Again you still haven’t given any actual evidence, just hearsay. I think he’s not a human worm because society doesn’t get to play Schrödingers feminist and say sex is a completely normal stigma free activity and women are capable responsible adults just like any man just to turn around and exonerate any woman the moment she shows regret for some of her consensual choices and paint any man who benefitted as a monstrous villain. You can’t claim complete sexual emancipation, then cry wolf anytime …
Tactics that “closely resemble” doesn’t mean is human trafficking. Also then why were they acquitted? And women are adults. Why can’t they take responsibility for their own actions?
Actually it emphasises it. My whole point was that the men who seem most extreme in subduing women come from background’s of female empowerment. Essentially the cop is disillusioned with the system and becomes the bank robber if you will.
So you’re saying a lot of it isn’t advice or constructive, it’s just outrage for the sake of outrage. I agree with that to an extent. But still the redpill is the only place that acknowledges men getting the short end of the stick, and thus the only place that does NOT innately exploit manhood, directly or indirectly.
Yes, it’s the job of any creator to profit off their content. And what does that even mean “tendency to lead to the exploitation of mens masculinity”? Sound like you just don’t agree with the content that is also making money.
I don’t believe so but it doesn’t really matter anyway. The point is redpills message has nothing to do with webcam models or pimping. Andrew Tate isn’t the entire Red pill.
Individually you can have whatever you want no problem. It’s when women collectively want something they aren’t offering that it becomes inegalitarian.
If you are completely socially isolated, is it not a substantial improvement to your situation if you are consistently able to attract and interact with the opposite sex?
I mean, and I’ve said this in the first comment, that all women can have sex and all men can’t , that is the gap. That doesn’t mean if you haven’t had sex that you are lonely, but it does mean that it’s impossible to be socially isolated as a woman. Because by being a woman you will always be able to attract men. At its core the loneliness epidemic is about social isolation. And thus is an exclusively male phenomena.
It always comes down to the fact that any woman can get sex and intimacy, any man can’t. So unless you have anything to disprove this, your “evidence” is going to fall on dead ears.
You said men don’t defend women blindly against criticism, they defend them against the manosphere. So I’m asking fora example of non manosphere criticism to substantiate your point .
Because it makes for a lopsided relationship. This is for modern women (feminists) btw. I completely agree trad women should want first dates paid for and look out for themselves in other ways.
You’re not getting my and OPs point. Feminism has made men view women differently so they treat them differently. If men did still see feminine virtue in virginity/chastity, they all would also be far more inclined to marry virgins.
It wasn’t a relationship. I didn’t want one, because she wasn’t the one. Just very short friends relationship. But because I didn’t want a relationship we couldn’t be friends anymore either.
The reason men are misguided is because they listened to women in the first place. It’s single moms who create broken men who can’t get 🐱. Not the jocks and chads who look up to their “patriarchal” fathers and have redpill wisdom in their bones.
Or maybe the entire point of the game from the beginning was to provide for the wifey. Women always were the spenders of the man’s money. But now there are no wifeys.
I assumed that was a given that from higher suicide rates we can infer lower public satisfaction. But if you see it differently ok. What on earth does slutshaming have to do with rights? You feminists make every disapproval of your choices an infringement on your rights. Open disapproval is fundamental to freedom and democracy.
You conveniently keep leaving out “for life”. The entire idea behind feminist independence and self sufficients is that women shouldn’t belong to/build their existence around a man. If you have a boyfriend for life you essentially do. Women have multiple boyfriend while building their independence essentially still referring to the sexual market OP was about.
You conveniently keep leaving out “for life”. The entire idea behind feminist independence and self sufficients is that women shouldn’t belong to/build their existence around a man. If you have a boyfriend for life you essentially do.
I didn’t assert anything. And no the argument is purely the sexual revolution. No one is talking about other choices women make than who they open their legs to.
I’m not ignoring that. I never said or implied it wasn’t that. Because how are you independent while in a relationship with a lifelong partner. That’s an oxymoron.
It precludes independence by definition. If you have a boyfriend you intend to spend your entire life with you by definition have removed yourself from the independent lifestyle. And not having sex outside of relationships isn’t the same thing as not having sex with multiple people.
Men are more inclined to invest in and marry virgins. Not just women in general because they can’t get sex. Believe it or not women being “second class” citizens gave them special standing in society, a level of respect and protection. Now that you’re basically just other men, men see no duty toward you.
What makes you say that? The entire point of OP is that many men see no need to even consider commitment, not that men just aren’t committing to unstable relationships.
Because that’s a natural human desire is it not? It’s like saying who says you want friends? Because looking for or desiring a committed bf for 100% of your adult life would contradict developing an independence. I’m not saying it’s impossible to happen, but there should be 0 intention of it happening.
Because women make multiple different sexual and relationship choices, and not just one choice for life like it used to be. That’s exactly the problem.
Even if we entertain such an extreme. The fact that many men were competing for the commitment of women gave women choice and thus the ability for high standards.
You’re missing my point how can you claim that remaining single rather than entering failed relationships is better for people when people never have been better off when this dynamic happens?
It’s disgusting to everyone. Women say they don’t care but never reveal their bodycount publicly and the first insult they use for other women they don’t like is slut.
It’s implied through the encouragement of every woman to first develop an independent self sufficient lifestyle. How can you be sexually active/fulfilled in your lifestyle and dependent on no individual without having sex with multiple people?
But you can establish a casual relationship between overall satisfaction and increased suicides. Meaning the onus is on you to show that preventing relationships that “weren’t meant to be” actually leads to more positive outcomes. It’s the hope that dies last.
Ok I’ll give an example women always lie to eachother while men, specially mates, will tell eachother straight to the face if their look is weird or ugly. Why is this? Emotionality and ego.
Where do I begin….. How about you give examples that you think prove women aren’t like this. Oh and I forgot to mention neurotic, so even if some men are like this women are to a far greater extent.
In the long run I would be thankful for her telling me that if I was the dad. She’s for the streets. It would be like not knowing someone had an affair for many years.
You aren’t just not using the S word. You’re coming up with a completely false narrative on what “wife material” stands for. You’re not protecting anyone’s feelings, you’re protecting their ego. If you love them you’d tell them the truth rather than enabling their delusion. If it’s weird to tell your spouse what you truly think about them it’s probably because you shouldn’t have entered the relationship like that in the first place. Again what is a relationship worth where the other puts on a pe…
Men and women have different authority not because of what they do but who they are. Men and women aren’t equal. By your logic a child should have the final decision on whether or not he goes to school because he’s the one who’s there all day.
Many describe wife material as someone who’s not a slut. See what being “considerate” does? You can’t even speak simple truths. Love is being honest with someone. People lie to protect themselves, not others. If you don’t want to be settled for then remain single, rather than having someone put on an act for you.
