Red flag examples: Treating you well but other people poorly. As soon as he gets what he wants you are going to be one of those other people. This one is very common but women will excuse it with "well he was always nice to me". Negative attitudes against men, it's usually projection or a defense mechanism for his own bad behavior. Evil people like to think that others are the same. Excess confidence and lack of any embarrassment or awkwardness. This is common with sociopaths and guys with subcl…
Relationship subs work like this: If woman posts something bad her man did then he is terrible end of story and dump him. If a man posts something bad his woman did then there are "missing reasons" and he must have done something terrible to cause it therefore he is secretly terrible dump him.
So what you are saying is that reading what one guy commented on the internet makes you cancel your date with some other completely different random guy in the real world because what the first guy wrote made your bitter and hatefully to half the planet. In that case it's a bullet doged on the guys part.
So you are trying to claim that you and most women you know are running into men that you know personally from interacting with them here on dates? That's a pretty wild claim
The hookup guys i know (starting with myself) struggle to keep out of relationships since their hookup partners are constantly trying to rope them.into relationships.
We are talking about dates not about what is debated on random corners of the internet. So yes the scenario of being accused of being hypergamous and ranting about the wall did not happen on a date and that is something you imagined for this off topic comment which should have been made under the automod.
How many dates do you go on with guys that "accused you of being hypergamous" and ranted about the wall? Are you taking about dating in the real world or some scenario that you made up in your head?
The guys who get the most ass are sexual right away, they will start sexual flirting even before the first date. Guys who struggle are most often nonsexual and boring. You personally might find it annoying and gross but that doesn't change the fact that successful guys are more sexual and unsuccessful guys are not sexual enough in the general marketplace.
This one is completely wrong. Being too forward with sex is not a characteristic of guys who struggle romantically. They tend to be on the opposite side, being too asexual presenting. Guys who are too sexual are typically on the extroverted Chad douchbag side of the equation and generally get plenty of women. A behavior can be annoying or off-putting without being typically characteristic of the romantically unsuccessful. Lonely guys tend to be shy, introverted, autistic or autistic adjacent, ov…
People were tired of his corruption, bad economic management and sucking up to Putin. They are perfectly happy with orbans no migrants policy and voted in the new guy who has the exact same policy. Europe as a whole is turning against letting in third world migrants on mass, even the left wing parties are starting to admit it has been a total failure.
Feminists love to go on about bodily autonomy then turn around and try to control what exact position men can have their own eyeballs inside their own head.
Players do most of that messaging first, normal guys sometimes don't know what to say, get embarrassed, feel insecure, put it off, don't think they have a chance, etc
Removed for violation of bullet points 1, 5, 7 and 10 of posting guidelines, debate posts are not for long rants full of unfalsifiable claims about undefined groups.
You do have a point that it's impractical for nerdy risk averse neurotic guys but then again nothing will help them have casual sex if they don't change their entire outlook and lifestyle.
There is nothing to discuss about looks, everyone has the genetics they have, the only thing that will change their outcome now is their choices and behavior. Looks is just an excuse for cel people to derail every conversation so they can throw themselves a pity party.
If the whole thing was about Trump the democrats would have released it a long time ago. They tried every legal and illegal trick in the book to stop him from being elected, you don't think they would have used that if they had it?
There is abundant evidence that disgust existed long before the advent of organized religion. Religion is just the codification of preexisting human tendencies.
You are just using insecurity as a shaming buzzword for any mans ideas or behavior you don't like. We are absurdly far away from any definition much less nitpicking.
"insecurity" is just a meaningless buzzword used to shame the gullible. Anyone with even a passing on knowledge of history is aware that disgust at sluts, whores, loose women, the town bicicle, harlots and the like is a near universal theme from both men and women throughout history. Now as to why that is the case you would have to dig into evolutionary psychology.
The word you are looking for is disgust. It's instinctual and hard wired from human evolutionary history. Dudes will try to come up with all kinds of practical reasons and statistics about cheating and divorce to try to make it look like a conscious rational decision when they don't really even know why they feel disgusted.
Rules against personal attacks, incivility and downvoting apply to all threads including the daily, any further questions or concerns can be directed to mod mail.
