A frequent topic of discussion on this subreddit is the worth of dating advice from women. There's a reason the adage "if you want to learn to catch a fish, ask the fisherman, not the trout" has been ingrained so deeply in redpilled minds. Whatever your thoughts on the matter, it's clear there's a fundamental disconnect between men's and women's lived experiences in dating. Years ago on r/askmen, someone posted the question "What's one thing that, if more women experienced, you feel would most improve their understanding of what it's like to be a man?" Let me share the notable response from that thread:

"I think women vastly underestimate just how uninvolved they can afford to be in the process of dating, courting, and relationship maintenance. The baseline narrative of male-female dynamics in society as a whole is one that perpetuates the idea that men are the ones who act, and women are the ones who are "acted upon." Regardless of what you think, men and women alike actively reinforce this narrative through virtually all their words, actions, and expectations.

For so many women, relationships are something that "just happens," (i.e. - to them**.) Taking an active role in making them happen just isn't a reality that a lot of women need to face.**

An example:

A man "just happens" to be at the same bar/coffee shop/etc that the women in question is at. The reality is that the man has probably gone through a lot of research and trial and error in order to figure out where the good places to meet available women are.

The man "just happens" to approach her and strike up an amusing conversation. The reality is that he has probably invested a great deal of time and effort into alleviating his approach anxiety by weathering a lot of rejection. Not only that, but he has probably been busting his ass trying to improve several facets of his overall demeanor.

The man "just happens" to coax her to the dance floor or a change of venue. He "just happens" to lean in for a kiss. The reality is that he has probably run through this routine dozens of times, and because of this he has developed a good sense of reading how these situations progress. Regardless, it's still on him to make that move and risk not only rejection, but his reputation as well.

The man "just happens" to ask her out. The reality is that he's spent the time to build up enough experience to know where the best places to go are and what the most successful date plans are. On that date, they "just happen" to have similar interests and senses of humor. The reality is that he has probably been through similar lines of discussion with plenty of other women and has developed a good sense of understanding how to create a good rapport and sexual tension.

Afterwards, they "just happen" to go back to his place, he "just happens" to have some drinks to share, they "just happen" to start making out, they "just happen" to wind up in the bedroom, and so on and so forth…

The whole process is one of men acting, and women being "acted upon." I don't think women realize the amount of effort, pressure, and calculated risk that goes into the ordeal. Just listen to women recount memorable nights and dates. Everything, from their perspective, "just happened" to them. Women rarely have to put themselves out there at this level, and I think it is something that they are simply not aware of due to the fact that they don't have to be.

That's probably why women tend to give such horribly ineffective dating advice. It requires a perspective that many of them have never had to acknowledge."

That leads me to the main topic of this thread: Why don't men get as much of a thrill over fictional romances as women do? Men fall in love too, so why don't they enjoy a good love story? This was also a question asked on r/askmen years ago, and here's another excellent comment I figured deserved attention.

To generalize for the purpose of an easy answer, let's think in stereotypically gendered terms. When it comes to love, men have an active role while women have a passive one.

What are the implications of this? It means that what a woman feels as the ups and downs, the mystery, the unknown, the excitement, etc., all things that define "blossoming" love, are things that happen to her. She is passive, she is the recipient. Her agency is contained in her response to these things.

But for a man, anything that makes "love" progress (or regress) pretty much directly stems from one of his actions. He does something or initiates and a woman responds/reciprocates. Because he does not have the gendered luxury of taking a backseat or passive role and watching things happen (if he does, nothing will; the woman will lose interest), he begins, by necessity, to view love as the cause and effect relationship that it more accurately is in reality (he does something, woman responds).

Seeing something like this takes a ton of the "magic" out of it. Compare it to seeing the sun rise every day. It becomes a lot less mystical, exciting, and dramatic when you know exactly why it happens and can simply see it for the cause and effect relationship that it truly is... you may even begin to take it for granted.

This is why romance eventually becomes well... unromantic for men. Romance is not a phenomenon, but instead a verb; it's a series of actions carried out by a man to earn a woman's affections... it's labor.

So what actually constitutes the male romantic fantasy?

So when women or their SO makes romantic gestures to men, do they like it?

A little bit off the mark—you're actually describing an inversion of the gendered roles here (i.e. the woman is an active contributor while the man is a passive recipient or responder). While a man will appreciate such a gesture, it's not quite what composes the male romantic fantasy (more on this later).

Do men that were heavily pursued by women feel this way?

Men who aren't used to being pursued are usually confused or thrown off by the reversal of gendered roles. The result is the prevailing idea that men do not respond well to being approached first by women or even the autobiographical accounts from men describing instances where they couldn't respond well even if they were attracted to the woman approaching them. This is the men being shocked out of the traditional "script" of romance.

Secondly, when you talk about women pursuing men, that usually happens in a markedly different fashion than the way in which men pursue women (hint: it's more passive). A woman "aggressively" pursuing a man looks more like said woman going to extensive lengths to make it clear that she is available for pursuit rather than actively pursuing; the man is still usually leading things forward in some manner by handling the logistics of this romance. This is where you get those autobiographical stories from men about missing signals; "aggressive" pursuit from women is (usually) a set of passive signals that are clear to men who are experienced, but unclear to men not used to being "pursued."

The Male Romantic Fantasy

I'd say that men usually feel most loved when this normal state of affairs is negated; when they are made to believe that a woman's love is not conditional in the cause-and-effect manner described in the parent post. Love is work for men, but it can be rewarding work when things are going smoothly and the woman is happy as a result. But the male romantic fantasy is to be shown that the woman feels the same way and stands by him when he's down on his luck, when the money's not there, or when he's not feeling confident. He wants to know that the love he believes he's earned will stay even when the actions that feed it wane (however temporarily). A good woman can often lift a man up in his times of need and desperation and weather the storm even when things aren't going well. The male romantic fantasy is an enduring and unconditional love that seems to defy this relationship of labor and reward. A man wants to be loved for who he is, not for what he does in order to be loved.

An interesting way to examine this is to look at what women often call romantic entitlement. An entitled guy is a dude who maintains an unrealistic notion of men's typically active role in love. Before acknowledging reality, this boy uncompromisingly believes that he shouldn't have to do anything or change anything about himself to earn a woman's love; he wants to be loved for who he is, not what he does.

All men secretly want this, but there comes a day when they eventually compromise out of necessity. After that day, they may spend years honing themselves, working, shaping themselves into the men they believe women want to be chosen by. A massive part of what causes boys to "grow up" is the realization that being loved requires hard work. This impetus begins a journey where a boy grows into a man by gaining strength, knowledge, resources, and wisdom. The harsh realities of the world might harden and change him into a person his boyhood self wouldn't recognize. He might adopt viewpoints he doesn't agree with, transgress his personal boundaries, or commit acts he previously thought himself incapable of. But ultimately, the goal is to feel as if his work is done.

When he can finally let go of the crank he continually turns day after day in order to earn love and, even if only for a moment, it turns by itself to nourish him in return, that is when he will know he is loved.

These were a series of comments I found that I thought would make for an interesting discussion here.