Men would rather be with a woman who doesn’t do hookups but wouldn’t hookup with him even if she did, than a woman who does do hookups and would hookup with him.
Well since women are more desperate for relationships, women also lie about raw attraction to get into relationships, complementary to women who don’t care enough to put in effort. The threshold of being approached would benefit men here more than women, in that it would also mean an interest level for relationships that would mitigate women’s lieing, not men’s lieing. Since men don’t lie to get in relationships. Also being lied to for a LTR is substantially worse than being lied to and slept wi…
You only give them more opportunities to lie if the man isn’t prepared to come up to you and lie in the first place. In which case he probably also isn’t prepared to come and tell you the truth. So you equally lose opportunities. Making your strategy a 0 sum game.
If you are capable of just wanting sex and no relationship, then you are capable of having the same incentives as a man. There is then no reason why men should carry the burden of approach, for sex or relationships. And if you still feel you have more to lose in relationships and they more to gain through sex, toward certain men you like. Then those are precisely the men that want you to stay away from them. If you’re already fucking like a man no man wants to get in a relationship with you bein…
The crux of OP isn’t what is but what should be. We acknowledge there is a lot of asymmetry between the realities of men and women. However the current social narrative seems to only be focusing on alleviating and stigmatising asymmetry that disadvantages women.
They say be more social, find new hobbies, make more friends, but they dont say. Be more direct and approach more. The reality that women can remain passive is completely accepted.
https://www.bibliotechecivichepadova.it/sites/default/files/opera/documenti/sezione-7-serie-1-faldone-b-cartella-3-57.pdf d e Beauvoir: "... as long as the family and the myth of the family and the myth of maternity and the maternal instinct have not been destroyed, women will still be oppressed."
Since the beginning feminism wanted to destroy the ideal of nuclear family and routine marriage represented the nuclear family. Wife and husband were not equal as some people pretend today. So making marriage, and traditional nuclear family, essentially “unmandatory” is what paved the way for out of wedlock births. Everything became optional. Gender roles are optional, marriage is optional, pre marital sex is optional, staying in relationships is optional. Not that anyone should be forced to sta…
Why do you only speak of teenage pregnancies and divorces though. Out of wed lock births in general is the norm now and completely destigmatised. Premarital sex and cohabitation are the norm. This is the problem. Men sliding into relationships because it’s convenient and not making an enthusiastic sober decision. Full grown adults having out of wedlock and “unwanted” babies. This all was virtually unheard of before feminism.
We all judge people based on a story and not just one interaction. Your girlfriends can insult you or call you bitch but if a random guy does it it’s a massive problem. The same exact action, but different intent is assumed based on the identity of the person. And yes, sex plays a role in your personality, men and women are drastically different. Btw Ishowspeed is a bad example, his entire brand is a to act a maniac.
Commitment isn’t the necessary conclusion to men’s relationship with women though. We’re having a debate. And the only way your idea of feminism could be measured, and is thus meaningful, is if women and men are presumed equal.
Commitment isn’t the necessary conclusion to men’s relationship with women though. We’re having a debate. And the only way your idea of feminism could be measured, and is thus meaningful, is if women and men are presumed equal.
I disagree, i don’t see how the “heat” contributes anything to the discourse. And thus it hinders/ends it. That is why I asked for an amicable disagreement. What other points do you have for me to answer to?
But what about when others speak their mind? Are you then prepared to start conflict? > How do you even do this? Force women to have sex? That was the entire reason I brought up prostitution. I’m not splitting hairs. What people desire and what actually happens in the real world are two completely different things.
So if you know this then why shouldn’t women ask men if they want men to be interested in lasting commitment? You could say she knows men aren’t necessarily interested in commitment like that.
No feminism has taught men to see women as no different than our fellow men. So we genuinely don’t see it as stringing along. A relationship is basically sex + a friendship to us. And friendships don’t need the intention of lasting forever.
Many white collar jobs are email/meeting jobs and can be seen as very unproductive yes. Women predominantly occupy these jobs. Many modern white collar jobs are centred around vague social narratives and produce highly subjective results. Equal opportunities as in what a women has access to a man has the same access to. Just like feminism attempts to achieve the other way around on the career market. And you criticise through the pay gap. I never said you just marry and fuck up. I said that is y…
Yes the woman is manipulative and the man isn’t and I have explained exactly why. Manipulation has everything to do with intent. You can’t manipulate by definition without intent. Then it is at most an accident.
Yes it means we currently have a relationship. No other intentions. In that case then they did communicate their intentions to one another, she just withheld some of hers.
It doesn’t matter what I believe on men and women’s competence. What matters is that men and women are inherently different in sexual relationship desire and that feminism categorically denies this. That is the whole message behind the sexual revolution and destigmatisation of sluts. “If it’s ok for a man to do it, then so should it be for a woman”.
That’s the solipsistic way women communicate and engage with the world. Thats why women will look at you two seconds longer than normal and think they made the first move.
He didn’t manipulate her that’s what you women don’t understand. He had a consensual relationship with her just as people have consensual sex. He can end it at any time and not want anything permanent. Complaining about not intending for a life relationship really is like complaining about not seeing someone again after a ons to us men. No ill intent involved.
You could argue, that’s exactly why feminism is worse for women than for men. Convince a generation of women that men are the same, then watch them burn chasing men who’ll gladly give them the time of day but will NEVER commit.
It’s the result of assuming men and women are the same. We are all human beings. How should we know you desire commitment if essentially you are all looking for the exact same things as us? Men are blunt and clear, if what we agreed on is a relationship for now, then what we agreed on is a relationship for now. Those men who would KNOW to protect woman’s feelings and not “lie by omission “. Are the exact same men you would hate for saying only a woman’s body count matters. As with 99% of complai…
I do not have evidence that women didn’t want the vote. I listend to prominent debaters make the claim (Andrew Wilson), that nowhere a majority of women wanted the vote, with absolutely 0 pushback so I assumed it must be true. But it was definitely a mistake from me to claim polling proved it time and time again. I insinuated that. I apologise. I gave you a source that substantially less men are sexually active than women. I assume we can agree sex outside marriage was frowned upon before femini…
I do listen to women. I debate them here all the time. They are unable to substantiate their claims. It’s not my fault that you live in cognitive dissonance and your values have an emotional, not logical foundation. Not that it is inherently bad to have emotional foundations for your values but it means two things. Your values may contradict eachother and you may act very differently than what you say you value according to your emotions in the moment. Not only is it nonsensical to take contradi…
Maybe not predominantly in the US but all across the west preschool childcare, gender critical university education, feminist media and other government programs are all compulsorily funded by tax payers. https://nypost.com/2025/01/23/lifestyle/sexlessness-on-the-rise-in-america-young-men-lead-the-trend/ “A whopping 24% of males 22-34 had not had sex in 2022-2023 — up from 9% in 2013-15. For females, the number was 13%, up from 8%.” That’s double the percentage of women. And assuming many men an…
Yes give incels money for prostitutes just like the billions that are poured into feminism to create gender parity. Really? You need a source that men participate far less in the sexual marketplace. This is literally the foundation of redpill movement/inceldom/puprlepilldebate. Sources are flying around left and right. > No I say women and men can take on different roles. And redpill criticises women for wanting roles for men while simultaneously complaining that gender essentialism is oppressiv…
Yes and there will always be prostitution. So I ask you again, why not finance incels to close the sexgap? Prostitutes should just do therapy and be educated on drugs. > I categorically disagree and you need to talk to different women. We need rights. This isn’t a subjective opinion. Polling time and time again showed women no where wanted the right to vote. That is why there was never a referendum held on it, because the government knew it wouldn’t pass so authorities just passed it themselves.…
So single motherhood would be just as much a problem if out of wedlock births were nonexistent? I didn’t blame prostitution on feminism. I said just as prostitution has problems, we are discussing the problems of feminism. Not why I am necessarily against feminism in general. Manosphere does not have a mass murder problem. Give evidence. Manosphere does not have a misogyny problem. It holds women accountable. If critique is overly harsh, then because women’s behaviour justifies it. I agree repre…
Do you think the men in your group would be in those relationships if they didn’t get sex? Or would they then just fill their socialising primarily with other men?
