I came across some videos about factories creating silicone animatronic dolls and 99% of comments were men being very delightful. Here are some:

"This is much much better than a real one"

"Never sick, never tiered, never on her periods, never have things to do and always available whenever you want it!!"

"This is the start of THE END for women =))"

"If you pop out the eyes there would be 2 extra holes" (Ew)

They just create an impression that this is all men need some silicone and holes to be happy

I don’t mean the cartoon-villain version of abuse. I’m talking about the everyday moments.the slap that’s “just a slap,” the “I’m just emotional,” the “he’ll be fine,” the chase-down-the-hallway because you were upset. But also the real I'm hitting you out of anger and frustration, and also the verbal way .The moments that would set the world on fire if the roles were reversed.

I watched a video where a woman hit a man right in front of a cop, and when she was told she was under arrest, she said, “For what?” Not sarcasm. Not guilt. Genuine confusion. And honestly? I’ve seen that same confusion in real life,over and over again.

It made me ask a real question: Do some women not register their own actions as abuse when the target is a man?

We’ve built a culture where some behaviors get softened, excused, wrapped in a bow of “I’m just a girl,” “that’s how women are,” “men are babies,” or “he can take it.” Meanwhile, the same culture hammers men for even being near the emotional lines they’re told women have the right to cross.

We can’t chant “boys will be boys” is toxic and then turn around and say “girls just need patience,” “women are emotional,” or “that doesn’t count.”

You don’t get equality by swapping the excuses. you get equality by dropping them.

And let me be clear: This isn’t a post about men being perfect or women being monsters. Men absolutely can be abusive. Women absolutely experience violence. That conversation matters deeply.

But so does this one: Women can cross lines too. And far too often, they don’t recognize it when they do.

If we want relationships that are real, safe, and grown… we have to admit the truth even when it’s dressed in someone else’s reflection.

This post was inspired by : women say that 'mankeeping' is driving them away from wanting relationships because "because they feel they’ve invested too much emotional labor without support in return."

This shows women fail to understand the huge amount of emotional labor men perform for them. Emotional labor that starts with the sad institute known as courting women.

Actually, it starts outside of dating. MenAreTrash, KillAllMen, I choose bear. Women radiate hostility against men like it's Strontium-90 and then gaslight them with bullshit like if they're not "those men" then they shouldn't be offended lest they be accused of self-pitying or dismissive of women's pain. But if you genderflip those memes to reflect men's pain at the hands of women, women lose their everloving minds.

Upon first courtship contact men have to carefully study and interpret women's cues and manage tone, pacing, and emotional cues to show they’re safe, not pushy, and genuinely interested. They have to signal confidence and avoid signs of weakness or it's game over before it even began. Women don't do this in any capacity. They just sit and wait for the clowns to perform for them and do Caesar's thumbs-up or thumbs-down based on whateverthefuck.

And the alpha male meme absolutely does stand because it's the definition that stands even if not the name: confident, dominant (but not domineering), emotionally well-curated men who succeed by an insanely wide margin even if some 'rebellious' outlier women don't go for this. This is the kind of emotional labor that stresses men out and often involves a life of risk-taking and 'confidence building' that explains part of why .

Men have to coddle a woman who’s been hurt previously while not taking her suspicion personally, even as she's not so much filtering him through it, but shredding him through it. All men, even good ones, have to put up with being evaluated against someone else’s past transgressions - largely due to her bad dating choices.

Men have to prove reliability and consistency to counteract a partner’s fear of being let down again as well as constant, gentle reinforcement to rebuild her trust, even when her issues weren’t even caused by him. Men also have to tell the difference between reactions that are tied to his behavior and reactions triggered by her trauma from the past and respond thoughtfully instead of defensively.

In a relationship, men have to make an ongoing effort to ensure she feels secure, even when it means postponing or denying their own emotional needs.

Men perform emotional feats of strength to respond compassionately instead of resentfully when her overreaction to something isn't about him but rather some dude in the past who did her wrong.

He has to deal with her short fuse when it comes to perceived slights based on how some dude did her dirty before.

All of these things are things women take for granted or feel entitled to, and that women don't do for men. Women did you dirty? You're worn out from all the emotional labor you have to do to earn or keep a woman? You're just a bitterboy in the eyes of male feminists, seduction artist wannabes, bluepillers, and women. Navigating and conforming to these rules is just more emotional labor men perform that women do not.

The idea that older men dating younger women are losers - is a woman's revenge fantasy.

At the very least, let's not deny that women in their 20s are, on average, more attractive than older women. No, we won't talk about exceptions like supermodels who look stunning even at 40 - those are exceptions, and you know that.

So how is it that older men who somehow managed to attract a significantly more attractive younger woman - are losers? Well, that's just a revenge fantasy for many women.

After all, even if we assume that this man decided to go after younger women because he "can't get smart older women," he's still competing with a HUGE number of men who are also targeting the same demographic of women. And yet, somehow, he got her attention.

You can think about such relationships whatever you want, it's your right and you are not forbidden from doing so, but trying to present these men as "losers who couldn't attract older women" is just fantasy.

Every day I hear the same paradox echo across the timeline:

“Men don’t approach women anymore.” But in the same breath: “Men should never approach me unless he’s my type.”

Tell me how’s any man supposed to read that map?

There’s no standard. No shared rulebook. Not even internal consistency. One woman can preach both mantras before breakfast. And God help the man who guesses wrong because the punishment is public, instant, and the margin for error is paper-thin.

We’ve created a culture where approach is both demanded and forbidden, where interest is flattering only from the right face, and creepy from the wrong one, even if the behavior is identical.

How is connection supposed to survive that?

Men are told to “shoot their shot,” but also to “know their place.” To be confident, but never presumptuous. To pursue, but only with permission that isn’t granted until after the pursuit.

If we’re going to talk about gender dynamics honestly, then let’s be honest: the rules aren’t rules—they’re vibes. Shifting, personal, unspoken, and unforgiving.

And if we want healthier relationships on either side, maybe we need to admit that:

Nobody’s asking for perfection. Just clarity. Just consistency. Just a world where good intentions don’t get men crucified

If we’re going to demand anything from men, let it at least be something possible.

Edits Before you answer I want to add. Not all women. It goes without saying that not all women are the same. But it seems individual women like to make rules for the group. A women who believe that men should not approach think all men shouldn't. In the same for the opposite. There's not one clear standard and that's what makes it confusing

, a chicken leg touching a woman's thigh. All posters agree how accurately this represents the "nice guy", but the hilarious part is that women who say this applies to "nice guys" had diametrically opposed readings of what behavior the meme is actually supposed to convey:

1. Half the women said the chicken-leg-on-the-thigh moment perfectly captures how gross it feels when guys go for intimate touch without clear verbal consent — a sexualized grab screams entitlement to someone else’s body.

2. Now the other half literally interpreted as the opposite: For them "nice guys" = chicken shit. Hence the chicken leg. In their reading its the sheer lack of balls in how they touch you in a cautious, timid, and clumsy way which is the real turn off.

so basically you're a creep for turning things sexual, and you're a pussy for not turning it sexual strongly enough lol.

Full disclosure, I’m an old man. I’m sick in bed and I’m bored and I fell down the rabbit hole that is this sub, but I’m almost fifty (!), so if you wanna just tell me I have no idea what the fuck I’m talking about, I get it. I’m too old to have an opinion.

Having said that…I just can’t imagine how fucking horrible and awkward it must be to meet up with a total stranger and evaluate them as to whether or not you want to have sex with them. Yuck! That sounds like torture!

Back when I was a strapping young buck, we used to go out with friends and hook up. Hook up with people we already kind of knew usually and then, after we knew there was some kind of mutual attraction, then we would start the dinner and a movie bit. And it was fun and not awkward because we knew there we liked each other!

Obviously this method was not perfect, yes there was cheating and disappointment and all that fun stuff that has existed for about 10,000 years, but there wasn’t any “loneliness epidemic” that I recall. Just a bunch of horny young lads and lasses trying to have a good time.

Don’t any of you just want to get away throw away the dating apps and get back to the good old fashioned ways?

It gets asked all too often on first dates:
“So what are you looking for?”

Here’s the problem: nobody actually knows their intentions with a person they barely know.

• You don’t know if the chemistry is there.

• You don’t know if you’ll vibe, clash, or... bond over underwater basket weaving.

• Sometimes you show up not wanting casual sex and then... 2 hours and 45 minutes later... you.. change your mind! Happens to both genders... Shocker...

But here’s where people (particularly on this sub recently) get it wrong:

They treat “not declaring intentions upfront” as deception**.**
This usually happens when someone [woman] sees a guy [fucks a guy] for a week or two, catches feelings, and then gets upset that he didn’t. Suddenly the narrative becomes:
“He should’ve told me what he wanted from the beginning!”

Surprised Pikachu.

Attraction isn’t a binding contract.
You can’t declare future feelings like calling your shots in pool.

OK fine... but... what about the guys who seem to ALWAYS get girls into situationships? Clearly their intentions are just sex... why don't they just say it!?

Let’s talk about the guy who genuinely is only looking for sex.. because yes, he does exist (ask me how I know...)

A lot of the time he simply never gets confronted with the “what are you looking for?” question. Situations where this question is eliminated include, but are not limited to:

• Cold approaching at bars/clubs

• Flirting (in case you need a definition: acting unimpressed while still being funny/engaging)

• Being pursued (typically happens when you’ve maxed out one of your stats, some guys do this apparently not many on this sub but it happens…)

In all of these situations, they guy has framed the interaction as "fun" rather than "serious" and (spoiler alert) sex is WAY more likely to happen when things are FUN than when they are SERIOUS...

OK fine... but you're dodging... dating apps are full of these guys, and dating apps often lead to actual dates... and the question still gets asked.. so what do they say?

Good call. Let’s walk through what happens when the ol' fuckboy is on a first date:

FIrst, understand that both of these statements:

• “Hey, just so you know, I’m really just looking to hook up.”

• “Yes, I’m only looking for something serious and committed.”

…are going to raise red flags because they’re premature and not rooted in any real connection. They are also going to make the interaction SERIOUS (which is the opposite of FUN)

So he has a few strategies—all of which are more honest than the two extremes above:

1. Treat it like a playful shit test.

• “I’m actually a devout Mormon looking for my fourth wife! You’re a virgin, right?”

• “I'm looking for 2.5 kids and a white picket fence. You free in 9 months to get married? I was thinking Bora Bora for the honeymoon…”

2. Or be realistic and lightly honest.

• “I’m definitely not in a rush to settle down if that’s what you mean. I want to see if we click. Anyways... you said you’d [been to London]…?”

Both of these responses keep the emphasis on FUN and not SERIOUS.

Conclusion: In the end, people who expect their date to be "upfront about their intentions" are really just looking to avoid being hurt or taken advantage of. Both of these can be mitigated by simply withholding sex or commitment until you actually get to know someone. This is reliably the easiest and downright fastest way to get the fuckboy to loose interest. So there's your cheat code. Hope that helps.

Title says it all really.

By and large, people of both genders are way more touchy and skiddish when it comes to general criticism of women’s behavior.

If someone makes a general criticism of men, no one really cares.

If someone makes a general criticism of women, you tend to get responses like “that’s people in general though” “men do it too” “not all women are like that” or in more extreme cases “you’re a misogynist/incel/hate women.”

The same applies for holding people accountable. If you’re in a social situation and a man is acting out, saying dumb shit, and someone tells him to shut the fuck up, no one bats an eye. As it should be.

If a woman is acting out and someone, especially a man, tells her to stfu, people will say “you don’t talk to a woman like that” or something similar.

Since men airing out their grievances in dating more or less requires criticism of women, this is why it doesnt get taken as seriously as when women complain about their dating struggles with men.

As a side note, doesnt this imply that people conciously or unconsciously see women as weaker/lesser, feeling the need to shield them from criticism/accountability?

This is my first post here, so for whoever is reading thank you, and you look great today. I hope you get that raise/promotion and you will ace the coming Midterms or Finals if you’re still in school.

Now for meat and beans. There’s been discussion from the women in this sub where they will admit that they find 90% of men to be unattractive. To me this is fair, it seems your standards are little high but as a fellow person who’s living life and paying taxes (I hope) like everyone else, you are free to have whatever standards you want. The issue is that when the black pill or red pill folks mention an 80/20 or 90/10 rule claiming that women only find only 20-10% of men to be attractive, there is pushback as it’s somehow a negative thing to say even though the women here would admit it. Some would even say that they will go days or even months before they see a man they think is attractive.

What I hear from women is that men don’t put as much effort on themselves as they do. I don’t know where any of y’all are from, but I’m from Miami and I visit New York from time to time and the men there are in the gym, we share skin care routines, visit barbers every two weeks. The guys with long hair usually get their hair braided or get dreads. We buy cologne and we usually get women to help with this as well. And don’t get me started on fashion. The men in my friend group go out dressed to the nines, either formal suits and tuxedos or good old street wear with Jimmy Choos, Bape and even Chrome Hearts from time to time. A lot of us even collect sneakers enough where we can go months without repeating outfits.

A lot of these men are also in relationships and regularly date women. So if these guys are not in the 80 to 90% range of the men women find unattractive, are women here being hyperbolic about finding most men unattractive or is somebody lying? I know the guys my friend group are a small number of men, but I see normal people (men and women) who don’t put in much effort in themselves in relationships as well. Are the women they are dating secretly not attracted to them and it’s a means to an end? Thanks again for reading.

So there is this big theme that men just became in mass undesirable, but what exactly did happen to them?

There is this argument that woman now dont need a men to survive, thats true. But woman actually dont need a men for pure survival since decades.