This sub is also full of brazen misandry, a neutral space means neither side gets shut out of the discussion it does not mean that you will be protected from ever encountering an different viewpoint, particularly in a debate sub.
What is there to refute? Your entire argument rests on conflating two very different things. Visceral sexual attraction and "standards" which are lists of demands of things set by society and have little or nothing to do with attraction.
Your perspective requires the belief that the number of people that own luxury yachts is roughly similar to the number of people having sex. Sex is something normal to most people. Luxury yacht ownership is not.
You made a false claim, I corrected you. There is no personal attack there. Since then you have been beating around the bush trying to avoid admitting that women are generally the ones that pressure men about proposing.
You can just admit that it's usually women pressuring men about proposing not the inverse. You don't have to be "on narrative" in every single comment.
Are you going to dispute this: In the vast majority of cases it's woman pushing for marriage and threatening to leave a man if he doesn't propose. Or are you just prevaricating?
So whats the issue then? why were you pretending that it's men pressuring women for marriage when in reality it's mostly women pressuring men for marriage?
OP writing every comment and post out like song lyrics is super annoying to other posters. Some leeway was given in the daily thread but here in more serious posts it's considered trolling.
OP don't increase the size of text in comments and bold them. It makes them glitch and be unreadable for a lot of people in old reddit mode. It's also the forum equivalent of yelling and that is not civil.
There are rules for posting that you can find in the sidebar. Check them before making your next post so you can adapt the post to the proper template and it won't get deleted.
Missing context: the woman in the video is not a pick me. The caption says "this is how people think Wongyoung should eat in order to not be called a pick me" In this case "people" refers to all the woman who attack Wongyoung and call her a pick me for eating a strawberry on camera daintily with two hands once a few months ago.
He was banned then his account was nuked by reddit admin. If you see him resurface under a new account let me know so I can ban him and forward his info to reddit admin for ban evasion.
Freely given means consent given by someone who is not underage, intoxicated or incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, or asleep or unconscious nor has the consent been given because of intimidation or threat. On this sub we operate based on the well established and commonly accepted legal definitions of consent. If you want to make up your own definition you must make note that it is a personal opinion of what you think the rules should be not what they actually are.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/consent The validity of consent has nothing to do with whether payment is involved or not. Don't make intentionally absurd claims in order to rile people up.
Removed for bad faith by OP. If you want to make more CMVs remember that they require being willing to change your mind and engage with commentors in good faith.
This is not the place to have conversations about the Holocaust, start discussions about race or bait others into the same. Read the description of the subreddit. If you can't choose analogies within the subs rules then you will not be able to post.
It's not for them. The new system bans you from interacting with an entire 400+ comment post including with anyone else in it. And sometimes when you see people spreading bullshit you just want to give them a facts smackdown.
The people that debate in good faith on one account will get bodied by the bad faith assholes and ideologues that use multiple alts and weaponize the blocking system to bar anyone who disagrees with them from refuting their hate fueled takes. Trolls already use multiple alts, this wont hinder them at all.
Are you claiming that you see and participate in spaces like this one on twiter where people of vastly different wold views that hate each-other can engage in debate productively without blocking each-other or whichhunting. If so show it to me.
Blocking keeps the blocker from seeing the blockee's comments. It doesn't keep other people from seeing them. That was the old system. Under the new system the blockee won't be able to see the entire post with say 400 comments on it at all and won't be able to participate at all. OPs will be keeping a list of potential dissenters and preemptively blocking those people before they get a chance to reply That is exactly what will happen. Also they will slowly build up a list over several threads. A…
Every time I hear twitter mentioned or get linked to some twitter post its in the context of some witchunting, canceling mob action or someone being banned for not being politically correct enough.
Still pretending the system won't be abused by the the people here that hate the other side? It's so plainly obvious how it will be weponiszed that I can only conclude that you are supporting it because you can't wait to abuse it yourself. Enjoy a little taste.
Yes, you can absolutely predict which ones of the regular posters are going to agree or disagree with your post. Just start blocking anyone you disagree with and each post you make will become more and more of a circlejerk. There are only like a dozen BPW regulars here, block them and presto the entire discussion under your post will exclude the BPW perspective.