If all you say is true then women should work on movements to improve their choice of men and stabilise marriages, not ruin their children through career focused single motherhood. If out of marriage births were an anomaly their would be no need for child support. You wouldn’t have baby daddies you’d have husbands and if they left they’d pay alimony. Yes if you can afford it. Higher salaries and less welfare state make it far more affordable. Give evidence for your claim of men’s failure causing…
Women joining the workforce lowered salaries. Supply and demand. So yes financial incentives are a direct result of feminism. Single motherhood, welfare state and destigmatisation of out of wedlock births are a direct result of feminism. Even in the most feminist countries ther is one year maternity leave max. So yes without feminism all these problems wouldn’t exist/would be minimal.
Women did not usually have to leave the home that started post World War Two and was continued by feminism. Also feminism is not neutral in this. It opposes the idea of mothers being solely caregivers and thus pushes women who perfectly reasonably would have the opportunity to stay with their child away from it. So you believe a one year old is ready to be handed over to overworked strangers on minimum wage?
Don’t you think it’s convenient that when women are disadvantaged men (and children) should sacrifice otherwise society is immoral but when men are disadvantaged any attempt to bring women into responsibility just victimises them? Countless statistics can go into the results of single motherhood, impaired bonding through early childhood estrangement from working mothers, workplace disharmony and false accusations etc. all results of feminism.
The pay gap lamenting( not just for the same work but that female industries get less pay and that women have to negotiate salaries like a man), the care gap, slut shamming, mansplanning, lack of fathers leave, lack of female ceos… I could go on and on. The point is feminism is never satisfied until these expectations and subsequent shaping of opportunities for women is eliminated. It has absolutely nothing to do with human rights or equality before law but with people’s personal choices and rea…
No it doesn’t if I have an excuse for something reasonably out of my control it does not impact my perceived competence and the responsibility I carry. That’s the whole point of a legitimate excuse. Only because of the lies people like you constantly tell is the competence of anyone who gives an legitimate excuse bought into question. Which precisely illustrates the harm caused by making it normal to tell such lies.
Yes and men of the past also carried burdens that came with patriarchy. The point is just as we shouldn’t force women to be accommodating incels we shouldn’t force society to make sure women have equal perspectives. Feminism thinks otherwise.
It isn’t about hurting someone feeling’s but that the ONLY consequence of the lie is to avoid hurting someone feeling’s. The lie is otherwise meaningless in any other sense. Yes and for the same reason someone always being late raises a flag, just leaving the house or being in traffic makes a substantial difference. It changes your image of someone if they’re slacking or if breaking their word is out of their hand. Being late is a small deal but it’s a meaningful deal why they’re late. And that’…
Because there are no good intentions and you’re not protecting anyone from being hurt. You’re just lying to make yourself look better. It’s a cynical lie. The more people lie like that. The more everyone has to constantly question what anyone says.
I disagree if you really love the person/see the potential for that type of love you shouldn’t be embarrassed for anything. The only acceptable lie with that kind of love is telling a child their dog went to go live on a farm.
I’d tell my mate I’m taking a giant shit no problem. And if I had a best friend I would feel insulted if he told me he was good when he wasn’t. Men are built different.
This just gets more intriguing. The overwhelming majority of conservatives are feminists. Feminists see men and women as equal human beings. On top of that many are also covert feminists. How can you hate men and be MAGA?? Men made America great.
Because rights and opportunities are not the same thing. Incels have the same rights as sluts. Incels have the same or better general competence as sluts. But incels have anything but the same opportunities as sluts. Incels and sluts live completely different realities.
If women had the burden of approach, it would only be logical that they constantly scan their environments for potential options. But they don’t. So their filter process persists of evaluating how men present themselves to them. That is why they never think about it. It would be a waste of recourses.
I shouldn’t have to promise a relationship. If I’m potentially the love of your life and you’ve had casual sex in the past why wouldn’t you want to have sex with me now? Whether or not we end up in a relationship. That would signal genuine desire. Even if your priority is a relationship now. Why were you able to have casual sex with “just a hookup” in the past but can’t have casual sex with your apparent true desire now? It doesn’t make your potential boyfriend seem special in comparison to past…
By little girls I mean the famous quote from the movie as “good as it gets”. “ how do you write woman so well?” “ I imagine a man, and I take away reason and accountability”
Yea I’m not talking about relationships where one/both sides are proudly selfish. I’m talking about couples who claim to be deeply inlove and thoughtful of one another, yet the women won’t make the man a sandwich because that’s patriarchally oppressive.
The problem women have isn’t mens unreasonable behaviour, the problem women have is the idea that they should take physical care of men more than vice versa.
That still isn’t cooking, cleaning, serving etc, that’s spending money and asserting authority, that’s a dominant role. Which actually pretty nicely complements what I’ve been talking about. If they were the same they wouldn’t complement eachother but cancel eachother out. And we’d end up back at feminism with the man just doing more emotional labour for the woman.
Easy. The woman submits. The wife must obey her husband. It’s a much more fulfilling relationship dynamic all round. Our differences are what make relationships special and not inconveniences to be minimised.
Daddy issues is a sexual/authoritative dynamic it has nothing to do with receiving care work. Infact that is probably a turn off for a girl looking for a big daddy.