So why then it's a problem for millennials but not really gen X? Why do zoomers even have more problems with it?

Edit: I try to answer all first posters under my question, but a ton of you guys are talking about stuff 50 years ago.

A woman in 1986 could have here own bank account, car, apartment and so one, that was 36 years ago...

I will not reply to this bonkers stuff

I don’t dislike feminism. On the contrary, I think feminism was historically indispensable. It pushed open doors that were locked: education, employment, bodily autonomy, legal rights, basic safety, the ability to live as a full person rather than a dependent citizen.

Without feminism, modern democracies would look very different. That needs to be acknowledged honestly.

But acknowledging the past doesn’t mean we should freeze a movement in time. There comes a point in history when a revolution’s job changes. It stops being about fighting an emergency and starts being about managing something that it already accomplished. At that point, the question stops being “How do we win?” and starts being “How do we grow beyond ourselves?”

This is where feminism is today in many societies. The foundational crisis that justified a one-sided, woman-centered movement has largely been addressed in the legal and institutional sphere. The most visible barriers have been dismantled. Today’s problems are more subtle, more psychological, more social, and far less exclusive to one gender.

Gender roles still harm women, but they also harm men. Women are still pressured toward caregiving and punished professionally for motherhood. Men, on the other hand, are pressured to be providers, discouraged from vulnerability, overrepresented in suicide, homelessness, workplace deaths, and social isolation. Women live with fear of violence. Men live with the expectation of emotional hardness and disposability. These are two sides of the same coin.

A movement that speaks only for one side of that coin cannot solve what remains. The remaining problems are not about the freedom of women from men, but about the freedom of everyone from rigid gender roles. And that means men must be full participants in defining the solutions. Yet modern feminism often reduces men to something else entirely: Male Allies. Important, but subordinate. Helpful, but not equal. Expected to support, but not expected to speak about their own struggles unless those struggles can be used to reinforce feminist goals. The message becomes: you may serve the movement, but you may not shape it.

That is not mutual equality. It is moral hierarchy wearing the clothes of liberation.

What began as liberation risks slowly becoming possession. This isn’t about women becoming oppressive. It is about how any successful movement starts to defend its own narrative power. Ideology becomes identity, and identity wants to protect itself. That is how every revolution ages. Not through conspiracy or malice but through the very human instinct to guard what was once fought for.

If gender equality is truly the goal, it cannot remain a one-gender project forever. A world where one group speaks and the other group is expected to applaud is not a world that will stay stable or genuinely fair. Men are not going to quietly accept being political side characters in the discourse about gender. And we can’t build a just future if any gender is treated as having a permanent voice and every other gender is treated as having a permanent supporting role. Equality cannot exist when one group defines the terms and everyone else is only invited to agree.

At some point, the conversation has to grow up. We need a framework that treats the problems of men and women not as a competition for sympathy but as a shared human struggle. We need a movement that does not lecture one side to support the other but brings everyone to the table as equal participants in defining what equality means next.

That does not mean undoing feminism. It means outgrowing the idea that the fight for gender justice can only ever belong to women. The next step is not to abandon what feminism achieved, but to build something larger on top of it. Feminism should not be the enemy of this transition. It should be proud of having enabled it.

This isn’t anti-feminist.

It’s post-feminist.

It’s the next logical stage.

Not a world where women speak and men obey. Not a world where men take charge again. A world where no one ever has to ask permission to have a voice.

Seriously, what is going on?

I was scrolling online the other day... I see a post where someone says a relationship between an 18-year-old and a 20-year-old is "iffy" and it gets a ton of likes. Wait, what?

By that logic, if you're dating someone who is 19 years and 11 months old, everything is fine. But the second they blow out the candles for their 20th birthday, the relationship automatically becomes predatory? And 18 and 24... that's apparently a high crime.

Let's bust a few myths that these moralists keep repeating:

1. "But at 18, you're still a CHILD!" At 18, in most of the world, you can vote. You can go to war, kill and legally die for your country. You can sign a contract. You can go to adult prison. Biologically, you haven't been a child for a long time. But suddenly, you can't make a decision about who to date? WTF?

And the craziest part? People will literally call someone a "PEDOPHILE" for dating an 18-year-old. This shows two things: a complete ignorance of what that horrific term actually means, and a massive disrespect to the 18-year-old, completely erasing their legal adulthood and agency.

2. "But they're still a 'TEEN'!" This is a new one. This argument literally only exists in the English language. In most of the world, the word for '18' doesn't have 'teen' in it. Are 18-year-olds in Spain or Germany magically more adult? It's an absurd linguistic quirk, not a biological or legal fact. The same goes for "they just left high school." It's a random milestone. If high school lasted until 21, would that make a 21-year-old a child? No. It's about being a legal adult.

3. "The maturity gap is HUGE! (And 'the brain isn't developed until 25!')" This is my favorite. I know 18-year-olds who are more organized and mature than half the 30-year-olds I meet. I know women in 50s that are very immature. And for everyone about to type 'bUt tHe bRaIn iSn'T dEvElOpEd uNtiL 25!' – that's a massive misreading of pop science. First, development is a gradual process, not an on/off switch that magically flips on your 25th birthday. Many of those studies simply stopped tracking development at age 25; they didn't claim it was a magic finish line. The brain continues to change and develop your entire life. Second, we trust that 'undeveloped' 18-year-old brain to vote, sign contracts, take on lifetime debt, and go to war. Using this argument only to control their dating life is a lazy, inconsistent double standard. It's about the person, not the number on their ID.

4. "What could they possibly have in common?" I don't know... maybe a shared religion? Same views on life? Liking the same video games and tv series? People connect on values and interests, not just their date of birth. You can find two 18-year-olds who have absolutely nothing in common. This argument is just lazy.

5. "Those relationships are doomed to fail!" Folks, most relationships fail. A massive percentage of marriages (where people are often the same age) end in divorce. But no, the problem is those 2-5 years of difference? We're focusing on the completely wrong thing. Relationships fail because of poor communication, incompatibility, money, cheating... not because one person was 20 and the other was 18 when they met.

6. "But the POWER IMBALANCE is immoral!" This one is always brought up. Newsflash: power imbalances exist in every single relationship. One person is richer. One is more attractive. One is more educated. One is more charismatic. We accept all of these. But a 4-year age difference is the one "immoral" imbalance? This argument is just a way to infantilize the 18-year-old and pretend they have no agency in their own choices.

7. "They only date younger because they can't handle someone their own age!" This is pure projection and assumes the worst possible intent. It automatically paints the older person as a manipulative failure (groomer) instead of considering the simplest explanation: they met someone they're compatible with. It also conveniently ignores that the 18-year-old also chose the 24-year-old. Are we saying the 18-year-old is also a failure for not dating "their own age"? It's a lazy, bad-faith argument.

8. "They date 18, so they'd date 17 if they could!" This is the ultimate bad-faith, 'slippery slope' argument. It deliberately ignores the single most important line in society: legality. There is a massive, fundamental, legal, and moral difference between a 17-year-old (a minor) and an 18-year-old (an adult). By dating an 18-year-old, the person is specifically choosing to be with another adult. Accusing them of wanting to date minors is a baseless smear, essentially calling them a criminal just to win an argument online.

9. "It's just IMMORAL!" This is the final defense. But let's analyze where this "moral rule" comes from. It's not in any legal code (it's legal). It's not a core part of any major religion. It wasn't even a dominant cultural idea 20 years ago. This specific panic about 18 and 24 is a brand-new phenomenon, born and raised entirely on the internet in the last 10-15 years. It's not a timeless moral truth; it's a social media trend.

Obviously, I'm not talking about 15 and 30. I'm talking about two consenting, legal adults. This moral panic over a 2-5 year difference has become ridiculous.

And of course, there are cases where older partners exploit younger ones, but those are about manipulation, not age difference. Age can make exploitation easier, but it doesn’t automatically mean it’s happening.

Final thought: Who's really pushing this 'all age-gap relationships are bad' narrative? Could it be that some women who wanted successful, mature, older men in their 20s are now in their 30s, single, and suddenly reframing those same men as 'predators' just because those same successful dudes are more commonly going for girls in early 20s because they find them more attractive?

TL;DR: The moral panic over small age gaps between consenting adults (like 18 & 24) is a recent internet trend. All the common arguments against it ("they're a child," "power imbalance," "it's immoral," "teen") are bad-faith arguments that completely ignore the legal adulthood and agency of 18-year-olds.

For the record I have a degree from a good school, but I really was sick of the application and interview mumbo jumbo. I applied for a managerial position at a transportation company. I got the position, but it didn’t pay too great.

Well, I met some of the engineers ( train drivers) at the company, and quickly pivoted over to the blue collar side after learning a lot of these guys were brining in 200k+ and sometimes 300k.

I became a conductor and eventually moved up the ranks and became an engineer and this year I’m set to make about 240k.

It’s an awesome job… but there’s one issue. I feel like women don’t want to date someone with a job like this because it’s “blue collar”. every time I meet someone and tell them what I do they always seem confused or put off, often asking “why didn’t you want to use your degree”.

Well, reason is because white collar jobs don’t pay as well, and because frankly driving a train is very cool imo, but I feel like women don’t agree.

its frustrating. I actually thought this job would make me appear cool and interesting, and to men and older people it does. I’m always asked a million questions and in male gatherings I’m treated like the coolest dude in the room, but sadly women seem to be so turned off by it.

For discussions sake, I'm talking about the typical Western world (Non traditional, aka outside of religious/marriage) route of reality.

Being a virgin man, the longer you wait, the more questions arises from society as being a red flag, you want to put yourself out there > it gets increasingly difficult to do so, unless you borderline meet a 1% girl that isn't concerned about WHY you haven't lost your V -card yet at the age of 27 onwards.

You sometimes have ''no choice'' but to bullshit to her face that you did in the past (Like I had to do to seal the deal in losing my virginity of the first time at 27). Now it's easier since I don't have to BS and put on a lying face, since, the answer is genuine. I have had sexual experience, the women that asks me that, not directly mind you, but indirectly when convo about past relationships crop up, and questions that meant to prod your past relationships are brought up.

They are curious = positive reinforcement into a green flag that in her head that I've had prior sexual connections= This man is a safe bet = Other women 'vetted' me in her mindsub-consciously. (The sisterhood).

Compare that to being a virgin as a 27 year old = Red flag/Ick. Questions arise why he hasn't done it yet when he's not religious or claimed he isn't ''saving himself up'', that's when you get into dark waters in the women's mind. When nothing is wrong with you, but it's like a hiring manager getting red flags as to why you have years of missed out work on your CV/Portfolio. ARE YOU A SAFE BET?

Despite what women and people in general say on Reddit, NO being a ''virgin'' say at the age of 29 isn't 'ok' let alone far from 'good'.

Losing my virginity at 27 was a battle, I HATE lying, yet I had to do just that in order to lose my virginity to a girl, why?

Because each time I was honest and shot myself in the foot that I was a virgin towards women in the past, I could see the spark of interest die out in real time as if I came out with some revelation that I'm some sort of psychopathic murderer. Wether in person you could sense a 'vibe' shift from them turning cold, or via text where the flame of replies/messages dies out completely, you get the point, a sudden sub-conscious 'ick' gets triggered in the female mind.

No, her saying 'virginity' doesn't matter, then choosing the guy that has had multiple partners over some 'virgin nice guy' says it all, I think most guys and girls can admit to experiencing that one way shape of form or another.

Hence ''Theory's'' such as pre-mate selection and hypergamy in women exists and are well studied and documented as being a real thing for a reason.

Men who show they can get women on average tend to be looked at by outside women as more desirable as he is a ''safe bet''. Studies have shown taken men are more desirable, proving my above point further. We also all heard about the famous Wedding ring finger poll/studies/experiment further proving this.

Compare that to another man that might have those EXACT same qualities as the Former man, but sucks with women, yet he will struggle a lot to get attention from women, a date, have sex whenever he wants etc.

Men it's a huge numbers game and landing a few that you can choose from is not a reality for 80% of guys.

Since losing my virginity and going to therapy for 1+ year and flourished, I manage to bag women left and right.

Let me tell you that the AVERAGE women can have 10+ guys in her phone at a whims notice, hell you can even look it up on studies or those fun dating Youtube videos where a women creates a Tinder and get's matched with 100 guys in less than an hour. A FUCKING HOUR!

I didn't get a single match until 3 days in, paying for Tinder Gold on the weekend, the 1 match you ask? From a bot account. Two completely different realities it's not even funny.

I'd rather have the former, of a lot of options, then having none, or a lucky one, that isn't someone I can see myself with. Privilege is often invisible to the ones that have it.

There’s this delusion a lot of men fall into that if a woman isn’t reciprocating, it’s somehow a “challenge.” That her lack of communication, investment, or basic interest means you’re supposed to step up and “prove your worth.”

No. That’s how you end up overextending for women who don’t even want you in the first place.

If she’s not texting back, not showing initiative, not making time, or never following through, THAT'S the sign. You don’t double down; you walk away. Her lack of effort isn’t a puzzle to solve, it’s an answer.

Men really need to unlearn this idea that persistence equals value. Too many of you have pedestalised women to the point that you treat their attention like oxygen something you need rather than something earned through mutual interest. That desperation for female validation and intimacy makes a lot of you disrespect and ruin yourselves just to feel wanted by them, and it's pathetic. Relationships aren’t built on chasing; they’re built on reciprocity and self-respect.

Wake up lads. Fight the brainwashing.

I don't think even 2 percent of women are having very regular, riding the cc, anal... sex red pill imagines them to have.

