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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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…
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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…
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?
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 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.”
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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…
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?
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.
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.
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?
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 …