The new blocking system will enable people to prevent any real debate and only pander to their clans by blocking anyone the dissents from even posting.
Most people here don't think they are going to nesesarily change the mind of the people they are debating but rather the other people reading who are on the fence about the issue. The new way will be the loss of everyone reading since they will only get one side of the debate represented.
Twitter is a cesspool of hatefuled circlejerking. The last thing we would ever want is to be more like twitter. The new feature is the antithises of open debate. It's obvious the issues it will cause. It will empower the worst kind of people to shut up the reasonable people and the resonable people will have only one way to fight back which is to do the same. You don't need to drive a car off the cliff to know it's a bad idea when you can see the rocks down on the bottom from where you stand.
Most debate starts out with someone soapboxing then other people disagree and you have a healthy debate. If you stop people from responding then you have no debate.
I see you don't quite understand the scope of the new system. They give them the ability to block people from posting at all in their OPs and comments so that nobody else can see them They will be able to make a post then block anyone who disagrees with them so the only people able to engage and comment in that post are poeple who agree with them. Essentially making the entire conversation a circlejerk. One that look to anyone observing like their side is steamrolling the oposition since the opp…
Because when the ideolague posts some bullshit people want to refute that for the rest of the public to see. The new system allows ideologues to soapbox to their hearts content and silence anyone would would call them on their BS.
There are not that many people blocked atm because it's always been a purely defensive measure. You don't see what they post. The new system turns it into an offensive first strike weapon which far far more people will use.
The probem is it won't be that many people in the begining. However, there will be more and more revenge blockings which will snowball over time. It empowers the trolls, assholes and ideologues. There are enough people here that hate the other side enough to abuse the feture, then the other side will do it inresponse because what else can they do. The only way to fight back is to also block people and silence them. Over time the people that want a real debate will slowly leave than the trolls, m…
It will drive out the people who want an honest and open debate. Since it will give free reign to the ideolouges, haters and soapboxers that are just here to push a message and yell at the people they hate while not engaging in any meaningfull conversation with them. Just fire off your rant then block anyeone that disagrees.
Imagine coming to a debate sub and demanding the right to silence everyone that you disagree with. If you can't handle dissenting opinions then you don't belong on a debate sub.
How can you have a debate sub when people can just block everyone they disagree with from even posting. Make a CMV then block all disenters so you win by default. Make are Q4W post but block everyone that you know won't give you the answers that agree with you. Want to spread lies about someone, whitchunt them and fuck with them? They won't even be able to see it to report you. Want to get the last word in on every argument? fire off on them then block them, they can't respond. To everyone readi…
The question wasn’t asked in bad faith Moderation has determined otherwise. If you have any further questions or concerns you can direct them to mod mail.
Ony one person answered the way you described in your edit. It's a moot point to ask questions in bad faith and not even wait for a decent amount of people to answer before lashing out at them. If you maintain the same behaviour in future posts they won't be approved ether.
The post had not even been up for long and you got the answer you wanted from one person to confirm your own bieses and go on a rant mocking the people you were allegedly asking questions of, who haddent even answered yet. That is textbook bad faith. Keep it in mind for any future Q4 posts that you might make.
Removed for trolling; violations to core rules 3 and 4 and posting guidelines 2, 5 and 8. If you plan on making further question posts make sure they are asked in good faith and not used simply as a vehicle to troll a certain demographic of PPD.
Post removed. If you tell everyone that responds to your post that you "don't care about obesity" than don't include obesity and "healthy weight" "overwaight" as the main thrust of your post. It's posting in bad faith. If you want you can edit the post and remove any points that you are not wiling to back up in the comments and I will re-approve this post.
You were already informed in the notification of post removal that you can reformat it. (2) No excessively leading questions. (5) No rants. (8) Posts should be in good faith. If you abide by the rules then your reformatted post will be approved.
You are telling people how you believe they think and act, not asking them. men here, seem to blame everything on outside factors and not themselves. men do not ever look inward and hold themselves accountable for their failures or short comings. It's all projected to women or society. Etc. This is you ranting at them rather than asking them for their point of view.