This is mostly men's fantasy of what THEY would do if they were a woman or could have sex as much as a woman can.

Most women can go very long periods of time without sex, and sex itself is never an issue when women talk about things they want.

Being sex obsessed is a male trait that causes surprise and wonder when women are like that because it's so rare and often times she doesn't even enjoy being like that, she was traumatized or has personality disorders.

Most women are not sex obsessed and therefore they don't enjoy riding the cc or being promiscuous not to mention this is a very hard hit to your reputation if you ever want to get married eventually. Most women don't want to be known like this and even if reputation wasn't an issue they still wouldn't be sex focused as much as men are.

Are you smarter than your man and how has the dynamic affected your relationship? We know that married couples have very similar IQs, and I see a lot of relationships where the man is dumber. What are your experiences?

Most men don’t really understand what a female orgasm feels like, and I keep hearing from women that it’s a very different experience than what men go through. I’m really curious about the emotional and mental side of it—not just the physical part.

So ladies, what kinds of thoughts or feelings tend to come up for you during an orgasm? And is there anything a man can do in that moment to make the experience better, more comfortable, or more meaningful?

Asking out of genuine curiosity and wanting to better understand women’s experiences, not trying to be creepy. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to share.

And the reality is that women these days are still expected to work and do the majority of household labour

People, mostly men, get mad when this is brought up. They call it outdated, exaggerated, or claim it only happens in highly patriarchal societies. But it's, well, just not true

I’m genuinely glad that men on PPD are apparently so modern and progressive that the idea sounds absurd - enough to downvote you to hell. Because it is absurd

It's absurd that my grandpa doesn't know how to turn the oven on. It's absurd that my chronically ill mom doesn't get a lick of help from her husband when preparing for Christmas. It's absurd that I had to iron my friend's boyfriend's shirt before a party because she was so busy cooking and he didn't feel like doing it. And it's absurd that I'm constantly told I'll be cooking for my boyfriend in the future. And that somehow nobody's telling him that

It's frustrating and unfair. And while the times are changing, you are still made to feel bad for defying those norms, and the men are being congratulated on what little domestic labour they do

On PPD, we're always hearing about women staying with “chads” who do absolutely nothing for them. I’m starting to think there’s a different explanation for why that happens

When a man even smells that a woman cares deeply for him, it’s over. What I’ve learned from all this PPD discourse - supported by what I see irl - is that men are far from dumb. They’re very aware, intentional, and always looking out for themselves first

Once he knows she loves him, there's no effort he's willing to put in. Why would he? She loves him, she won’t leave. Why invest in something that’s already yours with no work? Never mind that that's a living, breathing human being that cares for you

Women aren’t attracted to “shitty men.” The men they’re drawn to just end up treating them like shit - because they afford to. And so many men on here would love to be able to afford to

1. Nominally women seem to be declaring they want men who are assured in their masculinity so much they are not at all afraid of sometimes transgressing rigid gender stereotypes. On the other side you have a slew of articles written by these same progressive women saying shit like or or

2. In a perverse sense the redpillers are right about this one: women really do not seem to know what they really want. What is even worse is that they also seem to lack any introspective ability to articulate these feelings properly and be honest with themselves. A man will at least, albeit crudely, say "yeah I like the hoodrats because they give great head" a woman will spend money and time going to therapy to come to a conclusion like "I have avoidant-attachment and only attract emotionally unavailable men" when its just her lust making her compete for the same few hot guys every other chick is aiming for.

Crazy, I know.

Now this is gonna be a VERY controversial post. But if you can hear me out. I don't mean be malicious, spread negativity, or pot stir.

This is legitimately something that over the years most women and men seem for the most part to agree on. So it's not like most men disagree with this sentiment. But I will be the first person to fully admit that I very much disagree with this. For those of you that's just confused on what I'm talking about...

Its when women push the idea that the dating game would be easier or ALOT better if guys would just be honest about their intentions when it comes to the women they meet.

Ie. If you're looking for friendship? Tell them. If you're looking for an aquaintance? Tell them. If you're looking for a fuck buddy? Tell them. If you're looking for a one night stand? Tell them. If you're looking for a relationship? Tell them. Etc.

Now granted there is nothing at all malicious about the phrasing or even the practice of doing this. It makes logical sense that people don't wanna waste time on people who don't want the same things or too waste time on people who specifically have the intentions of wasting everyone's else's time.

Granted here's my gripe with it. Reality wise. That's not how it works.

I don't like Myron Gaines from Fresh and Fit but he did make a very great point when girls say this. The overwhelming majority of the time when women say that they want you to be honest they are usually trying to get you to tell on yourself so they can swiftly reject you.

I mean think about it from this perspective. How many guys if you tried to tally it by percentage can actually walk up to a girl and from the get go tell them they want no strings attached sex and no relationships? Sure there are SOME men that can do this and get away with it but the overwhelming majority of males can't do this. It's simply foolish for men to do this because even if they think the idea is enticing they are now put on the spot with the question without having built any trust with you

So most men are not gonna be forthcoming about their intentions to have nsa sex because in practice it almost NEVER works.

Now ALOT of women are gonna take this the wrong way and assume that I mean you should purposely hide your intentions, or lie to women to get into their pants. But that's not what I'm advising. I'm simply saying you shouldn't be so FORTHCOMING with the fact that you want it.

I think there is much better ways to show you want NSA sex without actually saying it.

I’m tired of seeing guys here complaining about feminists stopping progress on men’s issues. MAGA had feminists calling them rape apologists, had the mainstream media calling them bigots, had cancel culture against them, and even tried and to ruin the lives of teen boys over it. Guess what? Trump still won TWICE.

So telling me that “men cant do anything because feminists are meanies and do meanie things!” is a lie. It’s just not enough men actually care.

Men clearly will say “FUCK YOU FEMINISTS!” when they want to vote against woke policies.

Men clearly will say “FUCK YOU FEMINISTS!” when they’re scared of illegal immigrants,

Men clearly will say “FUCK YOU FEMINISTS!” when they believe a sexist racist orange man can do a better job with the economy.

So how was it the fault of feminism that men clearly don’t give two shits about other men?

What’s even funnier is the complaints about male homelessness not being taken seriously….. but Trump winning shows men care more about hating feminists than providing programs to lessening homelessness.

Men like hot women, and your average pizza delivery guy would be happy to get a tip in the form of fellatio by such a woman. Yada yada, we all know this stuff, and how men are supposed to keep it to themselves. However, it is only really an issue because women work different. Which is valid! Men should be considerate of women, but when women are like "men wish women were into them like how they are into women...", well, yes. And then there would be no issue. At least much less of an issue on average.

Men's tendencies are not shitty in a vacuum, but in contrast to women.

What bluepillers/women refuse to accept is that this goes the other way around, in fact the contrast between women and men can feel similarly "shitty" from the other side, and the fact that this gets dismissed entirely in progressive circles is the biggest manifestation of lack of sympathy and willingness (or ability?) to put yourself in the other's shoes.

I think a very easy example is the average age gap in relationships, which is about 2.5 years, and the man is of course the older one. That is not huge, but it's not exactly negligible eaither. For every couple that are the same age, there is one where the man is 5 years older, basically. And the underlying reason is surely the stuff that correlates with age: experience, "having your life together", one could even say power, and agency in life.

Another thing I wanna bring up is the stories of very sexually inhibited women (perhaps traumatized) finding an awesome male partner who is oh so patient with them, and guides them into a whole new world of pleasure. Sure, these stories ar far from a guarantee for women too, but they happen, I've seen stories like these shared many times (usually with an undertone of "see that men? Be like that!"), and while I have no direct statistics about this, it obviously happens less the other way around. That fits with the aforementioned age gap which is an expression of some degree of experience gap and yes, some sort of "leading". And it's also just literally what struggling men wish for, and to which women collectively reply with disgust and associations of "pity sex". "Help" in a heterosexual context, however much of it meaningfully exists, is overwhelmingly one-way.

It boils down to a repulsion of weakness. Yes, this is all generalization, but so is the chore gap in relationships, or harassment, or whatever ways men are shitty. It's both shitty from the other's perspective.

No, it's not about women having "obligations", it is about a frankly very obvious general gap of experience and confidence required for our love and attraction, which men are going to feel. It's not an equal playing field. And it feels shitty having to be the more experienced person. It creates a ton of pressure and a lot of self-fulfilling loser-ness, it is what emasculation is about, which we can't just shrug off when women want "real men" on average, men who know how to handle women, and no men who need handholding. This repulsion of weakness hurts and affects men. And there is no amount of personal self-improvement and actual sex-having that would make me unsee the pain of that at this point. It's legit about as real and as prevalent as objectification imo. It is that simple.

It's not mature of women to refuse to feel bad about this at all or to deny this ENTIRELY. It isn't. Never in my life have I sexually harassed or manipulated a woman but sometimes I feel bad for the whole objectification stuff and I reflect about it, myself, my own desires can feel melancholic with that in mind, and having to learn how to be in peace despite that is... a thing. Yes. It's the courtesy of women speaking about their experiences, and I genuinely don't think men listening to that is THAT rare anymore (say hello to your awesome husbands and boyfriends, women). And the flipside of this essentially doesn't exist at all, which is what I feel the lack of.

Heterosexual dating is not really seen as a double edged sword by women anywhere outside of perhaps some veteran women having some series of longwinded anonymous debates onine. It's like women do not really believe that men have a narrative of their own, feeling the contrast from their side.

I only have issues with women's sexuality because men work different. It's exactly the same as it is the other way around. It's the refusing of accepting the other's hurt having to do with them that will forever bother me.

Tate, and so many red pill influencers have been exposed as either sex traffickers in tates case but just generally losers who have never had a relationship or get exposed for dating the exact women they rail against. They are also highly performative masculine which makes them drag queens who get money the exact same way and for the same reason as every OF girl, giving men approval. Considering that how are these the people that represent you to the main stream?

I'm kind of piggybacking off of the topic of another post, but I think it's an important point to bring up.

This whole sentiment about women approaching more? There seems to be this underlying implication that if this were to occur en masse, normal, more 'average' guys would have at least marginally better dating experiences...and women would be getting with men they actually like because they chose to approach. It's framed as if it's supposed to be some sort of win-win situation.

Here's the kicker; it isn't. Far from it

You realize that most women aren't even attracted to most men, right? This is a very commonly brought-up point all across this sub, even if you yourself don't necessarily agree with it. At the very least, I think we can largely agree that women, on average, are FAR pickier than men in terms of both sex and relationships.

IF women were to start approaching more, not a whole lot would change. The guys who were struggling before - even the average dudes who don't have any sort of pathological social/personality flaw or crippling physical trait (bad face, poor hygiene, fat, etc) - STILL wouldn't get approached or have any more measurably better dating experiences. They would be just as invisible to women as they were before.

Nothing would change except the same guys who were doing well or OK before would just have even greater success.

This is not a case of a rising tide lifting all boats, people. Not even close.

I call this gender woo. Basically silly pseudoscience about gender. Society—left, right, feminist, conservative, red-pill, blue-pill—pushes pseudoscientific, romanticized, outdated beliefs about gender. “Gender woo.” And ironically, the same people who mock trans people as “unscientific” are the ones holding the most pseudoscientific beliefs about masculinity and men.

Feminists aren’t immune to gender woo either.

Even progressive or feminist spaces recycle the same protector/provider narrative—just with a “liberal paint job”.

As an atheist and nihilist. I find this super annoying as a hell. Because it's mostly men that are the victims of gender woo. Since society puts more pressure on men to still perform gender roles in the big 2025 going on the big 2026.

Both the woman and man in this video, have this silly idea of women being attracted to muscular men, because those men can protect women and scare off predators. Both say this isn't shallow or superficial. Even though it is shallow or superficial. Because expecting men to be protector is very shallow and superficial.

And also tell me you know nothing about violence, without telling me you know nothing about violence. Your "strong man" isn't going scare of predators. When the predators have weapons or multiple friends with them.

It's funny how feminists will bring up statistics about men being more likely to be killed by other men, to show how violent men are as a gotcha to MRAs. But when it's convenient though. The same Feminists will also say how men are afraid of other men, and say that men can scare off rapists and violent men.

And I love how both the man and woman in this video leave out the part where the predator can also be physically fit too lol. I don't know why. But for some reasons society only associate attractive traits with good men. Making it seem like it's impossible for bad men to have these traits society find positive.

A lot of people legit think any abuser who puts his hands on women, is physically weak. By that logic these people are calling some men in military weak too. Since abuse is high in the military. So gender woo is just black and white thinking. Thinking that men are either these cowardly evil bad guys or these strong brave protectors. Society can't wrapped their head around the simple fact that a man can be brave and a piece of shit at the same time. We shouldn't be associating morality with physical strength anyway. This is how people, especially feminists fuck up here.

This is the gender woo im talking about here.

Strong = good

Weak = evil

Muscular = protector

Skinny = predator

In this case both the woman and man in this video, thinks predator men are these weak people who are afraid of most men. When in reality these are the most dangerous men on prison yards. I guarantee you people would change their tone. If a predator was a pro MMA Fighter or a 6'6 and 350 pounds Football player or even a 7'1 and 520 pounds Strongman. All that hero BS will go straight out of the window.

Even if a predator was actually a coward. That still wouldn't prove anything. Because predators aren't cowards, because being a predator means you are a coward. Predators are cowards, because most humans are cowards at the end of the day.

