• Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
      1·
      3 days ago

      Okay, this meme actually doesn’t contain Saddam Hussein. I know it’s a shock, you’d better sit down. Actually lie down. Lower. Lower. Keep going. There he is.

  • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
    2·
    4 days ago

    “traveling” yikes.

    That is one way to say, you think wealth is attractive.

    I have traveled quite a bit and I like it a lot, but it is no hobby. For it to be a hobby, I would have to have a lot more money.

    Once or even twice a year, is hardly a hobby.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      3 days ago

      A lot of these hobbies are wealth-adjacent.

      Playing an instrument: a good instrument isn’t cheap, and music lessons can be pretty expensive.

      Woodworking requires a lot of fairly expensive tools, and a space to do it. You can’t really have woodworking as a hobby if you live in a small studio apartment. You basically need a house, either one with a basement, a shed or a garage.

      Gardening: requires a garden, something you’re unlikely to have unless you have your own house.

      Photography: I don’t know anybody who is into photography who hasn’t sunk a lot of money into the hobby. There’s the cameras, the lenses, and even the software these days.

      Astronomy: see above.

      Hiking: not expensive on its own, but in North America it means being able to drive to a wilderness spot outside the city, so you pretty much require your own car.

      Archery and blacksmithing: again, requires a specialized space

      Now, I know that there are cheap options for a lot of these. A musician could be someone drumming on an upside-down pail. Someone who only has access to a hotplate could still experiment with food. Woodworking could be just whittling sticks found in the park. Gardening could just be tending to a small houseplant. But, are these the version of the hobbies the women are picturing when they’re imagining a potential mate doing the activity? Probably not.

      Meanwhile, a lot of the stuff at the bottom of the list are very cheap hobbies. Like being influenced by the “Manosphere” just requires access to social media, same with porn and “arguing online”.

      Honestly, it looks to me like if you sorted the list by “dollars per hour someone invested in that hobby is likely to spend” you’d get many of the same things at the top and many of the same ones at the bottom. Some of the few exceptions are writing and reading, which can be pretty cheap hobbies, but are still apparently very attractive.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        0·
        2 days ago

        For astronomy (really astrophotography, which is considered even more expensive) I guess it depends on what you consider expensive. For $500 and with 3 free software products I’m able to produce stuff like this:

        A rather large telescope (8" dobsonian reflector) I have as well was “only” $500. So it can be a hobby that you don’t need to spend all that much on, but again that depends on what we consider expensive. $500 is definitely not cheap but I’m just a schmuck in a factory and I could save for that.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          2 days ago

          I’m sure you know other people spending thousands on their gear. Anyhow, many of these hobbies can be done relatively cheaply, but I imagine the woman picturing the man doing it as someone who wasn’t going the ultra-cheap route.

          Nice picture btw. How far do you have to travel to get somewhere where there’s a low enough level of light pollution that you can take a picture like that?

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            1·
            1 day ago

            Thanks! I’m lucky enough to live in a bortle 4 zone so that was taken right outside my house, it’s just processed a bit to pull out the colors and darken the background.

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              1 hour ago

              Cool stuff, I live in a city. Not a huge city, but big enough that I only see the major stars at night. It would probably take me at least 45 minutes of driving to get somewhere dark enough to take a picture like yours (assuming I had all the equipment and skill to take that kind of picture at all).

      • bluewing@lemm.ee
        0·
        4 days ago

        For the vast majority of you, long travel is required to get to somewhere you can backpack. And the the gear and foodstuffs is expensive also. And judging by the damages to the environment that some inconsiderate people leave these days, I’m not sure that you should be allowed to. (I’m getting sick and tired of picking up garbage and hauling it out of the forest I live in).

        • NielsBohron@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          4 days ago

          “Backpacking” can also mean couch surfing and staying in hostels or on park benches. In the early 2000’s, it was a really popular way to travel across Europe (at least among rich white college kids)

          • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
            0·
            4 days ago

            Is hostels still a thing for young people?