I said not limiting your involvement i didn’t say under any circumstances necessary. So why do you assume your standard of unreasonable is the general standard? We’re on a redpill debate sub and you just assume feminism dogma as the status quo? Why not actually clearly state and substantiate your claims? Or are you just arguing in bad faith and assuming malevolence in any position that opposes the feminist narrative? Just assuming your position as the reasonable one is not good faith.
I think men want some of what mothers are prepared to do for their children out of love yes. And even the men who say they don’t want it were probably guilted out of wanting it by feminism.
A little effort to make us happy. I honestly think it’s far easier and less stressful than constantly dealing with your emotional chaos. It’s just this non existent craze of “oppression” that has you all worked up and dying on the inside when baking a man some cookies.
Again you’re a bi man who sounds like he’s looking for alot of the emotional support and attention women look for. You can’t compare that to the average man who just wants to come home from work and watch the game with a cold beer a sandwich and silence.
If that were true then the equality argument would be futile and it would just be men are too much. But equality is the main narrative behind not caring for men in relationships. They don’t want to do anything.
Yes that’s my point. Women who can’t get relationships are the equivalent of men who can’t get sex. And those stats on incel terrorism are completely overblown. It’s pure propaganda that any sought of public threat emerges from the manosphere. Nevertheless this all has nothing to do with the fact that saying incels only can assume, while making your own accusations is completely hypocritical.
I’m from the west. And you obviously keep evading the crux of the dilemma that western women don’t do care work to make their men happy. Even though that’s what their men actually desire.
Why wouldn’t it be? Yes I would make an effort to do what makes someone happy when I know they are doing the same for me. And I don’t mean me personally 😂 but the hookup culture in general which women seem to be suffering more from than men
Well then this doesn’t apply to you, this only applies to women who aren’t prepared to give it up to a potential bf as fast as were prepared to give it up in the past, specially to a ons or fuckbuddy.
Yea no. Most women view this a patriarchy. Not normal by modern standards. But emotionally and financially, where women hold the deficit, they are all consuming. As OP is trying to bring across.
I think men are just prepared to give loyalty only as far as they receive it or understand it. And women and men understand COMPLETELY different things under loyalty.
Which is what this all always boils down to. The feminist psyop. No matter how much your identity is tied up in it, women and men will never want the same thing. A fish belongs in water and a pig loves shit.
Women fuck fuckbois and complain. Simps get close to no pussy and if they did it would be antithetical to simping to then ghost. Those are also fuckbois.
All this reads like you see relationships as a necessity when Infact they are not. They are an option. So I’ll ask you again, why should a man subject himself to her happiness but a women shouldn’t do so to his?
Care work. We take care of your emotional needs, you of our physical ones. Everyone wins. But oh no feminism has to whisper in your ear and convince you it’s oppression. Well I guess fuck buddies is all it’s worth then.
I’m saying don’t “find yourself” on the cock carousel then wonder why no man wants to find you anymore. The demand of putting out earlier isn’t universal but for a certain calibre of woman who has shown it’s her niche. Sadly this calibre of women has become universal though. If you want to behave a certain way with relationships in the future, don’t demonstrate that you’re not that type of woman in the past. A man also can’t eat Cheetos and play video games in his mom’s basement till he’s 30, th…
> I don't think it will for a while, toh I think it's gonna get worse until enough of them phase out that it gets calmer that way.... If you know what I mean.... V The unalive rate has gone up. What else could this possibly mean?
No a fair exchange would be dealing with the opposite gender according to their needs and not the feminist take of everything a woman wants a man should want aswell.
Yes don’t murder, steal or rape are also a bunch of conditions. Infact there are basically limitless conditions to not end up in an isolated cell for the rest of your life. We are all extremely oppressed.
When we get treated that way so many times we start to emulate that behaviour. You’re right, the absolute least I’m prepared to do is for a woman in a feminist relationship. Intact it doesn’t even have to be a relationship but just feminist women in general.
You realise this inequality has cascading effects though? If men should provide that puts more pressure on him as a provider. His life and career will take a different trajectory in order to suffice. He’ll put in more effort work longer hours. Why shouldn’t he deserve daily nurture for the burden of that mindset and lifestyle alone? Also that’s not the only difference, there’s also the completely lopsided burden of physical protection. That these inequalities are all based on physical necessitie…
Because enjoying coddling means enjoying making them feel good. Thats what coddling is. It’s like enjoying giving a bj. No one actually enjoys the feeling or taste of a dick in their mouth. They enjoy it because of how it makes the other feel. It is in essence a selfless act.
The point is to acknowledge it so we can use it as a starting point. By denying it women feel entitled to certain benefits that they actually haven’t earned. Thats what he said! He doesn’t want to change women, he wants to help any man he can, deal with it. Just one man not falling for the relationship trap and being mgtow or only fwbs is a success. Yes that’s his whole point. It’s not the norm. For men it very much is though.
Can actually prove this difference instead of just saying it exists? Why is all the financial and emotional support not considered on par with housework?
I think op uses care as a metric for love. Image or not, men care about whatever a woman is going through and will do what it takes to see her happy. Women don’t give a shit what men go through if it doesn’t fit their agenda.
So basically just don’t be fat. Everything else you mentioned is self inflicted because choices have consequences. - we expect sluts to put out - we expect you to not turn us down in your prime only to be “ready now” when Chad has disappeared - we expect you to got 50/50 because YOU wanted to be equal - we expect you to carry your basic feminine duty if we are to provide the masculine Women basically just have to exist and not make self-centred decisions and they can have their pick of the litte…
It’s about the fact that women only complain when things are unequal in their direction. Schrödingers feminist. Similar to how you never hear a word about military conscription.
I’ve reported you for contentless rhetoric and Incivility. I know it’s difficult to learn new things, I see nuance is hard for you Mods have told me you should either “clarify in good faith” or stop responding.
I wouldn’t equivocate toxicity or abuse with unintentionally causing harm through overstepping boundaries. The problem is then the toxicity and abuse, not the “oops i didn’t realise i was doing that.”
What’s interesting though is that you admit sex is so intimate you have to protect yourself from having it to soon, and then you have sex with someone you emotionally distance yourself from. Why be so intimate with someone so emotionally distant?
“the effect of divorce on the risk of poverty might partly run through job loss related to the divorce crisis and associated residential moves. If this pathway was canceled out, the analysis would give an incomplete picture of divorce effects on the risk of poverty, net of the risk of job loss as a potential mediator of such effects.” Job loss accounts for risk of poverty. Housewives don’t have jobs to begin with. This would argue for traditional relationships in the case of divorce not against.…
There is only one type of feminism and that is to make men and women equal. You sound like you want the benefits of feminism with the responsibilities of patriarchy.
Why wouldn’t they be able to leave because they don’t have access to money? In the West any person can leave at any time and apply for a job or benefits.
I agree healthy relationships can’t survive if it’s adversarial. I just find the comparison to kink boundaries extremely hyperbolic. Specially insinuating lasting harm.