Hence why most crimes done by serial killers were sexually motivated, not due to being afraid of men (lol). There are straight people than gay people. Do the math here. Of course male straight serial killers will go after women the most. Look at Jeffrey Dahmer. He only kill men, because he was gay. And most serial killers usually have sexual motivative behind their crimes. Again most serial killings are sexualized crimes. It’s not because they’re “afraid of men,”. it’s because they’re targeting people they view as sexual objects.

This completely destroys the feminist trope “they don’t attack men because they’re cowards afraid of men.” No, they’re just sexually motivated in a specific direction.

Again most men aren't going to pressed Brock Lesnar over his treatment towards women. That's just alpha male brain rot. That is ironically perpetuated by feminists sometimes too. Society only applies “weak predator” logic when the predator is theoretical. In real life? People fold completely in the presence of truly dangerous men.

The idea that the “average man” is supposed to physically intervene is delusional.

The Gillette commercial is a perfect example of gender woo covered with virtue-signaling.

1:04: Even in a feminist commercial about teaching men to do better. The message that men should still be these badass that physically confront bad men.

At least when you are a elite UFC fighter. You have the benefit of being 0.1111 percent of the population, giving you an advantage over most average men. But being a average gym bro won't give you aura of intimidation. Because most men can get to your level of physicality. So you are not some special athlete.

And it doesn't matter where the gender woo is coming from. Red-pill, conservatives, blue-pill, or feminists. Every side have this fantasy ideas of men being these superhuman protectors. But again, for some reasons they think bad men can't overpower good men.

This is basically bad guy with a gun vs a good guy with a gun logic. This a perfect example of schrodinger masculinity. Men are strong and weak at the same time.

Whether it's red-pillers having this cartoonish ideas of men being "alpha males". Or feminists thinking men have this special ability scare off rapists and violent men. This all stem from the same place. That place being that society expects men to be disposable protectors. While all the bad men are these cowardly "beta males".

Again you are not calling Brock a beta male to his face.

TLDR: In conclusion gender woo is propaganda.

The ‘protector fantasy’ collapses instantly under real-world violence

Predators can be strong, trained, armed, or physically huge.

Many abusers are ex-military, athletes, or fit guys.

Violence doesn’t work like comic books.

A “good man” doesn’t magically overpower a “bad man.”

I don't think birth rates and dating culture are going to get better. I think marriage as an institution will become increasingly irrelevant and that the genders will drift further apart.

The emancipation of women is not the problem, at least not the main one. Even in some patriarchal countries the birth rates have dropped significantly.

I think that because of technology people don't need each other anymore. There's no reason to rely on your husband and neighbors when you can use your phone to have groceries and food delivered directly to your doorstep. You don't need to tolerate your friends' flaws when the Internet can be an endless source of entertainment. Everything you need can be found on your phone and it's only going to become worse with AI. Soon people will prefer AI boyfriends and girlfriends over real ones.

I've seen it with myself too, when I hang out with friends, I sometimes find myself thinking "why do I have to tolerate their shitty opinions when I could be at home playing Hogwarts legacy?". Even my own boyfriend's presence is inconvenient at times.

So no, nothing will fix that except for a total collapse of civilization. And the emancipation of women is not the main problem. Remove technology and the nanny state and most women would embrace gender roles again.

This is why they say shit like "If I have to pay for myself ( on dates, etc), what's the point of being with a man?". They generally see men as some kind of walking atm and they genuinely believe that men's role in life is to provide for them and pay for stuff. And most men who have experience with women know that no payment on dates generally means no second date.

The sad reality is men are in love (at least what they think is love) while women are in business. Money and material things matter to many of them much more than men as human beings. They want men to pay for stuff because it shows them that the man likes and cares about them, , they never stop to think about how a man would also like to know that the woman he's dealing with likes and cares about him.

They act as if the world revolves around them and even dating and relationships are all about them and what they want. If there is no kind of material gain in the relationship, they genuinely don't see the point of it because a connection with another human being is seen as secondary and less important than money and material things.

The pursuit of sex blinds men and it stops them from seeing who the women they are chasing really are. But if they stop pursuing sex so much and instead get to know women beyond sex and their physical appearance first, they will very quickly realise how shallow and boring many women are. Many of them cant even really hold a conversation, even if they like you. They generally dont have interesting things to say, but the pursuit of sex either stops men from seeing this or it makes them just accept it in their attempt to get laid.

"A man who wants to gain power over a woman must follow the example of women and condition his sex drive. If he succeeds in becoming as cold as she, she can no longer bait him with sex into the role of provider. At most she could offer herself as an equal sex partner, as dependent on him as he is on her.

If men could abstain from sex at judicious intervals they might even succeed in normalizing the female sex drive - even make women desire them more than the other way around." -

I was scrolling through reddit, and I began to realize, in Gen Z both young men and women are struggling to form actual relationships but are facing very different problems in doing so.

With cold approaches being dead (which is a good thing, as no more cold approaches makes for a safer society and less creeps), the cesspool that is dating apps (never under any circumstances go on a dating app), and an overall antisocial generation Z, there are basically no ways for young people to meet others and find a partner.

And the way it is effecting men and women is very different in my observation.

Young men express that they don't know where to organically meet other young women and are unwilling to cold approach because that method as mentioned earlier is long gone, and for good reason. Even in the rare event that they organically meet a girl they like, they have no real way of initiating anything.

Young women on the other hand, express that they are unwilling to initiate or approach to any degree, and despite the clear evidence that guys no longer approach, they complain that young men won't approach them. Now this isn't all young women but it was enough for me to notice this pattern. And above all, there is still the antisocial generation problem that is plaguing young ladies in this generation as well. Everyone is so glued to their phones and ear buds and there are no ways to organically meet people anymore. It seems like gen z doesn't want to talk to people anymore.

So on one end you have the men who can't express interest, and on the other end you have women who won't express interest because they are waiting for someone to express interest in them.

And both young men and women are victims of the antisocial generation so there is no socializing and as a result no organic way of everything just falling into place.

Now I understand what I said does not apply to all young men and all young women, but I have noticed this pattern in both, and felt it was worthy of noting. Obviously there are many exceptions to this, but I am simply sharing a recurring pattern I have seen in both young men and young women, both online and my irl experiences/obersvations as an individual from generation Z.

but the question here is, what is the solution to this duality, because both ends of this are faced with 2 very different problems both causing the same consequence.

Disregard most of what Im saying when the context is about people who knew each other for a long time before deciding to date and sleep together.

My biggest beef when it comes to dating forums/topics is when people clearly want to fuck strangers but act like they dont do hookups. Obviously, I’ve quickly figured out because guys don’t want to be honest about what they really want because they’re hoping lying and giving mixed signals will lead them to sex….and then cry foul when it didnt happen.  But I also think it’s because people don’t want to admit they’re not as romantic as they pretend to be. Theyre just very sexual. think it hurts their deep down, their desires are shallow. it’s nicer to believe you’re a hopeless romantic than admit you’re just super horny.

“wHy ArE yOu AgAiNsT sEx?!”

Im against bullshitting.  Im tired of people pretending they want a relationship when its very clear everything non-sexual in a relationship is secondary/optional at best, completely meaningless to them at worst.

“Men raping and abusing women is all men’s fault, because men created the patriarchy, and therefore men must hold all those bad men accountable.” That’s the foundation of nearly every modern gender argument. No matter the context, no matter the nuance, it always circles back to one universal conclusion: it’s men’s fault.

When men talk about their mental health struggles, it’s brushed off with the same circular logic. “Womp womp, men created the patriarchy, so blame yourselves.” Depression, suicide, isolation, apparently, these aren’t symptoms of a system that fails both genders. They’re just karma for the invisible structure men allegedly built and now must eternally atone for.

Even when men’s pain clearly comes from social neglect or impossible standards, it still gets pinned on “other men.” The logic is bulletproof , and by bulletproof, I mean unfalsifiable. Any outcome becomes proof of patriarchy. If men oppress women, patriarchy. If men suffer under other men, still patriarchy. It’s the ultimate get-out-of-accountability-free card.

Then you have women-on-women cruelty, slut-shaming, bullying, mean-girl culture, and somehow, that too gets traced back to men. It’s not about personal responsibility or individual behavior. No, it’s “internalized misogyny.” It's the patriarchy (which men created) that is making women go against each other. It's men that put women into competition with each other. Translation: Wmen aren’t responsible for their actions because men psychologically programmed them to hate each other.

It’s impressive, really. A worldview so flexible it can twist any scenario into male guilt. Women compete with one another? Men forced them into it. Women criticize other women? That’s patriarchy brainwashing. Women hurt men? Well, men made them that way. The circular reasoning never ends because it’s designed never to.

What this ideology does is strip everyone of agency. Men are eternal villains, women eternal victims. It’s infantilizing to women and demonizing to men, but that doesn’t matter as long as the narrative feels morally satisfying. Blame is easier than balance, and victimhood sells better than self-awareness.

The funniest part? Even when women clearly cause the problem, the explanation loops back to men. It’s poetic in a way, no matter what happens, the script always ends the same: “Men did this.” It’s a belief system built for convenience, not truth, a way to moralize the world without ever looking in the mirror.

Starting in middle school, it starts to be pretty obvious that the most good looking, tallest, fastest, strongest, most social, most intelligent (this does depend on where you’re from and what culture you were raised in), most well-connected, and generally approachable men are popular.

If you were ugly or fat in school you’d have grown up intimately familiar with your own shortcomings. This isn’t some groundbreaking knowledge.

Adults won’t (and I’d say shouldn’t) give you advice on seduction or attraction, not until you’re at least near the end of high school. It’s normal that they’d say that being nice is what counts. And being nice does count, but it’s very, very obvious that it’s not all that counts.

And this sub also has a fucked idea of what people mean when they say they like nice people. Being nice is about being morally consistent and being generally caring for society, it’s not about being a doormat or acting friendly for a reward.

It’s your job to figure out social attraction and dynamics, whether that’s learning to make friends or getting laid or finding a partner. Beyond generic advice and basic platitudes, this journey is your own to figure out.

A common sentiment on here is that men were misdirected, that they were lied to about what women like. To those men, did you spend your schooling years with your eyes closed?

Getting fitter or more physically attractive and getting more attention isn’t some earth shattering revelation, blue pill normies are well fucking aware of this. The fact that women like attractive men isn’t a moral death sentence that makes them some evil hoes. The same goes for men, men liking attractive women doesn’t make them objectifying dicks, objectification is something else.

Being physically fit, socially competent, and having goals in life are normal things. I don’t get how a lot of men on here pretend that society lies about all this.

If I become a dad, I’ll just teach my kid(s) to be social, active, participate in sports, and I’ll shut the fuck up about dating, that’s for them to figure out. That’s the single best thing a parent can do, just let your kids find out for themselves.

This is not much of a hypothetical scenario after all the number of straight couples which the woman earns more has been increasing throughout the recent decades

But what If the average woman earned far more than the average man? I mean what If women mostly earned 30% than men for the same job( more realistic scenario for the future) or 4 - 5 or even 10x more than men?

What If also most rich people were women? What If most companies "preferred" to hire women for Jobs that pay well?

In my opinion men would get some advantages as more men could be stay at home husbands/dads, being able to be free of the stress of Jobs and women would no longer be gold diggers as the average man would be poorer than them. Women would pay the whole bill in most dates as well...

Women would be expected by societies to be providers rather than men and most men would marry up socioeconomically. Marriages could be rarer too and birth rates could be lower than today but I am not sure...

On the other hand poorer men could have more trouble getting dates If they are not beautiful nor intelligent since I think that even earning more money some women might still want to date up... I also don''t think the average man would feel emasculated If their girlfriends and wives earned more than them...

In the wake of my post being deleted because no one understands metaphors. It was so beautifully written.

Let me state it directly.

Women moan and complain about men because no matter what they will win. Even if most men don’t appease them then there will always be men who feel a sense of pride in giving women stuff. Sort of a teachers pet. Men have always tried to give women what they want.

Women know this, so what they do is complain more and more. Men will eventually bend over backwards to give in to their demands.

Why? Because men are horny and stupid.

When men complain no one cares. Women won’t change if men asked them to be nicer people to talk to. Why? Because there’s always some guy who is like “ heh I am not like those guys, pick me “.

They’re not fine being alone they just want us to take the bait and try to convince them otherwise. “Oh look how good of a man I am you don’t need to be alone.”

We ultimately like to save women. And women like each other so they will back each other up.

Tell me this if women don’t like men so much why do they need to try so hard and scream constantly how they don’t need or want men.

Who are you trying to convince us or yourselves?

From men's reaction it seems like bad men are in minority and it's a completely women's fault for choosing them. It's like women cherry picking bad men out of many good ones.

I'll just bring some examples that i've seen here

1. A woman says something about men who abuse, a man says that she needs to vet better. When asked how the advice is often don't go for tattooed criminals.

I bet all women here experienced abusive relationship, maybe except one or two. And i bet that mostly none came from criminals. Men think that vetting is so easy, just don't go for criminal, and yet in that belief they just ignore all women's experience and focus only on those who fit their narrative. Which is a minority.

2) A woman lists some bad experience with men (didn't even dated them) - men's reaction "choose better" or "you attract men like that" or something along the lines. I will not address how advice "choose better" sounds stupid in this situation. But the message is that those experiences doesn't matter. The fact that a woman just has to exist for them to happen doesn't matter. It's her fault and there are many great men and she somehow stumbled across few bad ones. And math aren't mathing here.

3) A woman complains that men are toxic in some way, the counter argument is "you date out of your league", "it's because you go for over the top attractive guys".

And that creates a narrative that attractive guys will always behave like that, average guys are always pleasant, and it's a woman's mistake that she goes for attractive guy. If women try to say that it's not the case - doesn't matter.