FDS and sympathizers here use those terms to refer to any woman who doesn't follow their rules or isn't sufficiently misanderous. If you want to gatekeep those terms take it up with them.
Based on activity levels mods are mostly balanced between blue and red but most discussion these days is not really about red pill vs blue pill, it's more team woman vs team man and in that area the mod team favors team woman by a significant margin. If we add some new mods they would need to be center to team man to balance out the current team woman bies.
We ban a lot of them all the time but more always pop up. Extreme looksism is exclusively a blackpill/incel idea. TRP says the exact opposite That game, status, charisma, dominance, style, humor, vibe, seduction etc etc play the biggest role in a guy's sexual and romantic success. TRP is about learning and practicing those skills and attitudes to increase your results.
Looksism is a blackpill/incel ideology. It's totally contrary to TRP. People here can use any flair they want. Frequently it does not coincide with their pill ideas. There are also incels using the red flair to hide from mods.
There is way, way more to girl game than just standing around, waiting to be approached Of course, there is a lot more, I have written long posts on the subject. But that is another topic entirely. every woman on earth gets approached by multiple men - that’s just how it is So figuring out which of those men is worth keeping around is our challenge Wrong. That only applies to attractive women. Sure it might be the case for you but you have always been in the top tier of attractiveness, you don't…
I never said anything about approaching. Putting yourself out there as a woman means putting yourself in proximity to the kind of guy you want and making yourself approachable. Next you pretend that every woman has a unlimited supply of 10/10 suitors that want to marry her and that all she has to do is pick the right one. The reality is that most woman that end up on FDS never had quality suitors to pick from in the first place. Being unattractive woman without charm, sexyness, style or warmth t…
The content and sideboard are very similar to MGTOW and a dash of incel where they focus on rejecting the opposite sex and not trying to make themselves more attractive to the opposite sex, not trying to get more or better interest from the opposite sex and pretending that they are rejecting everyone based on high standards where they demand unconditional love and reject the notion of doing anything to earn said love. TRP is the opposite of all that. It focuses on making a guy more attractive an…
No, OP is not talking about negative reactions in general, she is talking about a specific reaction which is all but nonexistant. Only a very tiny number of incels have that specific reaction. Asking for incel content is not allowed. Not to mention that it's also a leading question and disingenuous.
Disagreement is perfectly fine. What you cant do is break the rules by attacking other people personally. There have been a lot of uncivil comments and personal attacks on this thread. The people that made them have been warned and their comments deleted.
Its a post designed to elicit a circlejerk and for one sex to swap anecdotes that cant be questioned nor debated. Which is what the rule agianst internal question is specifically formulated to prevent.
It cant be a discussion because its inherently a q4w. Men cant answer for them and there is nothing to debate because that would basically require invalidation.
I'm neither a woman nor a feminist so what's that to me? You did not make a generalization in your original claim. You claimed that every single women is like that and if she says she is not then she is lying.
Do you really have to suspend reality and butcher science to an extent that it is laughable to a 3rd grader to justify it? The post is more of a rant. It's affirmative in nature but doesn't fit into any of the post categories. you can reformat it as a question but that would mean removing all the affirmative claims or you can reformat it as a CMV
To clarify: 80-20 is a red pill concept and is free game to be attacked or defended or posted about in any other way. 80-20 reffers to the idea that 20% of men are having 80% of the casual sex. Not something entirely different that certain incels are trying to push.
It is a claim masquerading as a question. If you want to make that claim you will need to format it as a CMV: "Lots of TRP guys advocate for X CMV" If you want to ask a question then it would have look something like this: "Q4RP do you advocate for X"
that’s what I think TRP gets wrong. They see the hot guy and think “hot guy” (projecting male looks-only sexuality). They discount the personality It's the black pill that says that. Incels are the looksists not red pillers.
No, as we can clearly see here you have not responded to the top comment. btw reporting it in the hopes that it will get removed so you don't have to respond won't work.
Your avoidance of the top comment (which debunks the central theme of your post ) is clear evidence that it was made in bad faith ether to troll or cry woe is my sex. At this point you can ether respond to them and say why you think that they are wrong and your interpretation in OP is right. Or you can admit that your take in OP is wrong and edit a retraction/change of opinion into your original post.
you can make a new post (can't edit titles) asking red pillers IF they search out teens to give advice to. If any red piller answers in the affirmative then you can ask him why he does this.