You’re a man you support what is righteous. Women support what is homely. It’s not homely for two genders to be inherently and meaningfully unequal yet society constantly tries to box them in that they are.
No there isn’t. It’s extremely ignorant to assume people enter into power dynamic relationships just because they can’t be bothered to put in the effort to make them equal. As with choosing a career, it’s an utterly different lifestyle, a different world.
So you just mean control over money but not actual benefits of money. Yeah that just means you don’t get what you want, that’s not a boundary. If not getting what you want is a boundary, literally anything is a boundary.
Maybe you should write *do also often result in abuses. To me it reads like your saying relationships are worse. When if anything, capitalism is far worse.
I don’t consider every uncomfortable situation or repeated disagreement to be a boundary. I meant something like “serious and lasting harm”. Or atleast serious.
Your point was “it’s always important to be able to leave”. This still applies to any serious career field. Why not just drive an uber? A nsa lifestyle.
But a boss also has different priorities than a spouse. He didn’t hire you for a relationship, he hired you to get the job done. The bottom line is only your output matters not how you’re doing as a person.
I don’t know about that. Show me a capitalist society that isn’t built upon slave labour. Globalisation just means the slave labour isn’t in your own backyard.
If that person is financing your lifestyle and can pull the plug at any time it does. What other reason could there be for desiring someone earning substantially more than you?
Both our statements can be true at the same time. That’s why it’s so complicated if women have had a hoe phase. Men have absolutely no problem waiting for chaste women. But if you’re “sex positive”, we just feel ripped off. It can be hard and require immense skill and experience to tell. Women are incredible actors when they really want to be.
then why are you “intentionally avoiding becoming an ons” with somebody with good relationship potential? Why not just sleep with them and if it doesn’t workout it doesn’t work out?
All things she would make an exception for/find a way around if she likes you enough. This just further proves my point. Not having had sex/hookups like op mentioned is the real metric of being head over heels yet still waiting.
Yes and this likability is a level many men never reach even in LTRs. That was mine an ops point. Women exploit men in relationships the same way men exploit women for sex.
Starting a family is a goal not a value. And I already said men were never looking to marry sluts. However their VALUES for LTR never changed, even if they weren’t looking/didn’t have one when younger.
Never heard a man say he’s looking for different qualities in a gf. Looking for different qualities than a hook up yes. Ready to start a family yes. But actually have a whole new list of attributes he looks for once he reaches a certain age, absolutely not.
She could be 300 pounds and trim bill gates nose hairs for all I care. She would still be substantially under average. This is undebatable. Your opinion on circles is irrelevant. Value is based on the consumer group, which means the opinion of men. Let me ask you this are men generally stronger than women? Because if they are then that would be a consistency. The same can be applied to women’s standards. I don’t want to talk about higher schoolers because they aren’t legal. That’s complicates th…
I agreed that she was. But there are still levels to this shit. If she’s into you only 20% how much she was into an old fwb. It would be disappointing. Immediately sleeping with you substantially pushes up the perceived raw desire.
So when women change their values in their 30s and then DO actually find a man for LTR. You think the overwhelming majority find men who have the same smv as the men they fucked around with in their 20s?
A job says absolutely nothing about a woman’s dating value. A celebrity hairstylist could be well under average. And don’t you think many women share your high standards? Wouldn’t that disprove there is nothing consistent about dating?
Look it up, they never held referendums on whether to give women the vote because they knew everywhere most women would vote against it. So they just writ it into law like they do with most of their agendas. So you agree universities are leftist indoctrination centres? I wonder why men are leaving female dominated spaces? There’s a great article on this called The Great Feminization Helen Andrews
The divide is when women hit the wall, average men are bitching about not getting a whiff in their prime, once she matures and has a kid or two just have a decent job and your golden. The catch is no one want to be the back up plan and women age like milk.
False bang average women can get lucky and sleep with celebrities. She could be his hairstylist for all we know. Some men are dogs. Nevertheless my point still stands. What makes her immediately attracted to the exceptional will always be more attractive than anything that can come from consistency.
Yes that’s true if you can realise a change in mood after sex you may have a point. My only counter would be that if you know you had sex with her immediately and then eventually her mood change after sex dips you’ll be less likely to see it as she wasn’t ever/isn’t that into you. Remember at the end of the day you’re always measuring up to all her other sexual partners in life. Whether you like it or not.
In men? No that’s my point they don’t, it’s a facade to make up for their development in marketplace. It’s like someone saying they prefer government healthcare when they can only get government healthcare. What are the chances what they want changes precisely when their stock starts to decline.
Most women didn’t want the vote. Feminism was pushed for by lobbyists and has always been a gradual top down societal reeducation. Schools and universities are still the most left leaning habitats indoctrinating the next generation. Money, which means people in power, pulls the strings. Not pioneering, self sufficient, individualist women or groups of women.
It means a woman who will fuck Henry Cavil but then waits for average bob until she knows him better, secretly shocker is more attracted to Henry Cavil.
How does that disprove my point that when the culture was conservative, women majority voted conservative/ more conservative than men, and when the culture is liberal women majority vote liberal/more liberal than men?
Nevertheless op’s point still stands. Her immediately sleeping with you is an exceptional metric (probably the best one) for gauging if she is truly attracted to you for a relationship.
> Yeah, I mean, I see how one might consider to have a billionaire's tongue in their mouth for the sake of living a billionaire's lifestyle. But a relationship with an average dude brings neither status nor enough bucks to deal with the lack of attraction. That you pretend to disagree
The point isn’t that she can’t wait if she has desire. The point is that she’d want to immediately if she has desire. So immediate sex proves something while waiting leaves you in the dark.
No it’s either factual or semantic. If it’s a factual debate that by definition excludes it being a semantic one. Wed first have to agree on the facts before we can argue about how to express them.
Partly because feminism brainwashed them that they’ll always be equal in value to men their age and partly because as I explained they value even the shortest flings with alphas over stable beta commitment
The difference is men looking for only hotness and getting laid would never date that women. Women looking for hotness wouldn’t mind eventually dating that man. Yet still their values switch.
I missing your point. I didn’t deny it goes both ways. I did explain though how to avoid the risk. Also men cheating doesn’t mean in anyway he doesn’t love you. This is female projection. Since women can’t comprehend cheating and still being fully in love.
If not being “in love” is comfortable, stable, and peaceful:-) why do you care? And if it’s ingrained, then you are not comfortable, stable, and peaceful:-) without a relationship are you.
You do know there are many women who are happy being prostitutes. They will literally sleep with any guy who provides them a certain amount. And not because they’d be living in literal poverty if they don’t do it. Why is it so hard to believe that there’d be many women who’d do the same for a certain lifestyle and just one guy? Specially without the absolute social stigma of the being a literal prostitute.