So basically men use whatever argument they can to separate themselves from "bad guys" and blame women, and there is just not one possible thing that women can say for men to see that all those "bad guys" are walking among us and look just normal and could be them or their friends. I believe that it's to create a defense because they know that if they admit that they have to excuse not to look into their friends behavior or their own.

The whole reason men aren't honest about only wanting sex is because women have much higher standards for just sex. By being honest about only wanting sex a man is dramatically reduces his chances of getting is.

It's also not just a matter of finding sex or not, it's also about the attractiveness of the women he can have sex with if he's honest vs not. The women who'd have casual sex with a man will be a less attractive cohort than those who'd only date him.

Finally, if a woman would only have sex with a man if he gives her companionship in return, then that means she's not really attracted to him anyway. So she's already lying to him by omitting her lack of attraction. So his own disonesty is retroactively justified by hers.

The concept of "the one" suggests that there is a perfect partner out there for everyone, which can lead to unrealistic expectations in relationships. This idea often creates pressure to find someone who meets an idealized standard, rather than fostering appreciation for the unique qualities of various partners. Additionally, it may contribute to a cycle of disappointment when partners inevitably fall short of these expectations. On the other hand, some argue that believing in "the one" can provide a sense of hope and motivation to pursue meaningful connections. How do you think this narrative impacts dating behaviors and relationship satisfaction? Are there healthier frameworks we can adopt that allow for flexibility and growth in our romantic lives?

I think this is one of the biggest lies peddled on here. That the reason women have more success in dating then men do is because they put in more effort. But how can you put in more effort when you're not the one doing the approaching? And then I'll hear things like "But women spend thousands on makeup and their nails to look good!"

When no men are telling these women to cake make up on themselves. If anything men have been saying for a while now that women have been using make up to hide how they really look. And how many men have said "Damn girl those nails are hot as fuck!" These are things women do for themselves which by the way they constantly state. "I wear make up for myself!" "I dress the way I dress for myself. Not to impress no man!" So you can't now use this as a reason why women put more effort into dating when you say you do these things for yourself.

Men in general just have lower standards because dating is so much harder for them. So how do women put more effort into dating when men actually make dating even easier for them by overlooking many flaws that women would never. All and all dating is stupid easy for women. And it isn't because they put in more effort It's because dating is like ordering a Pizza to them. But the Pizza is free and will be delivered to their house anytime they want.

I'm 31 and go to clubs/bars because I'm still single. I don't "prey" on younger women. They just happen to be there while women my age are either in relationships, rearing a child, or at home laser swiping through dating apps. It just so happens bars/clubs are the few places where you can approach women without bothering them while running errands. Also, its not my fault most single 30something women feel "too old" to go in public venues and would rather stay at home and door-dash themselves a guy through an app.

I was seeing a girl we had one minor argument, she distanced herself. Started seeing my former best friend while stringing me along (neither of them told me about it), repeatedly lied that she's in the hospital, that she's traveling, etc. then she texts me how she's sleeping with my friend right now. Dumps me with another lie that she' moving and then posts a picture with him.

Proceeds to circle back, through her sister and friends for several months to meet up with me while dating him.

Tells my friends we were technically not in a relationship.

I am perplexed by the logic and thought process of this. Is this mental illness or simply emotional immaturity?

A friend of mine got lied on in college. accused of sexual assault. The only thing that saved him was a camera. It showed he did nothing wrong, but the school still suspended him, the local paper blasted his name, and the DA gave him a “warning” to look tough. The woman? Nothing. No charges. No apology.

And it’s not rare. Uber drivers talk about it constantly riders lying, threatening to “say he touched me,” even one recording where an assistant DA was caught planning it. Most drivers say there’s nowhere to send the proof; the lie just sticks.

According to national data, men are almost twice as likely as women to report being falsely accused. Around 80% of DNA exonerations are sexual-assault cases mostly men which means even when the justice system thinks it’s right, it’s wrong nearly 1 in 10 times.

If you Google overturned rape cases you'll find that most of the time the guys were guilty of just being in the area(or being black in the area). Who with this being said women do not see any type of institutional ramifications for lying on men. It's not a matter of a percentage of these cases being found false It's a matter of no one pursuing them

Edit: all the time is hyperbole, but you get my point

The above situation is the most recent me too movement example with a woman DoorDash deliverer claiming she was sexually assaulted when she went to drop off a food order at the door, but the door was wide open and the man was naked on the couch. Turns out she lied about it, and actually opened the man’s door to record him in order to gain sympathy. Looking at her complete profile and history, she has evidence that she wanted to be Internet famous, and had a TikTok that she was trying to grow.

This occurs with any positive social movement or charity structure. The more awareness and availability you bring to it, the more there will be bad individuals who try to exploit the system in order to have personal gain. It’s exactly why as GoFundMe got bigger, the amount of fraudulent and misleading campaigns grew exponentially. Because of that every donation website has a disclaimer to review campaigns for accuracy and substance, and has a moderation team to take down fake requests. The same thing has happened with every major positive social movement as bad actors take advantage.

As such, the phrase “believe all women” can never be true, and women should recognize that as they push more awareness, more bad actor women will emerge and the more men’s fears are substantiated. The reason for this is that with the more awareness that is brought, the more the potential reward and audience is for someone looking to exploit. Statistically then you can never argue then women would never do this because we have clear examples like above of a woman doing it, nor can you argue that you should believe all women because the incentive to lie is increasing as the movement gets bigger.

Critically I don’t think this means the movement should stop or be shrunken down, as it’s not a good argument to not care about safety. However, if you’re a woman that says you should believe all women, you’re conveniently ignoring clear examples of exploitation.

I've seen many videos of women going on about how men dont approach them anymore, and in all those videos they all seem to have this entitlement that men are supposed to approach them and tell them how beautiful they are. They literally feel that its men's role to approach them and stroke their egos, but men aren't doing that as much which is good.

Approaching random women only inflates their egos and makes them feel entitled to men's attention for simply existing and wearing makeup . And they seem to have no ability to self-reflect on why men have stopped approaching them. Some of these women will complain about men not approaching them and in the same video they'll go on about how they're too good to approach men. The lack of

I don’t know where this notion came from that men “are not allowed to have flaws, unlike women”. I’m sure some people genuinely will cut you off the first time you accidentally messed up on something (assuming its not something extremely serious). I highly doubt that’s the norm. 

This goes hand-in-hand with guys who swear that “the break up came from nowhere”.  When in reality he was warned multiple times about the problems in their relationship and he refused to change them and then he’s shocked that she actually gave up on him instead of “nagging him” for the 11th time. There’s also the whole “no one likes autistic guys and its not the guys’ fault”. Dude, I’ve seen autistic people ostracize other autistic people. The guys who actually value their friends hear feedback and adjust their behavior. The guys who get kicked out of the friend group usually kept doing the same thing after being warned to stop. 

The other problem I see is guys saying “Well, they didnt think it was bad enough. You should have communicatesd. You should have had a serious talk about it” and they dont seem to understand how incredibly selfish that is. People have to act like your parent for you figure out that you should value what people tell you? Treating your friends and girlfriends like you treat your mom telling you to clean your room really shows emotional immaturity.

22 year old woman doesn't feel the raw attraction men throughout their various stages of life including their older years feel for her. The mind bending high fantasy scenarios older men are convinced is possible is in fact very improbable irl.

The few and far between celebrities, athletes or millionaires who are in big age gap relationships, aren't the norm but a fraction of people in a tiny minute specific population group.

In reality most 22 year olds don't dream of 55 year old men and this isn't in any shape or form feminism fault.

Just because these fantasies feel natural and amazing to men doesn't mean women feel the same.

So men get humbled all the time for what they expect from woman, but how does it look at the woman's side?

How often do woman tell each other that they have unrealistic expectations or crazy prerequisites?

The whole concept of "love bombing" implies that the receiver was failing for it, if not even welcomed it to a certain point and ended up feeling fooled. But when a nice guy tries to come on strong with his feelings toward a woman (and could do it 100% earnestly) it's always about them coming on too hard, falling in love too fast, trying to please too hard, etc. But the confident badass can do a "miss you bae" or "you mean everything to me bae"and women like it and feel angry if he didn't mean it literally.

If you don't, why not? Unironically I kinda like the idea that men (women probably too) can have AI partner to fulfill their needs and finally be at peace, since the majority of women don't suit them, as they claim. Probably I wouldn't go for ai companionship myself, but this can definitely suit for somebody

People who claim to see through bullshit and detect deception are actually the first who fall for lies and manipulation. This applies to men and women.

Men who are overconfident in their deception-detecting abilities fall for women who take advantage of them financially or marry them for citizenship. These men end up financing both the woman who is taking advantage of them and the men these women are having affairs with. But women aren't immune either. Women love to claim that they can see through lies and manipulation, but the minute the interact with a man they have genuine attraction for, they immediately start believing his lies and refuse to acknowledge they're being cheated on even in the presence of evidence. If I were to choose between who's more naive, men or women, I would definitely say women.

I think dating apps and ease of access to dates inherently increase people‘s standards. I personally believe a couple is going to feel “about right” for each other if they both believe it would take about 6 months to meet someone new.

If I meet a couple and believe that one of them could do better across the board in terms of looks, finances, and personality in less than a week, then I’m going to wonder if there’s any resentment in the relationship.

Even if I did consider someone I could replace within a week for a relationship, I doubt it‘d work out

I've often heard "women don't dislike nice guys, they just dislike men who don't respect themselves". But how can they tell if a man doesn't respect himself?

A lot of women will claim that it's "intuition", but honestly, that's bullcrap. There's a reason the person most likely to harm a woman is her romantic partner. Women (on average) are better at reading people than men are, but "better than men" and "perfect" are two very different things.

It's not your "soul" she sees; nobody can see your soul. Women can't see your soul either: all they can do is see your actions, and look at their past experiences. And something many women have learned through experience is that an overly giving man is either someone who lacks respect for himself or someone trying to get something from her. Even if you're doing this out of genuine kindness rather than weakness, you will be seen as weak, and perception is more important than reality in attraction.

Honestly, I'm kind of surprised that anyone denies that this happens. Ask any friendly woman, "Has anyone ever mistaken your kindness for weakness?", and 100% of them will say yes. If it can happen to women, are you really surprised that it can happen to men?

But of course, there's a difference between when it happens to a woman vs. a man. A woman mistaken as weak will get taken advantage of, and a man mistaken for weak will be tossed out. A woman who people try to take advantage of can renegotiate responsibilities, but you can't negotiate attraction.

So what does this mean?

Well, if you're a man who's been rejected a lot for being nice, all I can say is this: be yourself, unless you suck. Then be someone else.

Specifically, be as kind and giving as you want to friends, family, and strangers. But if you're naturally a very giving man, don't be that kind to women you'd like to date. Otherwise, she'll think you're weak, and there's no recovering from that.

I have noticed a really weird thing that women have been doing, not only after ONS, but also with someone with whom I was in the early stages. I can only assume this is a way of trying to be vulnerable, because I don't know what else it could possibly be. They will randomly bring up past sexual encounters with other people, but frame that situation as a negative. I don't know the psychology behind it, but it does not do anything but just push someone further away. A lot of the time, it feels like the person is seeking assurance of some sort.

My last relationship was a prime example of this. I was going to express my romantic feelings for her, and on that same day, she was talking about sex that she had a few months prior, which made me assume it was a hint, so I decided not to tell her anything. Skip past a week, and she calls me, crying, telling me that she has feelings for me. This was the most bizarre thing ever. I even told her that the reason I had not confessed my feelings prior was due to this exchange, and how I did not understand why bringing up sex with someone else made any sense if she had feelings for me. She said that she was trying to be vulnerable and open about a ghosting situation that had previously occurred to her.

One of the common fears that a lot of men here have, myself included, is dating a woman who's "settled" for us because we're a safe/reliable choice. Essentially, she didn't find us attractive initially but grew to like us due to our other qualities.

I think there's a certain lack of nuance here. Whilst yes, most women only have spontaneous desire for a small number of men, and some men are legitimate "betabuxxers" who's partner is not actually attracted to them in a physical sense.

However, I believe there's a third category where she wasn't initially attracted, but after getting to know the man she actually became attracted in the carnal sense as well. Usually the man was still somewhat "cute" to her initially but not enough for her to approach him or to put in that much effort. This is what I think women mean by responsive desire.

Dating apps make this type of coupling a lot rarer since a woman is less likely to bother going on multiple dates where she might achieve responsive desire when she has a plethora of options with men that she has actual spontaneous desire for.

I’ve seen a lot of women posting online about noticing the kinds of women their boyfriend/husband watch porn of or follow on social media, and get insecure because they look very different from them. I fully understand why this can be painful, as it’s a pretty universal human experience to not want to feel like you were settled for, but the fact of the matter is, almost all men are settling.

This is because women are hard to come by, so we as men naturally gravitate towards women who show us interest, so long as she checks a decent number of our boxes. “Women sleep with who they want, men sleep with who they can” rings true. The only viable strategy for men, unless you’re so attractive that women gravitate toward you, is to try your luck with many women, until one of them gives you a chance, and chances are, the woman who gives you a chance isn’t exactly what you’re looking for, but she’ll do. Compare this with women, who get pursued by many men, and get to have their pick of the litter of which man they want. Both men and women settle, but men almost always settle, whereas only some women settle.

Most virginity stats put virgin men in their 20s at around 10-15%. I wonder if those numbers can be believed or if the real numbers are way higher. My sons are 24 and 22 and while they older of the two is not a virgin, he said many of his friends are. My younger son has never dated and many of his friends (20-25) have also never had a girlfriend. I wouldn't say any of them are particularly nerdy or below average looking. It seems as if male virginity in early to mid twenties is around 50%. My friends have kids around the same age as mine and also have made similar observations.

