Sonntag, 5. Juli 2026

Why You Must Become a Creator - Consuming too much is destroying you

Why You Must Become a Creator
Consuming too much is destroying you
The Culturist



We are the most entertained people in history, but might we be the least creative?

Nowadays, it is frighteningly easy to spend the best part of a day consuming the creations of others: listening, streaming, scrolling. For most of us, the ratio of consumption to creation has never been more lopsided — and yet, the tools of creation are more accessible than ever.

Let us establish at the outset that consuming art is itself a worthy pursuit. But if this is all you do, what are you giving up?

G.K. Chesterton once wrote that a culture has become decadent when its people prefer to pay others to dance for them, rather than a whole room of people doing the dancing for themselves.

This matters because creation is not just a joyful addition to human life, but the defining feature of it. This is an argument made by several great writers, from Ruskin to Chesterton to Tolkien: that created beings are designed to create things themselves.

This article examines why
— and importantly how — we must all pick up a pen or a brush, and bring into the world something of our own…

Dorothy L. Sayers, an Oxford contemporary of J.R.R. Tolkien (and honorary Inkling in my view), made this compelling argument in her book, The Mind of the Maker. In it, she argues why the desire to create is an integral part of the human experience.

"When we turn back to see what [the author of Genesis] says about the original upon which the ‘image’ of God was modeled, we find only the single assertion, ‘God created’. The characteristic common to God and man is apparently that: the desire and the ability to make things."

It is through the process of imaginative creation that a human being in some sense emulates the God of Genesis: creating something out of nothing.

"It is the artist who, more than other men, is able to create something out of nothing. A whole artistic work is immeasurably more than the sum of its parts." ...

Bejahung des Flows / Embracing Flow:

Ein bisschen auch den Flow sich erlauben, dass man die Zügel aus der Hand legen darf, ohne dass hierbei etwas Negatives, ja, dass hierbei sogar etwas Positives sich ergeben und entstehen wird.

-----

To grant oneself the freedom to enter a state of flow—to release one's grip on the reins, trusting that this will not lead to anything negative, but may instead give rise to something genuinely positive.

Flow und Analyse / Flow and Analysis:

Der Flow schließt Seiten von dieser Welt auf, die das rational-logisch-analytische Gespräch oder Selbstgespräch nicht oder kaum aufschließen kann.

-----

Flow opens up aspects of the world that rational, logical, and analytical conversation—or inner dialogue—cannot, or can scarcely, reveal.

Attractive Men:

Alexander / @Datepsych: "If you were to take a sample of highly attractive men and look at how many people they had sex with over a short period, for example the last 5 years, it would probably be higher than the general population.
Yet, the mode would probably be just one person.
Why? Because most are getting into relationships, staying in relationships and having sex with their partner.
We overestimate the prevalence of promiscuity and we also overestimate the prevalence of sexual activity in our peers.
I would be surprised if you took a sample of men on Tinder and compared them with a sample of married men if the married men were not more attractive. Their female partners would probably also be more attractive, too.
This seems to be the case when we compare the married population with the single population; married people and people in relationships tend to be more attractive on average.
In other words, Tinder is not populated by Chads.
I have friends here online who I speak to in incel communities who are often surprised I have only had sex with one person in the last ~5 years or so.
The idea being: "but why, you could have sex with more."
But this is really just the norm for men who are romantically successful. Most will be in relationships. Most will not stay single for long periods of time. When in relationships, most will restrict their sexual behavior to that one person.
This is much more normal behavior, statistically speaking, than the promiscuous "spreading your seed" caricature of male behavior.
And when you consider that women are much less inclined to promiscuity than men, despite most romantically successful men restricting themselves to one partner, this should also make you question any narratives claiming that all women are engaging in promiscuous behavior.
Most people, women even more, just want to have a single partner. They want to meet someone, fall in love and have a boyfriend or girlfriend.
Manosphere dating discourse seems to have a huge blind spot when it comes to acknowledging the extent to which men have a desire to pair bond and form relationships.
This is explained in evolutionary psychology, but for some reason the manosphere hasn't embraced this.
This is why, for example, the incel problem can't be solved by visiting sex workers. Why most incels don't even want to visit a sex worker.
And why men continue to form relationships at all, instead of just having transactional sex for cash.
We often phrase things colloquially as exclusion from the access to sex or mating.
However, it might actually be more accurate to describe the problem is exclusion from pair bonding, or exclusion from relationship formation.
The goal does not seem to be just sex, which all things considered can be purchased affordably.
Men seem to want sex in the context of a relationship, with a devoted partner, a partner who is exclusive to them, and who has genuine desire for them."

Dark Triad People Tend to Have Shitty Relationships:

Alexander / @Datepsych:

"The "Dark Triad" is selected for assortatively: people who score high in these traits are more likely to pick and form relationships with others who do as well.
The DT is often thought of something that benefits "short term" relationships - given that DT people seek casual sex.
But the assertive effect is even stronger for long-term relationships.
Why? Probably because your hook-ups become your LTRs.
sciencedirect.com
Although there is a subculture of "dark seduction" Pick-Up Artistry that tells young men to mimic the DT to get casual sex, the DT is legitimately a dysfunctional personality construct.
You probably also won't be able to fake being DT for very long.
Dark Triad couples - lower marital satisfaction, higher divorce rates.
psycnet.apa.org

High Body Counts:

Alexander / @Datepsych

"Put another way - the difference between a man with a high body count and one without is mostly personality or behavior.
Two men look alike - one chooses promiscuity, one stays married for 10 years.
The DT is an example of one of those personality diffs.
I have talked about how DT people seek out casual sex.
I should also add that lifetime sexual partner count is an artifact of failed relationships.
It isn't a pure measure of "I wanted NSA casual sex a lot."
Relevant that the DT contributes to relationship failure.
People who have impairments to their ability to maintain monogamous relationships have more lifetime sexual partners.
They try to form relationships, have sex, and break up after a short period.
They may not even be short-term oriented at all.
There is the meme of "too much sex harms a woman's ability to pair bond."
This gets it backwards.
People who can't form pair bonds (this is partly genetic) rack up more sexual partners.
This also applies to men."

Samstag, 4. Juli 2026

Women Attack Men When They are Happy:



Women attack men when they’re happy. Relationship expert Alison Armstrong says it’s because male happiness and power together feel threatening when a woman doesn’t feel deeply connected. If he’s pumped about his sports win, big fish, or guys’ trip, and she didn’t create that joy, it can trigger fear. So she diminishes it. “Why are you so happy without me?” It’s not conscious cruelty. It’s an unconscious reaction to power she doesn’t feel safe with. “The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The opposite of happiness is not sadness, it’s fear.” https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/2068291671725334928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


If men did something this dysfunctional to women, the talk would mostly be about how to teach men to stop it.