He said how it works for men. If she sleeps with you immediately you know she desires you. For women I’d say if you know he has had multiple fwb but wants to be in a proper relationship with you, you definitely know.
That’s why they first consider it once they hit the wall. They can’t even get the men they truly desire for ons anymore. If they were forever 20 you’re right, they’d probably never settle for comfort.
And let me guess, he hides that relationship like his life depends on it. that only applies to relationships. But you’d still want lower if possible for casual sex regardless.
Why? Women gatekeep sex. If she wants sex she‘ll find it. Men opting out won’t make a difference to her chastity. Unless you’re talking about all, and I mean all, men collectivising. But that would be something akin to sharia law.
Yes an you could lose your career. Arguably the only difference you could claim is that he could leave you. But this is a negligent risk with the love of your life. Comparable to you growing apart from career life.
Yes. Your entire reality is based on the fact that you are a homebody. That I’m already granting you your husbands friends is a big if because he’d probably be hanging in very different circles as a provider man.
Subject as to the immediate argument I was making not the post. I don’t care what happens often, I asked specifically about the love of your life. The overwhelming majority of people aren’t privilege to this.
I don’t believe that. I think it’s just something women say to justify leaving them or cheating. Also I believe men don’t like the extra drama, lack of respect and heightend expectations that comes with women earning more than you.
My favourite part was “(but I love food so not gonna happen)”. But no in all seriousness, good for you bro 👊 I’m happy you’ve found your stride with women.
I do not believe that. Historically society constantly collapses. Yes ofcourse divorce happens more frequently, but each divorce only affects one singular woman. Each societal collapse affects millions of women. What do you mean regardless of marital status? The hypothetical is you have no career if you are married. And what do you mean somehow? Do you not know how divorce courts and widow benefits work?
Your objection to my communication style is purely anecdotal as well. Women have more. And taking them into account is sexist. And a feminist demanding you take them into account is sexist against men.
It wasn’t just the risk of anarchy though was it? Just as it wasn’t just the risk of your husband randomly dying. Yes but as a career woman you lose everything in anarchy. As a homebody wife, you still have your husband, the reason you chose that option in the first place.
Would it be fair to say that the feminist ideal of equality between men and women strongly influenced your perspective on what you presumed men find attractive when you were younger? That is you and your female peers were attracted to competence(university), boldness ( hair colouring), experience ( not realising men value youth) etc
Ok I feel threatened now and want to call the police to have you arrested for threatening to harm me. Is it for you to determine I misunderstood you? But I can correlate it to considerations of the discussion making.
When feminists tell me I see women as objects and just want a housemaid/mother/sex slave. I have the authority to say they misunderstand what I want. I don’t want an answer on submission. I won’t an answer on prioritising love and family life or career and social life.
Are you being difficult on purpose or do you really not understand what I’m getting at? It’s like women can’t have meaningful conversations with people on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Everything just resorts to cat fighting.
It’s not success if I have to do it your way is it now? And I don’t have to cater to anything I dont find good. And again this isn’t people’s emotionality. This is women’s emotionality. Schrödingers feminist. Equality but only when *you* benefit! Above all I did ask the question. Stop gaslighting.
Because they can and are misunderstood. Feminists hear submission and think exploited slave. Not expression of love. So I tried to center the example around what we hopefully both could relate to most, true love.
I said “people’s fundamental truth”. How does that make my belief tirade and not good faith? What do you mean by leading questions? I’m just trying to understand them. Why do I need to ask them why the alternative isn’t true? I’m of their opinion, so I can relate/understand them.
Again, as a feminist, do you want me to take into consideration the emotionality of women when having conversations? Because I personally don’t and I assume you don’t either. I also don’t believe it’s good emotionality and thus don’t want to support it by “babysitting it” in anyway. ALL Women should learn to regulate their emotions and set aside their egos. Maybe then their discourse would be more like that of a man. And I want people to answer my questions as uninfluenced and unbiasedly as poss…
Yes the side effect of having a big ego is low self esteem. And measuring the quality of your social life by the quantity and not quality of social connections seems to be a similar motivation to the approval you receive through social media. But it’s just a theory.
I have absolutely no idea what your on about but I will try to accommodate these questions to the best of my ability. No I don’t believe it, you believe it. I have no agenda as far as to prove or disprove a point but ofcourse im curious as to something otherwise I wouldn’t be asking questions. What you prioritise in life *is* your fundamental truth is it not? Please show me where I wasn’t giving you straightfoward answers.
I honestly think it’s just a difference in how men and women communicate. And since I’m talking with feminists here you wouldn’t want me to change my approach just because I view you as a fragile woman would you?
Why do you consider career such a guarantee too though, a recession could hit, society could fall apart. Also marriage contracts exist for a reason. If that really was your only concern you could make it law that your husband takes care of you whatever happens.
I don’t think you understand what anarchy is. Specially as a woman. Your skills mean nothing if there is no societal contract and you don’t have the muscle to protect you. And growing apart has to do with priorities and desires. What you describe is all well but if these change it will all mean nothing to you. Happens to people everyday. Everyday people completely abandon the corporate world for a frugal life.
So when people naturally change over the course of their life they become abusive? Also the option was either or. If you secure your own finances you nuke your chance at any serious relationship. That is the hypothetical.
Neither is life in society. You could get hurt, or anarchy could breakout tomorrow. You could grow apart from wanting a career. So again, why are these fears only present for the love of your life? Do you believe it’s likely to grow apart with the love of your life? Yes in this hypothetical, contribution to the world is limited.
Because the hypothetical should remotely represent the choice women have today. I feel a lot of women choose feminism because denying equality would ostracise them from society, so to make it simple I just said no friends. Put it this way, you’re not going to openly submit to your husband and take care of your kids 24/7 and be the popular woman on the block in today’s society. I feel being trad today isn’t just a choice against personal ambition but against societal cohesion.
I asked you what evidence you would need to know women are lying to protect their ideology. You told me admission. I asked why would they admit to what contradicts their ideology. The evidence would contradict their ideology because that’s what makes it evidence they’re lying to protect their ideology in the first place.
I asked you what evidence you would need to know women are lying to protect their ideology. You told me admission. I asked why would they admit to what contradicts their ideology. The evidence would contradict their ideology because that’s what makes it evidence they’re lying to protect their ideology in the first place.
It doesn’t matter if it’s all, majority or some feminists. When a woman’s ideology is threatened they lie. So again why would a woman ever admit to something that undermine all she stands for?
That was always my original claim. Women lie when their ideology is threatened by truth. And yes, the feminist worldview is threatened by admitting there is a beauty ideal, and that women who drastically fall outside it aren’t beautiful.
It’s just a phrase it means nothing. Though if you knew my true values you’d definitely believe I don’t like women. Anyways give me evidence of men where it didn’t work.