Not a single woman here is genuinely scared off or worried about nice guys or losers

But they hold a lot of disgust and loathing for them disproportionate to the "problems" they pose to society.

If anything it's just a convenient group to punch down into -" mowing The lawn" as the Israelis would say because there are men in their lives they can't harm - s.o, father's, brothers who have wronged them or their mothers and sisters or made them miserable in some way reenforcers of the Patriarchy that caters to those men while exploiting women. The project what the know and feel about the men they consider scum onto a group of people who are far less of a threat not in the least because of the lack of proximity but also because these men lack the systemic power or position to do anything to them.

And in this mad rush to cast the stone at diseased dogs the wolves evade all hatred and notoriety

Truly I have lived 32 years on earth and based on what I have gathered it seems that being a loser, being unsuccessful in socio-economic life, and being an entitled nice guy seems like a much bigger sin than say .... Violating consent physically and practising amature orthopedics and faciomaxillary surgery (the breaking part)...

But hey... Feel free to prove me wrong that nice guys get much less heat in social discourse than men who are .... Much much worse

I’ll keep saying it: The maonsphere will gloat about men having more accountability than women and then call it “having no empathy” when women criticize men’s actions and the consequences of it. 

Now, like with other actual male Issues (your penis being dry is a personal issue), manosphere doesnt actually care about those problems. Theyre just looking for a way to blame everything on women. They never care when their own gender fails their fellow man. 

They will sit down, complain about all the negative affects of being raised in a single mother household…. but think absolutely nothing of calling out men who continuously nut in women they don’t wanna stay with. They’ll complain on and on about single mothers needing welfare, but never getting upset at the men who needlessly keep making single mothers who need welfare because he’s too broke to properly give child support. And worse, they always want to side with losers who make excuses why they didn’t spend more time with their children. If his baby mama was that awful, he wouldn’t abandon his children to her.

Another big example is criminals. The vast majority of criminals are men, but that wont stop the mansophere from trying to blame men’s actions on mothers.

I know a lot of women who met abusers and were somehow abused. Financially, mentally, physically. Did you ever learned that someone from your circle was one? Like a friend, someone from family, colleague at work?

What was your reaction? After looking back did you notice any flags which could indicate that?

I know women perception and thoughts but would like to hear what men think.

The reaction to the Danish Deception shows women do hold other women accountable.

Whats the Danish Deception? Basically a Nigerian woman fell in love with a Danish man. Danish man turns out to be an obvious romance scammer and not just scammed her out her money, but her friends and family also.

Link here:

I brought this up as an example showing how redpill/manosphere talking points are bullshit. Mainly that women are quite willing to call out women for being idiots. Thing is….theyre against her individually for obviously dumb things she did. They didnt go all “you women deserve to be beaten for choosing wrong”.

To give a few examples:

Also it shows that its NOT normal for women to just ignore a fuckton of red flags based on a man’s looks. In fact, its clearly seen as pathetic. As well as showing that being a Pick Me is NOT a good thing….except to the men she allows to walk all over her. So no, no one is jealous of a pick me.

And notice….MEN are able to criticize a woman with out being hated?! **GASP** Its almost like……”men arent able to criticize women” is bullshit and that whats not tolerated was misogyny being downplayed as “criticizing women”.

And this isnt even the first time women have called out other women on mass:

Amber Heard 

Mindy Kahling

Collen/Mirandsings

And thats just the biggest examples I have.

“But women were siding with Amber Heard”

If the only women you listen to are radical feminists, YOU CHOOSE to only know those women.

Also, this shows how full of shit the manosphere is when claiming “Men hold themselves accountable more than women” and yet women call out that a man is dealing with the consequences of his actions, it’s “you have no empathy for men, he’s a victim of gynocentricism!”

Such as: 

Man refuse to hone his social skills? “B-b-b-but he has autism! You cant expect him to actually learn to overcome it!”

Man still thinking his failed teen romance well into his 30s? “Have some empathy! Early life experiences fundamentally influence an individual's entire subsequent life! You cant expect him to get over a normal teen experience by his 30s!”

Men abandoning their children and leaving boys with no male role models? “Women’s fault!”

So yeah, whenever I hear guys here complaining about ‘the sisterhood’, Im gonna come back to this.

I am saying because a common answer here when it comes to men not being able to find a girlfriend is "have you tried not being an asshole?" Or "maybe it's because you're a misogynist".

Armie Hammer found a new girlfriend shortly after the allegations came out.

Andrew Tate never had issues finding women.

Men who have killed their own wives' get love letters in jail. ( See: Chris Watts)

Brad Pitt (if we assume the allegations of him being an abuser are true) has a new serious girlfriend.

Even a pathetic addict like Johnny Depp can easily find a woman.

And and I know what you're going to say, that these women are bad therefore they don't count.

But how could you possibly know they're all "bad". What does bad even mean in this context? I bet they treat these men better than the average man gets treated by his wife.

When a man complains about a lack of sex, it is never about the sex itself. There is a chronic feeling of FOMO and exclusion that comes from not being a sexually active man. There are stereotypes and assumptions that we commonly make when we discover that a man is "sexually unsuccessful". There is a pervasive theme in almost all of media that involves sex and how we use sex (or lack of) to develop characters. This general consensus is a woodchipper of self-esteem for any man who fits the criteria. If you are a sexually inactive man, you are not seen as a real person.

When a man whines about sex from any angle; whether it's how high women's standards are or how ugly they are or going into the most autistic (I can say that cuz I am one) elaboration of evolutionary psychology it is never about the content of what they are saying. Fundamentally, it is a lamentation of a lifetime of exclusion from an experience seemingly shared by every single person in society. It is all a front to protect themselves from the horrific possibility that the core of their person must be obliterated and replaced with someone else in order to feel any sort of inclusion with the world at large. "I'm not the problem, it's a problem of the woman's hypergamous nature! I'm not the problem, I was simply born with an unfortunate skull shape!". The content doesn't matter, it's all just padding between the world and their sense of self.

It is very difficult to articulate the sharp emotional pain when listening to people make sexual innuendos that everyone else instinctually guffaws to; or when people describe what they find hot, knowing that it doesn't matter what you find hot because all of it seems unobtainable to you. It just seems like an exercise in figuring out who is in the in-group. Any sort of expressed frustration or sadness about the topic immediately comes with tons of baggage, as if everyone has some sort of instinctual protocol to get the sexually unsuccessful man to shut the fuck up, which only serves to isolate them further. Imagine the impact this has on young boys who don't know any better and how desperate they would become to feel any sort of validation on the matter. Almost like there's an entire political and cultural movement capitalizing on this demographic.

Unfortunately, for men, sex is seen as proof that they are good enough to be in society. A sort of stamp of approval. Is it fair for women? Obviously not, you may be interacting with men who are desperately trying to get in your pants not because of lust, but because they need your approval that they are good enough for this world. The obvious play for you ladies is to have nothing to do with it.

A sad state of affairs that we have collectively conflated what women find sexually desirable with who is worthy of belonging.

Couple questions:
1.Would you date a bi man?
2.Would you date a straight man that has experimented with men in the past? (But he says he is straight)
3.Would you date a man that has had a relationship with a trans woman in the past?

I often see women complaining about their dating struggles and almost always it’s complaining about treatment they received from men. When describing the situation in which they receive the treatment nearly every time it’s them letting a guy hit, and then the guy turns out to not be who he says he is or who they think he should be. The key part of that is women by and large are the receivers of attention and the decision makers on that attention, and I don’t think a lot of women understand what that role entails. Because men are expected to pursue, only the most aggressive men are the ones that get through consistently, hence why women have problems. Women are getting bad sample sizes of men because only the truly daring will pierce the fog of war.

Say as a woman in one month you get interest from 30 men. Women often say they remember most the guys who either said something very clever, went up to them versus hung in the back, etc. This means that these men must have high confidence or at least be delusional about their actual chances, but also want the end product enough to be uncomfortable. As such if you’re selecting for the boldest man, you’re either selecting the most overconfident or the most desperate, neither of which results in positive things and generate a lot of complaints from women. You’re making the selection in hope you find the incredibly rare self-confident man who is confident because his particular skills or attractiveness matches the confidence, but also want you in particular and is not desperate but somehow wanted only you in this room. Statistically this seems like a bad idea, you’re essentially asking the lottery to come to you.

The solution then is simple. If women ask out the guys that they want they are selecting for the traits that they want versus selecting based on what comes to them, they’re the ones being aggressive in which case you’re getting a more safe sample size of men, and you’re finding dudes that are not desperate because you’re the one that approached them. All you hear about today for women is how men are much worse than they were years ago, and the answer that is obvious because as women have entered the workforce and have progressed that by definition means less opportunity can come to men. If you as a woman are expecting the same quality of guys as 30 years ago at the same rate of interactions, then you’re not adding up the math correctly.

I also don’t care if you don’t find an attractive that you have to go out and ask a man, times have changed. If you’ve ever complained about men finding homemakers attractive for the same reason, you can’t pull the same card. It also says that you are willingly entering a more dangerous sample size of men by not asking less bold men out who have other traits and prioritizing excitement over everything else, in which case you can’t complain about the quality of men you’re actually getting.

The world doesn’t have your best interest, it has its own. Single people make best customers, best employees, and people choosing to be single will only make the competition in the mating pool small. When you don’t have your own family, you most likely end up pouring your energy into a faceless corporation.

We have a huge propaganda telling people to be single, and it’s said by people who act otherwise. It’s sort of like people telling you college is useless, yet those tend to be from very prestigious colleges.

Lot of women think they are winning being single, I don’t know what your game is but it’s a genetic dead end, same for guys. There is only two objectives to life: survive and replicate. Everything else is a facade.

One of the most frustrating parts about any discussion revolving around dating, expectations and etc is how different the online experience is for men and women.

For men, you are almost guaranteed to have very negative experiences that is a woodchipper for self-esteem. Because of these negative experiences, you have more motivation to change something. You'll think about how you can get off the apps and meet people IRL and etc etc. Anyone that gets negative feedback from something is going to be inclined to avoid it in the future.

For women, it's completely the opposite. A woman online is going to get bombarded with positive experiences. They'll get on an app and receive more male attention than they could ever dream of. They might even find some of those guys attractive, which is also a positive experience. There are tons of people who will be willing to soothe and console you if express any sort of frustration. These are all positive things, which would make women want to use the apps more.

But here's the problem: What women experience online might as well be an outright lie. The attention they receive from men online might be high in quantity, but they are basically the same few options over and over. Those few options aren't actually going to make for good partners. Any sort of emotional support they get from strangers online is basically toxic positivity since the message can be summarized as "Don't change, the world should change for you." Like women don't have nearly as many options and choice on what sort of man they can get as everyone thinks they do. They are entirely sucked into the promise that they can simply sit in the safety of their own home and vet through all their options, as if their options are a representative sample of the entire male population (they aren't). You'll be vetting through the same few types of men over and over again hoping that you'll get lucky.

The frustrating part, especially for me as a man, is that you ladies are just not doing anything. It will take you a very long time for you to become disillusioned and realize that what you experience online is a lie. Until you do, every hobby group, class, event or whatever are just sausage fests because men are more motivated to put themselves out there out of necessity, while ladies sit at home thinking their dream man is just one more swipe away. The men become disillusioned with the online world far faster than you do, since it's more aggressively negative to us. It's ridiculous and you ladies need to snap out of it. You aren't even getting what you want from them and you know it.

"Teach men not to rape" "Men need to learn consent"

Look at these reddit threads. Read them all the way down. Now imagine if these were women's answers rather than mens.

Do you still think 90+ percent of rapists are men? Which gender really needs to learn consent?

This daily thread is designed to be a place for all the funny discussions on PPD.

Feel free to post off-topic questions, information, points-of-view, personal advice and memes in this thread. Here you can post everything that doesn't warrant its own thread or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and things would be considered low effort posts are allowed in the daily thread.

Do not bring other PPD threads into the daily thread. Do not post PPD threads deserving of their own post in the daily thread. The intent of the daily thread is not that it should replace PPD and become a place where users can avoid the rules of the subreddit. Attempting to do this will be considered circlejerking and moderated as such.

Black Pill/Incel Content/Woe-Is-Me is still banned in the daily thread. Witch hunting and insults are also still banned in the daily thread. Relegated topics must still go to in the weekly threads for those topics.

Comments are automatically sorted by NEW - you can post throughout the day and people will see your comment.

If you'd like to see our previous daily threads, !

Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.

Also find us on and !

Rightwing points- 1.Women don’t commit crime at levels right-wingers actually care about—so the “immigrant crime” argument mostly goes away.

2. Women assimilate easier, learn new languages faster, and don’t create the same cultural friction and are just generally more adaptable than men.

3. Job competition would mostly hit women’s jobs which right wingers should be happy about since it will allow more conservative women to be stay-at-home moms since the value of those jobs will go down.

Left wing points -

1. Fits feminist framing that men are violent prioritizing women perfectly fits your rehtoric

2. Women generally end up safer in the U.S. than in the unstable countries they’re leaving

3. since leftists and liberals insist immigration doesn't effect wages there is no problem for women either. Unless you admit you've been explicitly voting to make it so the working class can't grow their wages which would be wild ngl.

In which case since you blame socioeconomic factor for all crime you then admit to being at directly at fault for crime.