Their most prominent members are perceived to inhabit a rather narrow spectrum of the color pallet. That is what's driving the racial angle of this purge.
Different groups apply the Pareto principle to different things and for different reasons. The one that OP is arguing against is the incel/blackpill idea that woman are only attracted to 20% of men (or less) because of their looks and its based off of the 2 studies mentioned in OP. It's completely different from the red pill usage of 80/20 which refers to 20% of men having 80% of the casual sex. That is from before both tinder and OK cupid existed and has nothing to do with ether study or looks.…
It seems like RP men are literally the only ones who find the idea of a “Chad” or a “Tyrone” sexually attractive. That's not a question, its a statement from someone who has their mind made up. If you really want to make a question about this then make a new post without the snark, the affirmative statements and the trolling ("Inb4 “watch what they dooooo, not what they sayyyyyyy”)
If you think your targets are not going to answer honestly then why ask at all. Don't manipulate the question to get a false answer that confirms your worldview. That's being disingenuous.
There is some flexibility involved particularly if the affirmations are required to contextualize or explain what you are asking. It comes down to what the main thrust of a post is. If a post is primarily making a statement then it won't count as a discussion even if it has questions in it. Particularly when they are simply rhetorical questions.
Post needs some work. The first link doesn't work and the second says something entirely different than the title of the post. The 6x refers to the relationships between the increase over baseline not the total likelihood of leaving.
"fascist" has a specific meaning. It's not a catch all term for anyone who's politics you don't like. However that's neither here nor there since this entire subject is off topic. No more political rants.
This sub is for debate. Not a soap box for publishing PSAs and trying to "inform" the public about your pet political issue. Particularly when you keep repeating the same one over and over. That's not even getting into the fact that you blatantly disregard the rules for CMVs in every post you make about this topic.
"Look what the other guy did" has never been an acceptable justification to the moderation of this subreddit. If you see someone else breaking the rules then report them. If you disagree with the ruling you can appeal in mod mail using the message the moderators link on the sidebar.
It's abundantly clear that the purpose is to rant at people you feel a strong animosity at, not engage in a open minded discussion with them. Which is a requirement for CMV posts. The language is intentionally inflammatory and insulting. It takes aim at people rather than ideas. This is trolling which is also against the rules. The posts also dismisses the other side's disagreement before they even get a chance to disagree with it. Bad faith. As a final note your post from yesterday was removed …
This kind of logic is why millions of people die from pandemics that could have been prevented. If you don't know what exponential growth rate is then look it up on wikipedia.
I suggest you take this post down and make a new one stating exactly what you are talking about with "porn sex" and what you are not talking about since everyone seems to be sidestepping the question and answering off topic.
If you want to get all homoerotic about Chads and 9 inch thick dicks , chiseled jawline, 10/10 faces you can go and do it in one of the incel subs. This is not the place for it.
I don't think you can edit titles, so you would have to make a new post. Also if you are asking about the men that get mad at FDS then ask about FDS. It seems like you are trying to conflate men being mad at FDS with men being mad about female dating advice in general which is a whole different matter.
The title covertly makes a statement masquerading as a question. That would have to be formatted as a CMV: "men get mad at dating advice geared towards women, change my view" Or if you want do do a question post it would have to be formatted as a question: DO men get mad at dating advice geared towards women?
They have nothing to do with each other. You are creating needless confusion. I'm taking it down. You can repost it after you have edited it to be accurate.
Clarify in your OP that you are not talking about "negotiation" but rather are talking about attraction developing organically over time despite a contrary first impression. That is not a negotiation and has nothing to do with what the phrase "attraction can not be negotiated" refers to.
You can't make a deal for attraction. ie "I will give you X or I did Y for you and you will feel attracted to me in exchange" negotiation /nɪɡəʊʃɪˈeɪʃ(ə)n/ noun discussion aimed at reaching an agreement.