Stop gaslighting. Body positivity was a thing. Nobody was putting fat women on the front pages of the most popular magazines in the world and saying “it’s because I personally find them attractive”. It was a statement through and through.
Yes they are. They don’t say “i find lizzo beautiful” they say “lizzo is beautiful”. Any sane person know that’s not true, and would NOT want to look like lizzo.
This was just an example, I observe it constantly that women don’t seem to care for truth and are only motivated by whether or not the conclusion supports their ideology. You also observe it in day to day. Women constantly lie to themselves. That their outfits look good or that lizzo is beautiful. Women seem to have no problem denying whatever they view as counterproductive, no matter what reason actually concludes.
That’s like telling a poor person “just be rich”. Well the man is getting 0 women. So advice attracting any amount of women is worth it. Will women spill the tea though on how to get some?
You said it yourself. For things that are fundamentally unequal this is tricky. What if everything about men and women is fundamentally unequal? What if women and men naturally have a proclivity to behave in different ways and want different things? Just as you claim calling yourself a feminist doesn’t make you a feminist, neither does call yourself not misandrist, make you not misandrist. I believe you that you truly believe you’re creating a system to benefit everyone fairly. But what if your …
That is not true they give it as a holistic answer to any man who is struggling and as an answer to the incel and redpill community. If the question is how do I get women and you give an answer. You can’t then say “oh yeah I obviously meant a ton of other things you need to do” when following your answer doesn’t work out. That’s called gaslighting.
that aloofness and lack of availability keeps women attracted that being in relationships with other women is attractive that leadership and not asking for her opinion is attractive that breaking the physical barrier without permission is attractive that under the right circumstances, not immediately accepting a no and showing enthusiasm through persistence is attractive … All things you would try to minimise as much as possible if your priority was to be as nice as possible. Even taking women o…
Like I said in OP, bluepill men concede significant ground when put on the spot. I have yet to see bluepill women do this. The women that do don’t fully identify with bluepill (equality).
Yet the general redpill advice does work. I wonder why. Do men know more about women than women? Or do women just hate to admit fundamental truths that oppose their feminist ideals?
This isn’t a subjective opinion. Show me objectively where any feminist women mention anything else than be nice and be normal. Not only are they gaslighting that just being nice works. Your now gaslighting that they ARE offering alternatives to just be nice.
You see the resemblance now? You can’t even admit you made a faulty argument. And refuse to state it gaslighting me that you already have. Imagine what other women lie about to protect their ideologies. And you’re a mod.
I am. And when i tell you these feminists are full of shit you tell me you also need physical attraction. They don’t say all this stuff about carrying the engagement, they just say be endlessly nice. You somehow seem to be defending them while also admitting you need to be other things than nice.
99% of people have some sought of social life this isn’t a dating hack for someone who’s incapable of getting women. And what social skills are you talking about apart from being nice? Essentially the advice is always be nice AND a normal person. Which goes without saying. These men are desperate, as if they hadn’t tried fitting in. So the real strategy boils down to more nice.
Just being nice gets you no women. Maybe if your Jeff bezos a woman will use you for dollar. But that’s basically prostitution. Average man gets no pussy from being nice.
just be nice 2. generic self care 3. generic self provisioning 4. means nothing/don’t be not nice. In summary your new acquired dating strategy: just be nice.
When does it become rational to generalise? How many times do you need to be proven wrong, that women can’t remain impartial when questioned in their identity?
If the criteria for getting laid was “she needs to find you physically attractive without any personality input” 95%+ percent of men would be virgins. Men socialise their way into pussy more than anything. And just being nice doesn’t cut it, not even for physically hot guys.
I don’t follow any feminists but this is constantly bluepill women’s answer to the incel question and redpill “manipulation” tactics. Also it’s the guys who don’t care for others who are most likely to skip a shower.
You said it as an argument for not changing her behaviour. Which implies it doesn’t matter. But with the substantial difference it does matter. Otherwise where’s the argument?
You implied there was an equivalence. I repeat, there isn’t. And noones talking about male subjugation. We’re talking about women choosing themselves to dress modestly. What your saying has the equivalence of saying if men didn’t subjugate women all women would do OF. Clearly women can find common sense by themselves.
It does. You imply they are even remotely similar. They aren’t. It makes a monumental difference what you wear. And correlation doesn’t equal causation. To say men are more rapey or that baggy close have no effect is just ridiculous.
Gaslight of an example. We’re talking about a woman who knowingly dresses provokatively AND knows it could get her in trouble. No one choose their ethnicity.
No, I think the resentment in men comes from being lied to by feminism and subsequently women. They did everything in their power to be a good guy and try make everyone happy, just to find out it’s the guys who did precisely NOT what women asked for who got all their enthusiasm. Now they’ve recovered and built their masculine role and are supposed to envelop with these same “feminist” women? It’s a lopsided deal.
There are two ways any sought of sexual relationship can end for women. You’ve had your heart broken, or you don’t value personal connection for sexual endeavours. Both are suboptimal dynamics in the eyes of redpill for women. Either the relationship accumulated serious baggage, or you came in with significant enough baggage to have impersonal sex. Similar to how many, not just rp, people believe you can only wilfully engage in sex work if you were previously emotionally damaged. So no it’s not …
Absolutely no correlation. When I was most interested in getting the most women was when I got the least. Desperation is a complete turn off. Which is the state of most men. And no when you ask women what they want they literally say “a nice guy”. They describe flowers and gifts and chivalry and compliments. They never once mention a behaviour associated with having a backbone. Yet having backbone also means standing by what you want. So if you want to rotate women (which most guys intrinsically…
Honestly I think the women here completely realise it’s true, they just hate to admit it because it undermines feminism. In their ideal world the sales person would be perfectly honest and make a ton of money and the customer perfectly happy. But the world doesn’t work like that which they try to cover up, while secretly knowing that the majority of sales are all completed by deceit.
Like I said. At very least, the opposite composition of not being able to deny a woman feelings is extremely unattractive. Which modern men are indirectly taught to do by feminism because they’d view it as the highest form of respect. And women and men are equal are they not? So initially the first thought for many men who have problems getting women is the more I try to satisfy her feelings the more she’ll like me. When Infact the opposite is often true. Being an “asshole” gets these brainwashe…
Experience in relationships is baggage for women. It’s that simple. This argument that there are positive and negatives is applicable everything in any disagreement about anything. This isn’t something unique to the Emanzipation of Women.