4. Women tend to care more about workplace and personal safety. So if anything workplaces would be safer for them than for men because they hold higher safety standards

Overall - Most women today don’t want families or kids compared to men, so this doesn’t create a big problem in that area.

The usual “society will change” worries don’t matter much since dating markets and birthrates are already weird and if anything will be more manageable with only women.

Most immigration problems people argue about are actually male problems—crime, job competition, slow assimilation. Switching to women dodges most of the conflict on both sides

Have you ever turned down a man that you were attracted to because you decided he was out of your league?

Men often date down. For many reasons, relating to access to women.

I think despite what women say, they can tell when a man is truly better than them and the smart ones will avoid this scenario and play with men that will actually appreciate them. The dumb ones... well...

Which one would you prefer? A world where everyone wears eye-liner, does pedicure, spends a lot of money on beauty products, wears designer clothes and can easily spend several hours a week shopping for clothes, bags and nail products? In this case both genders would have equal amount of social presure to fit in too (obviously you wanna hire, promote and date charming people who "take care of themselves").

Or would you prefer to live in a world where both genders were very chill, make-up would be near non-existent, function over looks, basic clothes, earthly colors, etc. Low pressure, low expectations for appearence.

Which direction would you prefer to equalize things?

So many RP men claim they used to listen to women, heed their dating advice, be respectful, and generally try to model "good feminist men" before switching to the red pill. I have to wonder, how many of them were actually feminists?

A lot of the stories follow along the lines of "I tried to listen to feminism, but women still didn't want to date me, so I realized feminism was a lie." For these cases, it seems like feminism was just a tool rather than a legitimate belief system (reminds me of the current performative-male meme going around on tiktok).

Even outside of that, the whole "Red Pill" thing presents itself as an alternative to feminism's false reality. But feminism isn't a "reality": its an overt political position. I feel like RPers should know this best. Obviously every woman isn't a representative of feminism and obviously many women's behavior doesn't align with feminist ideals. The fact that so many men feel betrayed by this suggests they didn't really "get" feminism in the first place.

Now I will admit feminism frames a lot of claims about reality (I hesitate to say feminism "does" anything), but it is a theoretical framework to make sense of things, not the things themselves. (I think this is evidenced by the way people on this sub can have vastly different interpretations of the same statistics). I'll also admit that a lot of feminists don't do a great job of making their ideas make sense to the average guy, or even acknowledging and accepting a diversity of opinion.

All that being said, how did these men go from "confused feminist sympathizer" to "feminism is a plague on society"? Surely there are other steps they could take (look up dissident feminist literature, talk to/read about male feminists, simply accept that women being wrong/bad sometimes doesn't reflect all women). I imagine info and common discourse was quite different back when RP was started, so maybe that's what I'm missing. If this sort of thing discribes you, tell me: why did you make the jump?

(I am student-researcher, and, while this is a regular question/debate post, it may be used for my semester paper. If you don't want your response to be included, feel free to tag with **. I also don't mind if you have questions or critiques about my research/methods.)

When the Syrian Revolution hit, Assad started targeting the moderate groups that wanted to overthrow him. After all, why would anyone support the opposition when it was entirely made up of religious radicals who wanted to institute sharia law? It definitely bought him a few years in power.

I'm bringing this up because the feminist ISIS and HTS are already winning with straight women. It's increasingly apparent that they don't like men that much, we even have entire subreddits on the issue! As straight men, we really don't tend to stick to each other that much. Decade after decade, we have been unable to stop the tide of feminism from undermining our institutions. Yet this trend of performative disaffiliation from heterosexuality is a blessing in disguise for us.

It is extremely easy for queer people, from an outside perspective, to take the side of feminist activists against patriarchy. But just let them see what happens once political lesbianism surges again and they start pestering queer spaces. The original movement was notoriously problematic, and is acknowledged as such nowadays. You had women like Sheila Jeffries, with no indication at all of actually liking women anymore than they did of liking men, calling out sapphic women for being sapphic. Because as we all now, desiring women in non-feminist approved ways, even if you're a woman yourself, is the work of the patriarchy.

Is it really hard to imagine 4B and such modern movements creating enough pushback if they start overtaking queer spaces with their superior movements? Just take a look at what these women are saying to check if it'd fly in those spaces. Many of them will specify it's cis men they hate, totally lacking in self awareness regarding why thinking of trans men as women lite is problematic. And if they also hate trans men, that's problematic too! Additionally, just like the political lesbians of old, they love kink shaming! They'll constantly complain about porn brained men having kinks which would be incredibly tame compared to what many queer people I know are into. I also doubt actually sapphic women will be happy to find out most women pursuing other women suddenly aren't actually into women.

Really, as much as these women might want to disaffiliate from heterosexuality and its institutions, actually following through will gain them a much stronger enemy. Unlike straight men, queer people will actively protect their institutions from intruders. In contrast to the silence straight men have historically offered against feminism, there'll be no shortage of op eds calling out the problematic aspects of "straight" feminism. We might not be able to deal the killing blow, but pushing them into the jaws of a powerful enemy sounds like a treat to me.

If after a woman's beauty fades her SMV decreases and let's say thats when she is roughly 30, then most(90%) of men never even experience a sexual prime in their lives the way a woman does. Since most men never get the kind of attention women get in their 20s.

So a woman being in any kind of relationship with a man is actually settling and while a woman can give a man her prime or not a man can't do the same because he never has a sexual prime.

I keep seeing the statistic mentioned (but not presented, so this post is based on the unfounded assumption that it's true) that married women die younger than lifelong single women thrown around as proof that men are these horrible, burdensome, psychic vampires who suck all the life out of the women they are with and slowly destroy them. Anything to promote the narrative that men are horrible and that misandry is totally justified, right?

However, I propose the opposite hypothesis, which is that these women found their men so wonderful that they died of a broken heart when they no longer could enjoy their company. We all know that men die younger than women, so there will necessarily be more widows than widowers, and thus more women to survive with a broken heart than men. Both my grandmas had to do this, but the most dramatic case was my maternal grandma, who had a widowhood of 55 years and lived to be over 100; nevertheless, she felt she was ready to die decades before she did and described herself as "cursed with good health." If she hadn't been of such a strong constitution, she no doubt would have died of a broken heart a good 40 or 50 years earlier.

Besides, if it turned out that widowers live shorter lives than lifelong single men, we all know that the narrative would not be that the deceased wives sucked all the life out of them, but rather that they were lazy bums who couldn't survive without their wives taking care of them.

We sometimes see women claim that certain characteristics are bare minimum, that they're qualities that men are expected to have and qualities that don't make a man special for having them.

What are the positive qualities that don't fall into this category, the ones that impress you and/or make a man stand out? The ones that separate average men from men who are highly attractive (not just physically).

Provide as many as you can think of.

I seen a study recently that claimed that 70% of men in the US now want society to go back to traditional gender roles. Basically when women are subordinate to men and stay at home in the kitchen. All women. I’m finding this really hard to believe despite the fact that misogyny has been growing rapidly. Men do you guys genuinely support this?

Simps and Pickmes get used interchangeably often but the results of those types of people couldn't be more different. For instance, despite various women claiming they want this princess treatment or guys pining over them, more often then not they treat guys who exhibit such behaviors towards them as annoying desperate creeps they want to avoid. Then gravitate more towards men who exhibit more stoic indifference towards them.

On the flip side, how many guys you hear complaining about women simping for them? Not many. There was a post recently on PPD by a woman complaining about another woman bragging online about basically ignoring what her single friends advised and now being engaged. There's a growing trend of women posting how they're going above and beyond to cater to their men and the ones calling them Pickmes and complaining are only women. Yet these "Pickmes" are married or engaged. Meaning the behavior has gotten them what they wanted.

On the flip side though, how many men have gotten what they wanted from simping? Any trends of that working or famous simps? The most viral simp I can think of was 6ft+ Derrick Jaxn, who wasn't even really a simp. Dude just pretended to simp to sell books and targeted to women. His own wife said he was quadruple timing her in college and he had side chicks coming out of the woodworks talking about how he knocked them up. So yeah, not a simp. So yeah, although both groups are talks about like they're equally negative behavior, one group is actually seeing success from the behavior, while the other has been failing badly.

I’m a 19M broke college kid who has never dated anyone before so take this with a grain of salt, but lowkey mid 20s early thirties women are hot. Yet i’m always hearing from the red pill guys that 18 year olds are super hot, and that women peak in their early 20s. I don’t disagree with the sentiment that 18 year olds are hot, but I don’t get the sentiment that women peak in their early twenties. Women in their mid-late twenties are more mature, financially stable, and curvey than their younger counterparts🥵. I really don’t think most women start to fall off until they’re mid to late thirties honestly. I also think older men who say 18 year olds are hot, probably like teenagers, but don’t want to be labeled as pedos so they say 18 years olds as a dog whistle. Maybe this is a lukewarm take idk, but I always hearing these podcaster dudes in their mid thirties talking about how hot 18 year olds are.

I have to write this because I think this sub has way too many people who don’t understand that empathy is about understanding people, it is not to baby you and tell you that nothing’s your fault as to justify constantly wallowing in self-pity.

For example, I understand that school is boring and that teacher sometimes can suck. I also understand that learning is important and learning to deal with annoying people is a good skill to obtain Hence, kids, regardless of gender, need help to understand to sit down, shut up, and learn instead of flunking out of school.

Second example, people can understand how depression affects people, especially other depressed people. People also understand that you can’t just treat people like a free therapist constantly upset around them 24/7, especially when you are doing that to your friends, and not your family. So when other depressed people don’t wanna be around you, it’s time to think that being vulnerable isn’t the problem, especially when they warned you about your behavior being toxic and draining to be around.

Third example, similar to the second, autistic people understand how hard it is to be disadvantaged in social skills. That is not an excuse to never learn social skills, especially when you were warned that your inconsiderate behavior is about to leave you with no friends.

People who demand empathy are always a red flag because they don’t have empathy for others and they usually mean “I am blameless, please pity me” when they use the word empathy. They are allergic to accountability and personal responsibility.

I'm not even saying this is a bad thing, but I don't know why people like to pretend that sex positive social norms aren't mainstream. We live in a post-sexual revolution, largely virtual dating world that provides women with dozens of immediately accessible suitors that they're encouraged to explore. It's taboo to slut shame or have body count discussions nowadays. Contraception is more accessible than it has ever been and discourses about consent are required in basically every institution where genders intermingle via Title IX.

Again, I don't necessarily have a problem with any of these things, most of it is a net positive. For some reason, though, women on here still speak as if we're living in the 90's when it comes to female sex positivity. My experience as a man might be at play here, but I've unironically seen more men be shamed for calling women derogatory names based on their promiscuity than I've seen women actually shamed for being promiscuous. Hell, I haven't even seen the word "slut" used unironically since like 2016 lmao.

It's similar to when men complain about breadwinner expectations and gold diggers when more than half the female population is in the workforce and single income households are a rarity; it's a classic complaint from a time past being parroted despite it having no real basis in the modern gender relations. It feels like one of those things people just accept as true because it was true for so long in the past. There are still many unfair expectations and assumptions women face in the dating world, but this doesn't really seem like one of them anymore.

In conversations about gender roles man constantly lament that women have looser gender roles and that men want looser gender roles as well. Many men say they are deemed unattractive when they lean into more feminine gender roles. This is largely because said men try to lean into the more passive and inactive gender roles women take.

Men who take on the active parts of women's gender role are generally sought after. For instance men who plan social events and gatherings, who maintain close relationships with multiple people, men who cook, who are great listeners, etc are more sought after than the identical man without those traits.

Moreover, some men seem to be misenpereting the assertion that men don't need to fit 100% of gender stereotype to mean men don't need to embody ANY masculine characteristics. This is just incredibly naive.

For heterosexual women, a man needs to have some masculine attributes in order to be appealing. That's not some secret and no it doesn't contradict what women have been asking for in men. It's nuance, which men apparently struggle with mightily.

As an example, when feminism became adopted women took on some of men's roles but they did not abandon everything feminine about them either. Women have always understood if there was **nothing** feminine about them they wouldn't have any sexual and romantic appeal to men. Men seem to adopt an all or nothing approach and are increasingly failing to understand that.

Women are looking for partners who do both; who have some feminine traits and some masculine traits. And the most successful marriages have men in them that can do both. Neither women nor society are saying in earnest that men can abandon each and every masculine traits and still be sexually appealing to women

This is something I call the cycle of shit. Where there are 4 stages. Stage 1 encourage men. Stage 2 demonize men. Stage 3 judge men for doing the alternative. And finally stage 4, repeat the process. And everyone plays a role in this cycle. Especially Feminists too.

Stage 1: Society encourage men to cold approach women. Because that shows a man is confident, and have "game/rizz/aura" (I.E. cringe). Encourage men to be hypersexual. Encourage men to be mind readers, and not ask for consent, because women don't find that sexy, because it's a turn off. Encourage men to pursue women without having the intention of pursuing women though, so the man doesn't seem "desperate".

Stage 2: And the next part (you guys are going to love this part /s). Society demonize men for being sexual predators. Saying how uncomfortable men make women feel when they approach them. Saying how men don't understand no, so women give fake numbers, since they don't know how a man would react to the word no. Since women don't know which men are good or bad, so they must be cautious and assume all men are potential threats for their safety. This how we get 1 out of 4 women have a SA story. This how we get men are statistically more violent argument. This how we get bear vs man.

Stage 3: And then men are judge for doing the alternative. All of a sudden women are telling men that it's two different women, and women aren't a monolith when it comes to men approaching women being a good or bad thing. Despite this being a universal fear all women claim to have. All of a sudden Feminists are calling men paranoid or socially awkward for worrying about false allegations. All of a sudden women psychic abilities kick in, and they can automatically know which men are creepy (this ends up being a Kafka trap). All of a sudden men get their sexuality questioned for some reason (why are you ghey?).

