive gifts at meet and greets too. I suppose onlyfans is a modern, more accessible version of that.

Ask those fans to jump in front of a camera crew and live out their fantasy with their idols and I'm sure these mega fans will quickly get cold feet.

The modern screen seems to take away a lot of the relatable, real life interaction from dating and sex. Fantasies can easily take hold and it's very different to real life.

I think he might be worried about male simps actually, from OnlyFans, running out into the real world and behaving in this manner.

I see heartening signals in the other direction, starting with perhaps some women who vlog on these topics who've had deeply atypical lives / upbringings (eg. notsoErudite and kidology) who are really interested in peeling the dynamics apart, partly from how they've watched these dynamics hit them and people they care about but also the realization that the 'incel' category are a category in need of help with respect to therapy, effectively an underserved minority where if we read the mental health statistics of this group without context of how the media Lakoff frames them we'd consider it a mental health emergency. I'm also pretty sure that, even outside the problem of toxic / bitter men on incel boards, our culture might be heavily biased in selecting for, specifically this combination, attractive extroverts, and the real risk of that is - if there's so few introverts left that extroverts never get pushback, a societal checksum is missing and, like what happens if faculty somewhere are 60:1 in a particular political direction, the quality of thought death-spirals and the odds of different kinds of social, economic, and technological catastrophes also increase.

As for what exactly has changed in the past generation, my hypothesis: The popularity of the internet.

When you grow up with technology, it becomes easy for kids (boys especially, for reasons I'm not quite sure) to become total shut-ins. As a result, even a lot of non-ASD boys turn out socially awkward. Which could explain rising male virginity.

I was listening to an interview someone did with Adam Lane Smith, who recently got a bit of controversy for suggesting that male depression works differently than female depression and need different solutions (for example improved agency and capacity in the world much more so than discussion of feelings - which is compelling considering that men are valued and included/excluded much more by what they do than who they are).

He made a really interesting suggestion that there's a terminology for the attachment style that many dating app users show which is called 'avoidant attachment style', and what avoidant attachment style suggest is 'I can't collaborate with people - therefore I need to get the most pleasure out of other people for the least amount of effort on my part', ie. seeing life as a hedonic treadmill and other people as agents who either are or aren't putting their hedonic balance in the black rather than the red. While I'm sure no one wants to have draining people around for similar reasons there's a point to which people do get treated like junk you'd buy at Wal Mart just to decorate your house until you get bored with it, and the behavioral pattern seems sub-clinically sociopathic - not to the extent that these people would deliberately harm other people for it's own sake but that their view of what other people are, to them, is that poorly developed.

The other problem here - subclinical narcissist or sociopathic behaviors gives one 'sharp elbows', and people who have sharp elbows tend to be more environmentally fit in situations where whoever races to the front of the line and pushed everyone else out of the way most aggressively wins. It's one of the ways in which very specialized but incomplete personality types have a way of routing people who are more well-balanced as human beings because the network effects simply allow that to be the case, and by even allowing it, after several rounds of self-selection, that group comes to dominate most others. Again - that's where we really have to think carefully, is this the psychological group who we want to be thought of as 'the future'? For as much as the 'victors' can point back and say 'Butthurt! Butthurt! Butthurt! Everything you're saying is just you trying to pull the advantage back to yourself so you can win instead of us!', regardless or whether or not that claim would be a logical fallacy there's a bigger issue - it's still a valid concern no matter who says it or for what reason.

If that's what he's worried about, then he should be pointing out the differences between erotic entertainment and real-life dating and relationships.

But he doesn't do that. Instead, he himself seems to be a bit confused about the differences, judging by the way he mushes these categories together.

Dating is already ruined because of online dating

Dating is not "ruined".  Its format and protocols have merely changed.  Adapt to those changes or go dateless.