            I wonder if AirBnB destroyed that industry. I saw a “hostel” in my city but it was charging $70 a night. When I was growing up, hostels were like $20-30 a night, cheaper than a motel 6.

            • NielsBohron@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              4 days ago

              Afaik, they’re still around, but inflation and popularity has caused the prices to increase a fair bit.

              • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.netEnglish
                0·
                4 days ago

                Voyager recently added user tags (allows you to label other users) but the app also doesn’t appear to use the display name option available in Lemmy (or at least no one has it enabled from the screenshots I’ve seen posted), so it just shows the username you use to log in, which doesn’t have special characters.

                My display name is my username, but spelled using emojis in case you don’t see it that way, either.

                • aeharding@vger.social
                  1·
                  4 days ago

                  Oh, I see. Voyager doesn’t show that because display names are confusing for mentions, can be used to impersonate, and distracting. It might be an option to enable in the future, off by default.

                  Edit:

                  Claim

                  To clarify how I really feel, here’s my hot take: display_name is a really awful feature and should be removed from Lemmy.

                  Why?

                  They are dangerous by default because the very concept implies that clients should render display_name instead of the username, if it exists. Which is unwise: Apps have to choose between replacing (bad for impersonation/UX/distraction reasons) and showing both (which just looks duplicative most of the time).

                  What makes this feature even more frustrating is that people are now using display names for their username + flairs of actually important things, like gender identities. (for example, display_name="Alex (he/his)")

                  It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation for Lemmy clients. Some people are using display_name for important info like gender identities, and yet display_name is so incredibly easy to impersonate people and otherwise abuse.

                  Solution?

                  What is the solution? I think Lemmy should ditch display_name and replace with flair (or something like this). The general idea is that flair is NOT a replacement for your username, but rather it will be displayed alongside it.

                  Maybe even make flair per-community like Reddit. I think that was a much better design than what Lemmy currently has.

  • zante@slrpnk.netEnglish
    1·
    4 days ago

    Woodworking 94%. Right.

    Try ordering a new lathe after you’re married.

    • xkbx@startrek.website
      1·
      4 days ago

      That’s because the deal has already been sealed. They typically wanna keep you off the market, not increase your “resale” value. Unless you’re into that kinda thing. Like, cucking or sharing kinda kinks, not human trafficking. Human trafficking isn’t sexy. Unless you’re into that kind of thing. Like, as a fantasy, not as a real thing. Real human trafficking isn’t sexy. Unless you’re into that kinda thing. Like, as in humans stuck in traffic or transforming into cars and being stuck in traffic, not as being sold as a commodity. Unless you’re into that kind of thing.

  • coherent_domain@infosec.pubEnglish
    0·
    3 days ago

    Uh, there is a typo, the second probably should say “functional languages”. We all know how people are attracted to map, filter, and reduce.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      0·
      4 days ago

      It’s a bit of both. I can see these hobbies leading to a healthy relationship, but anyone who thinks the answer isn’t “hit the gym” is coping.

      (Btw I’m no gym rat, but this is a fact)

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        4 days ago

        anyone who thinks the answer isn’t “hit the gym” is coping.

        I’d put “hit the dermatologist” above it. Plenty of girls go for the skinny or husky builds. But blemishes are a universal turn off

        • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
          0·
          4 days ago

          The benefits of hitting the gym are much more than just getting swole. It increases self-confidence, helps to improve self-image, etc, which are all way more important to getting laid than any hobby you could have.

            • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
              0·
              3 days ago

              Not at a biochemical/hormonal level, which you definitely can for at least physical activity.

                • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
                  0·
                  2 days ago

                  No. I don’t think that going to a dermatologist causes significant hormonal changes like exercising regularly does. Why would I ever think that salicylic acid and antibiotics would affect my neurotransmitters and hormones significantly? They don’t…

  • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    4 days ago

    Judging by what I see on dating sites, fishing is near the bottom of the list. So many women’s profiles say something like “I don’t want to see a picture of you holding a fish”

    • Belgdore@lemm.ee
      0·
      4 days ago

      It’s that men don’t take a lot of pictures of themselves. Then they refuse to take any specifically for their dating profiles. Taking pictures specifically for a dating profile would show that they actually care about finding a person they would do other things specifically for.