Stage 4: And finally, it repeats itself. Hence why I call this the cycle of shit.

This is why the cycle of shit is a better explanation for “rape culture” than most feminist arguments. It describes the contradictory expectations placed on men from every direction, including by the same communities that insist they’re challenging sexism.

The same behavior encouraged in Stage 1 becomes dangerous or immoral in Stage 2.

So men are attacked whether they act sexual or whether they don’t.

And the whole thing loops back to the beginning.

Male behavior is both encourage and demonize at the same time by society.

Society teaches people that male sexuality is either something to fear or want to control. There are so much stories of men saying they are afraid to complement women or even have the bare minimum of interactions with women in their daily life. Because they are afraid of being labeled creeps or potential rapists by others. This is an example of society demonizing male sexuality.

But on the flip side though. Men are also expected to be assertive or aggressive even by women, when it comes to pursuing women or approaching women. And there is the stereotype of the horny man. Men are so sex obsessed that even if a woman is just in the same area as the man. He will lose control and have nose bleeds like an anime character. Hence why even in feminist media. The femme fatale trope of women using sex to control or manipulate men is praise and is considered empowerment for women in some Feminist spaces, the same spaces that demonize the male gaze too (how ironic). This is an example of society encouraging male sexuality to be this way.

There are two forces working against men here. So there is definitely a paradox here. On one hand society call men creeps, predators or even horn dogs at best (I used the words AT BEST strongly here). But on the other hand men are also called odd, closeted gay men, or standoffish assholes when they are not openly sexual with women though. Men aggressively pursuing women in romantic movies is usually portray as a good thing in movies/media. Because it show how much the man loves the woman. But in real life this would be considered super creepy if men acted like male characters in most romantic movies. So again it's a toxic loop that keeps going in circles. Again the cycle of shit.

I even have a personal anecdote story. I constantly here men from both online and real life say they are afraid to interact with women. Because they don't want to get label as creeps. While I'm dealing with the opposite end of this paradox. Where men and even women themselves find it odd that I don't interact with women that much, (despite me not interacting with men too lol).

And it's not just male sexuality. You can apply this paradox to any masculine behavior. Men are both demonize for having and encourage to have at the same time.

For example I'm going to Gangster Rap music here: (BTW this example is coming from the perspective of a black man).

Let's say I'm a gangster rap. My music need to be authentic. So my fans can listen to it. So I need to be a gangster in real life too. Or my fans would think I'm a punk or poser. So my fans ENCOURAGE me to be a real life gansgter.

Then I go out and commit an actual crime, and then go to jail and ruin my life lol. Then the same fans DEMONIZE me, call me stupid or a crashout. Now all of a sudden these are the same fans making think pieces about Rap music promoting violence. And talking about how Rappers should do better.

See where I'm going here? 🫵

Sounds familiar right? 🤔

Does this ring a bell?👇

"Men are violent and only know how to solved situations with violence. because men are raised to be violent people. They start wars, and boom countries. But men should also use this same violence to protect women from other men and beat up a cat callers or rapists. Because that what a real man would do. Now that's what I call positive masculinity".

Be sexual but also don’t be sexual

Approach women but also don’t approach women

Be strong and aggressive but also stay gentle and contained

Be protectors but also be harmless

Be confident but also never risk making someone uncomfortable

This is why so many men feel trapped.

Male behavior is simultaneously encouraged and demonized.

Again that’s the cycle of shit. And it keeps going because society runs on double binds.

In conclusion.

It's one of the many double binds men find themselves in. We live in a society.

In society the drugs are male gender roles. And Red-pillers are the drug addicts. While blue pillers or even Feminists are the enablers. They reward compliance, mock deviation, and punish failure, keeping the addiction alive. Men are trapped in a feedback loop, craving approval while being set up for failure. The cycle perpetuates itself because the “drug” is socially coded as necessary for survival and status.

I'm not going to regurgitate the 80/20 stats, but there is clear asymmetry in male online dating attention.

However, around half of relationships start online, so does this imply the top 20% men have multiple relationships or that the bottom 20% are the ones turning their likes into relationships?

My view is while 20% of men receive 80% of attention, they are not the ones forming relationships. It's the 80% of men who only receive 20% of attention who are forming the relationships.

If we want to start any discussion then first we need some basic things people can agree upon. What is right and wrong or what is immoral or moral.

Right wing men typically aren't suitable for any issues like male loneliness epidemic or gender based discrimination. First, They don't believe in the rights of gay, ethnic minorities and trans community which is really important. Second, they believe that you need to pull yourself up by bootstrap bs. The more concerning fact is that the mainstream right wing is getting pulled towards the far right in US as of now.

Some young republicans were seen using racist remarks against black people. The leading figure of current far right is Nick fuentes and you guys already know the poison he spew against every community which isn't white. He's seen as replacement of charlie kirk by many.

For example, let's talk about male loneliness epidemic or sexlessness among young men. This is essentially caused by outdated gender norms that's still imposed on men. The man has to be a provider and women need to be a nurturer and primary caregiver. On surface, it seems a good idea but in this economy it's really not. You have feminists screaming that women aren't slave of the patriarchy but same progressive women who subscrie to the idea of feminism and abolishing patriarchy won't marry a guy who doesn't earn or earns more than them.

They want selective patriarchy. Where they've benefits of benevolent sexism without getting the whole package that stems from patriarchy.

Men are lectured about toxic masculinity and how patriarchy is a culprit behind all the problems we face but when progressive men like us tell those mainstream progressives that women are the ones who always want men to approach, initiate dates, always pay and earn more than we're just being misogynist.

If we say that male loneliness and decline in romantic prospects are happening because of atomisation of society and unchecked hypergamy then we're fueling conspiracy theories. We all know the unlimited options women have and there struggles aren't remotely close to ours but the feminists will still emphasise that there is a lack of quality men.

If we talk about how women are just filtering out most men on the basis of immutable traits like height and race then you're being unreasonable and Andrew tate followed despite all the empirical studies supporting us. Most women are shrinking their dating pool with superficial things and wonder why they're having bad experience.

They frame male loneliness as a revenge against men for not treating them poorly and not doing the "bare minimum". Hmm, i wonder who's doing the bare minimum after you refuse to date an average man as an average woman. The guy who has never dated anyone in life is lonely because other men who have plenty of options don't put efforts for superficial women?

Really trying to question rather than debate, I'm curious to get some perspectives I might not normally be exposed to.

I'm also curious about how you define value, so please give me an explanation if you're feeling it. Personally? Spiritually? Socially? Societally? Cosmically?

Also if no, do you have an idea of what will give it value (if anything?)

Edit: Thanks for the range of perspectives!

In the scenario where she isn't physically attracted to a guy but still goes ahead and sleep and then marries him, what is the point here? Isn't she having sex with a guy she doesn't want and presumably cooking and cleaning while she doesn't even want to be there?

What's the end goal here?

Assuming she has a job, what is she getting out of this arrangement?

“Why are just calling out just men?”

Because the manosphere is filled with guys like that. 

Guys who got teased in highschool and still thinking about it going into their 30s. Unless literal crimes were committed, youre not special for being bullied. Its a common thing. Stop acting like its your tragic backstory.

Oh but this is my favorite one: Not letting go of that highschool ex who “did him wrong”. Its even worse because I met a grown man still thinking about his MIDDLE SCHOOL “GIRLFRIEND” CHEATING ON HIM, allowed it to make him be avoidant and then wonders why no one wants to be around him at age 32.

There’s also the whole “Society hates men!” because some blue haired weirdos said mean things about men on twitter, as if men are the only ones called mean things on the internet.

Now, I realize its because these guys were never taught to handle normal problems properly (due to being coddled, taught toxic masculinity, sometimes both) but there’s no excuse to not work on your problems. Acting no better than a 12 year-old when you’re in your late 20s is unacceptable.

This is an open ended question regarding a phenomenon that's lightly out of the norm, I suppose.

After all, the presupposition here is that men always chase varied sexual opportunity like a laser, but I wonder about whether the inverse thing is a growing phenomenon.

That is, to entertain strong connections, nudging and churning those a little bit, knowing full well you give off the impression that things will happen, even though it's never said outright.

But you already know you won't go there. It's not even what you're after. You just want "attractiveness confirmed" and "they would bang me if I allowed it", and that's all you're after.

I've done this alot actually. I started late, dated around for a limited time and was then in a committed relationship. Past peak hormone, sex itself matters less, but regaining the sense that you're a catch, that you could absolutely kill it if you wanted to, it means something. PS: I stopped doing this completely, a couple of years back, when we became parents.

Some say, this kind of coquettish behavior is very bisexual and yeah, for me that tracks. I definitely did this thing with men and women both.

Now, I wonder how common that is. And it seems to me that guys of younger generations are now more reserved, complex, reflective and autonomous in many respects.

Is this behavior on the rise? Or was it, and always will be, a strange little anomaly?

Did you ever do it yourself?

Also for the women here, have you encountered this behavior?

This daily thread is designed to be a place for all the funny discussions on PPD.

Feel free to post off-topic questions, information, points-of-view, personal advice and memes in this thread. Here you can post everything that doesn't warrant its own thread or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and things would be considered low effort posts are allowed in the daily thread.

Do not bring other PPD threads into the daily thread. Do not post PPD threads deserving of their own post in the daily thread. The intent of the daily thread is not that it should replace PPD and become a place where users can avoid the rules of the subreddit. Attempting to do this will be considered circlejerking and moderated as such.

Black Pill/Incel Content/Woe-Is-Me is still banned in the daily thread. Witch hunting and insults are also still banned in the daily thread. Relegated topics must still go to in the weekly threads for those topics.

Comments are automatically sorted by NEW - you can post throughout the day and people will see your comment.

If you'd like to see our previous daily threads, !

Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.

Also find us on and !

For all the guys that are doing the right things, and going above and beyond, you're paying a premium for something some other guy will get at a discount. There really is no point, when a girl genuinely likes you it doesn't matter. Keep the bar on the floor, the right women for you will be more than happy with it.

Don't forget to keep progressing in life

To be clear, I'm not saying women actually have to hookup with them, but if a man isn't getting the vibe that she wants to fuck his brains out within the first 2 dates and continually after, it's just not worth the risk of investment. Basically, if she's the kind of woman who needs to know you before being attracted to you, she's not your woman.

If you're looking for something serious, avoid being "that guy" at all costs. You know, that guy she's only with for some financial stability, emotional stability, social pressures, a rebound, to take care of her kids, or worst of all, just because you're a nice guy. You don't ever want to be in an otherwise happy 20 year marriage, but your wife just isn't interested physically AT ALL. Dead bedroom. That one's the worst cause they both know he's a great guy, she's just not into him. And if you've ever been in a relationship where a woman actively wants to have sex with you just because, you'd know just how much you're settling even with a woman who only kinda thinks you're attractive so long as she likes your personality.

And I'm not trying to say attraction doesn't grow, I know it does, especially for women. But as a man, it's just not worth the risk, and not worth settling for. A man wants a woman who is into his body and personality, but too many times a man finds himself in a relationship where the woman only wants the one, and sometimes neither. The easiest way to eliminate that risk is to filter for only women who are super into you by at least date 2. The first date, okay she's just getting to know you. But by the second, if she doesn't have fuck eyes, is enthusiastically carrying the conversation and touching your arm, it's not worth the risk, and it's not worth settling for.

And don't get fooled by early intimacy either. Women get fooled by men showing a lot of effort at first, but a fake man's efforts will always wane. Same thing with women, if she's not like this for the following months of dating, that's a ticking timebomb that could go off 20 years deep in a "happy" relationship. Quit while it's early and easy.

This comment by a woman I saw is so emblematic of that:
"I don't mean to be an ass, but that burning hot lust doesn't come after getting to know someone. I know if a guy stirs up my feral side the second I see him. But other guys can be attractive, in a safe way. Like being excited to go home and use a vibrator. Both will work, but only one really sets us off like animals."

Don't be that safe guy. Don't be the runner-up prize. Don't settle for a woman who isn't immediately and sustainably into you physically. If she needs to know you before being attracted to you, she's not your woman.

One of the common parenting behaviors you see nowadays is the father having a talk with their daughters before they start dating about the type of guys they should be pursuing and how they should be treated in a relationship.

Growing up, I thought all children got this talk at some point in their teenage lives (I did). However, I've heard from a lot of my male friends that they never got such a talk before. In fact, their parents never really talked about relationships at all around them.

I'm curious, is this true from what you've seen, and why do you think so many guys never got that talk growing up?

Seems to me, at least in the online space when men say they want better from their women in a relationship it’s met with opposition. I often see people saying, “who do you think you are?”, “You are not owed x, y, z”, “You should be happy she would even want you”

However, whenever I see threads of women unhappy in their relationships it’s always met with, “You deserve so much better”, “He’s lucky to even be with you” etc.

It just seems to me that we actively discourage men from seeking better if their relationship isn’t meeting their needs more than we do women.

Include your reddit username, pill color, age and gender when you arrive in the welcome mat to introduce yourself and help people get to know you.

You can also find Mrs_Drgree on and for notifications on when good threads are posted.

Basically the title. From what I've seen, conservative men in general always talk about how most men aren't actually bad and that women overgeneralize too much about things like SA and the risks of dating men (in response to feminists/the blue pill) but are protective of their own daughters and sisters when it comes to dating/sex. In fact, conservative men even seem more protective of their female family members than liberal men are in general.