That's what it means. You can't make a deal for attraction. ie "I will give you X or I did Y for you and you will feel attracted to me in exchange" You should edit that clarification into your OP
The title of the post is a pertinent subject for this sub. However it's just cover for the body of the post which is another bad faith rant about how much you hate the opposite sex. In the comments you go on to attack multiple people. This post is removed. you are also banned for repeated rules violations and showing no improvement from previous bans.
Hate to harsh your mellow but no male has come to moderation complaining about fds. Also the moratoriums were initiated by female mods. Also it's to be expected that after the incel experience there will be a faster reaction the second time around.
This a just a collection of vague ad homs and pejoratives related to other peoples emotional state that can neither be debated nor proven ether way. You are also breaking the rules for CMVs that require good faith and a willingness to have your view changed.
Those are your opinions, not facts. Also most of them are completely wrong as per the information provided by your own link. If you want to start correcting people start with yourself. Different states have different laws and procedures. And that is only covering the United states. The rest of the west has even more different laws. Lastly it's bad faith to pretend that the letter of the law always matches up to how it's applied in practice. Particularly while glossing over the discretionary part…
OPs can add their own personal experience or ideas into the post body if they are necessary to flesh out or contextualize the question. They can't ask a rhetorical question then answer back with what they present as the only valid answer and invalidate anyone who would answer differently before the discussion even begins. That is circumventing the rules to create a circlejerk.
Discussion posts have to be neutral. Your question in the title is neutral but the post body is a rant pushing one answer and invalidating any other. If anything it's closest to a CMV but then you would have to remake the title so that it matches the body of your post. Also CMVs require good faith and a willingness for your opinion to be changed which is contradicted by several lines in your OP making preemptive personal attacks against people would attempt to change your view.
I would have reflaired it as a CMV as I often do if i caught it sooner and the circejerk had not already developed. But that would have required editing the post on your part and removing the indicators of bad faith.
Sure as long as you edit out things like And before any red pillers start screaming that I am offended by the word whore, oh come on. Put your big boy pants on.
That post follows the rules and is properly flaired as a CMV since it's making affirmative claims. You flaired yours as a "discussion" which is against the rules for posts making affirmative claims so that you could get top level responses agreeing with you. That is exactly what happened. A circlejerk, hence removal. If you had formatted and flaired it properly this could have been avoided. Also if you are going to make CMVs then remember that you have to make a good faith attempt at addressing …
Removed; affirmation masquerading as a question. No more neoractionaryism/altright/facism posts. You have made too many posts that are almost identical.
Of course you only want to talk about the single point that you think makes you right while ignoring or trying to stop people from bringing up all the points against you. That's what every partisan OP would love to do. For example say the discussion is about date rape, OP says "Date rape is all woman's fault because science says if she does not go on a date and she would never be date raped" Then OP refuses to consider any contrary argument and insists only on talking about her ability to choose…
This post is an affirmative claim with a question in the title. You can clean it up and make the title and the body of the post match then respost it as a CMV
Yes hot woman, not all of them of course, sometimes you're horny and all you have at hand is homly woman so you just smash anyway. Ether that or you're drunk/high and dgaf anyway. As for aproaches 50 won't get you anywhere. All my friends who have fucked a lot of women whether they are good looking dudes or ugly dudes have aproached thousands of woman. Of course I don't really know much about aproaching women on the street. Most of my friends and I have gotten laid from social circle, parties, c…
Then looks is not the main issue. It's more likely that it's some combination of neuroticism, low self esteem, bad social skills, depression, lazyness, wrong social circle, risk aversion or lack of practice. I have friends that are significantly lower than 6 in terms of looks but have fucked just as many women as I have or more.
We don't take kindly to incels implying they are going to go on a murder rampage if they don't get what they want. Thats just the cherry on the top of a pile of incel woe is me crap.
You only made a single reply, that is not "some". Also that single reply was removed for incivilty. You did not attempt to debate the topic in good faith, hence the removel.
This post is tagged Question for women. Top level responses have to come from women. Posting anything else goes as a reply to the autmoderator post in this thread.
Just don't keep any of that stuff in your house. You don't have to completly deny yourself shitty foods, just put a barrier where you have to go to the convenience store to get it.
It's too leading for a question and too one sided for a discussion. You would have to clean it up and decide if you are asking a question or making a statement.