      • Fosheze@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        4 days ago

        It’s that men don’t take a lot of pictures of themselves.

        I can’t speak for all men but I have a complete inability to look even remotely normal if I know a picture is being taken of me. I try to take profile pics and they all wind up awful and that’s not just my view. I showed my friend just to make sure it wasn’t just poor self image talking and they reacted like I was showing off a broken bone. I think the only way I’m going to get workable dating profile pics is if I have a friend take pictures of me without me noticing like I’m some sort of cryptid and they’retrying to capture proof.

      • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        4 days ago

        Taking pictures specifically for a dating profile would show that they actually care about finding a person they would do other things specifically for.

        This is a dead giveaway that you’ve never asked men why they don’t take and share pictures of themselves. Most men in the anglosphere consider it vain and self-destructive to obsess over their looks. You can also see it in the way they buy clothes (“I’ll take 5 pairs of the same pants, thanks”), the way they cut their hair (“just take an inch off and even it out”), and the way they present themselves, often with as few accessories and adornments as possible. Those they do have are utilitarian or deeply personal.

        • valtia@lemmy.world
          0·
          4 days ago

          that’s exactly the point. taking a picture won’t kill you, and it sets you apart from all of the other men who are so stubborn that they refuse

          • urbeker@programming.dev
            0·
            4 days ago

            This is what’s wrong with the culture wars. You know why most men don’t have any pictures of themselves, or if they do it’s of them doing something else? That’s the only time people take pictures of them. Most men literally don’t have someone that they can just ask to take a picture of them. That coupled with the generally terrible body image issues most men have means taking dating profile photos is intimidating, better just to flick through the ten or so photos you already have and pick a couple.

            I would bet the vast majority of men posting pictures of themselves holding fish would love decent photos just of them but have no idea how to do it themselves or have anyone to ask.

            • Belgdore@lemm.ee
              0·
              4 days ago

              Those are excuses. I took selfies and found my girlfriend of two years on a dating app. I learned how to pose myself and present a good image. One of the pictures is a major factor in why she started talking to me in the first place. My expression and eyes were what she liked.

              I have body image issues, I had no one to help me, I have depression and anxiety, and I got it done. No one is asking men to move the earth. Women are just asking for them to give it a try and show that they give a shit.

              It’s not culture wars, it’s men failing to even try a little bit to even look interested.

  • kamen@lemmy.world
    0·
    4 days ago

    When does cooking stop counting as a basic day to day survival thing and start counting as a hobby?

    • Gladaed@feddit.org
      0·
      4 days ago

      Cooking qs a Hobby is not throwing together a Quick meal, but actually making an effort to cook. I.e. trying new things, cooking homemade pizza or even a roast.

      • Miles O'Brien@startrek.websiteEnglish
        0·
        4 days ago

        “throwing together a quick meal” should have it’s own word.

        “cooking” to me implies you’re working on something worth the time it takes, something you want to put effort into.

        But when I just got home, nothing is easy to make and I have to throw something quick together, it doesn’t feel like really cooking to me. Like im half assing it, it should have a half-assed name.

        • RBWells@lemmy.world
          1·
          3 days ago

          My kids love these meals and I’m not sure why. I usually say “watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat!” and throw something together. Unless it’s a stir fry, they don’t like that. But a leftover baked potato becoming home fries with eggs and the half a tomato and half an onion from the fridge? The leftover cabbage going into the last handful of lentils for a stew? Casserole of leftover pasta, odds and ends with cheese, topped with bread crumbs? They are so happy with these oddball meals for some reason, and I think if you can make something with whatever you have, that IS a valuable cooking skill.