Not jus corporate overlord but the social zeitgeist in general. When society was more conservative women voted more conservative than men, now that society is left leaning women vote far more left than men. Women aren’t individually rebellious. Women essentially always follow ingroup think and social adaptation. It makes sense from a evolutionary/natural selection standpoint aswell, women can’t fend for themselves, ostracisation would essentially be a death sentence so it is any woman’s highest …
Im not speaking of romantic relationships. I’m speaking of the general idea that women in traditional relationships obey and serve other human beings while feminist women don’t. Women in any domain are submissive and obedient to other human beings. Why do you think girls are so exceptional and motivated to essentially do nothing but intensely obey in over a decade of schooling? Also I said nothing of arranged marriages. You can be trad a still choose your husband. You can be trad and remain sing…
I still don’t see the contradiction. Yes tradwives are NOT equal. Just listen to traditional marriage vows. I never spoke of emotional support. I said she could grow in her role. The point is we want young women without baggage. So yes inexperience is a virtue.
In other words, take no consideration for her feelings. Also known as prioritising yourself before her, or in others words, DOING WHAT YOU WANT. This is very attractive to women whether you like it or not. Or atleast a lack there of is EXTREMELY unattractive.
If I say yes you’ll say I only want this because I was raised this way and know nothing else. If I say no you’ll say I only want this because I’ve had bad experiences. How about you? What was your father like?
Maybe to an extent. But categorically not doing these things, in order to be a nice guy, is a WAY bigger indication of weakness. The point redpill tries to bring across is that as a man you should do what you want and what you think is right and not cater to the woman. This is attractive. But because we grow up in feminist society and men naturally appreciate respect, we project these relationship desires onto women, just as women project sexual experience, tattoos and career ambitions onto men.…
You act like being a tradwife is some complicated feat requiring years of expertise. Yes redpill want young women to do the simple task of taking care of the home, raising children and not being a hassle or bringing baggage. This doesn’t mean she’s a child. This doesn’t mean she can’t grow in her role. Yes we aren’t looking for equality.
There are women who will sleep with other women even though they are not lesbian in the slightest but have become attracted to the persons personality/behaviour.
The problem with your hypothesis is that good deeds don’t mean a good character. Hitler was also very kind to animals and the environment. And yes sleeping around shows a lack of character in women. So her good deeds essentially mean nothing about her character and her sleeping around very strongly indicates an extreme lack of character.
I think it is an individual vs collective dynamic. Individually attraction is in part amoral and there’s no set moral criteria you can meat to make an individual attracted to you. But collectively attraction is a moral question since single women are attracted to good people, so a good person will be able to attract women. However I actually agree that the inability to get women bares no witness whatsoever to a man’s morality and that female attraction actually is amoral. Amorality is also the s…
No men and few women on a site clearly following an agenda have told me it happend. You’re just lying saying that I’m rejecting testimonies left and right. So why should I even believe your first testimony?
What do you mean “do anything about it”? The point is that average women outright reject the majority of men. Where as average men would accept the majority of women.
These are the types of lies that make men question their self worth and become incels, because they believe no women like them instead of just making the first move. All so you don’t have to admit men and women are different and can keep your feminist facade.
Well they obviously do want to be around you otherwise they wouldn’t be in the relationship. Also why does that make you a bad person to have a horrible view of lots of people?
Again. You are missing the entire point of OP by talking about men who don’t get pussy. You can’t collect Pokémon cards when you’ve never owned a card in your life.
You’re missing the point, as most women usually do. It’s not about getting casual sex. It’s about not picking up the left overs of Chad. Men used to get virgins for marriage. Now they get ran through alpha widowed party chicks. This difference is night and day for men. You women seem to choose to not accept this reality since you’re content with the idea your husband eventually chose just you. But men are not like that. The casual sex then becomes a bandaid for a life never attainable.
Most men aren’t getting pussy to begin with. I’m talking about the men getting pussy and realising it isn’t all the hype. Those men might want families with the right woman, but are content being by themselves in this modern society. They aren’t having a crisis like all the wall approaching modern single women.
Rp spaces help men to deal with modern women accordingly, or become passport bros and find exactly the type of woman they are nostalgic for. Rp spaces aren’t looking to wife up modern western women.
Your own source say 24% of men have not had sex in the last year. Women sleep up. It takes relatively few “open” women to close the gap to the top 20% of men.
That doesn’t contradict the fact that most women only want sex from the top men. Yes and some guys also don’t mind getting into relationships with proud sluts.
Women are emotional to an extent that men aren’t. Even if I agreed with you that SOME men are emotional like women it doesn’t change the fact that ALL women are emotional. No all people are not emotional to the extent women are emotional. Accountability is kryptonite to a woman. There are situations men can deal with level headily that women simply can’t. Being intouch with your emotions doesn’t make you poses the emotional stoicism of a man. So I ask you again, how come you’re able to assume co…
You should blame feminism. THE OPTION for most men was a loyal virgin tradwife. But basically all men can live without a boss babe. It’s pretty simple. Stop thinking it’s a good idea to demonise all men’s desires then turn around and wonder why men view you so indifferently.
You could say handing over the money is ambit the activity of the job by definition isn’t. So I guess the relationship could be equally submissive but not the activity.
That doesn’t seem to be what the overwhelming majority of women want. Most single 30+ women keep complaining that they’re doing everything “right” yet can’t find a man. It’s the men who have more or less accepted their fate, which you see reflected in rp spaces.
So as I understand it you see us as equal because ultimately you value our feelings equally. We are all capable of depression and worry. But these feelings can still carry utterly different motivations. So would you agree that this doesn’t hold true?: But honestly, we should pin one archetype onto all people within a group. Or would you atleast explain why there is a human archetype but not archetypes of certain groups?
That there is no consideration or contingency plan for the part they play in intersexual attraction apart from “if you like you’re a misogynist!”. Men were attracted to women in their roles since the beginning of time. Women abolished these roles. Now women complain men only want sex. You don’t see the fallacy here?
The only thing that bothers me though is if this the route men choose to go why are they upset with the outcomes of modern day women, men have chosen this, why are they not proud of it? OP blames men themselves for not being content with modern day women. Rather than asking what women have contributed to their own undesirability.
Gatekeeping doesn’t mean the other sex never has the power, it means you always do. All women can always open the gates for a man to have sex. And of the men who already do have sex, all of them can open the gates for a woman to have a relationship. So men (who have sex) gatekeep relationships. Women who have sex generally don’t. Yes for women, but not for men. Because women control sex, and sexual attraction is the threshold for any sought of relationship, women not participating will reduce me…
Here it is. You’ve admitted women like to be treated like shit by guys above them. There will always be these guys, and thus they will skip out on guys on their level.
What are you talking about 90% of rp is determining how to find the right woman to settle down with, or atleast avoiding the wrong one. Have you ever considered that modern women are the problem and not worth settling down with?
There are two reasons. You’re not going to change the culture by not participating. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Which means if a woman wants to sleep around, she’ll always find a man to do so. To act as if the only criticism men have of modernity is promiscuity is far from the truth. The entire development of feminism and the abolition of (female) gender roles has completely twisted relationships. This has nothing to do with casual sex or women being used. Women left the status quo, not …
