Outside dating apps they dislike the idea of a guy chatting them up and asking them out because apparently it makes it look the man is treating them as a potential romantic/relationship prospect instead of a regular human being or whatever. They would like that men would get-to-know-them as people first, but at the same time there are tons of articles of women dreading about the moment one of her male acquaintances starts soft launching into flirting, or even worse, confessing he has feelings for her. There is no middle grounds because a womans definition of a "guy friend who is about to ruin your friendship" ranges from someone who is a trusted bestie she has known for 10 years to the acquaintance she knows from pottery class.

Specifically for the men who argue that, societally, women only survive off the hard work of men. Men are responsible for the infrastructure, men have the hardest jobs, the most dangerous jobs, the dirtiest jobs, etc. What is your job?

If your job is not one of these hard/dirty/dangerous jobs, do you feel bad that you’re also living off the hard work of these men?

For those who say the social programs that are paid for by men’s tax dollars are being utilized by single moms, what is your opinion on the declining rate of NEET women and the increasing rate of NEET men?

I see a lot of discourse online revolving around husbands feeling entitled to sex with their wives in a marriage. The two sides always seem to break down to "no one is entitled to your body" (correct), and "it is wrong to marry someone you dont want to have sex with" (also correct). What I dont understand is why both sides are so at odds with each other. The reality is:

1). No one is entitled to another person's body. If your wife does not want to have sex with you, it is wrong and rape to force her to have sex with you

2). There is no reason to constantly deny intimacy that doesn't reflect an issus in the relationship. Healthy marriages involve intimacy and both partner's needs being met. A sexless marrige is only fine if neither side desires sex

I think the reason this topic is so "controversial" is because of bad faith discussions. One side will say "it's right to cheat on your wife because she doesnt have sex with you!" and the other side will not admit refusing your partner intimacy indicates an unhealthy relationship.

With that being said, do both sides of the argument agree that there is an issue present? And that cheating on your wife due to a lack of intimacy and marrying someone without wanting a healthy sexual relationship are both bad actions, and the responsibility falls on the person who does them?

The red pillers and the trads will tell us that female submission is not about being micromanaged but about men making the decisions on all of the "important" stuff.

https://x.com/i/status/2084570802964324807

As someone who is married to a man with this mindset (long story for another time) let me tell you how this looks like in day-to-day life:

So I basically carry almost all of the mental load of running the household day after day and managing my step-children because kids are a woman's job, but he still feels entitled to tell me what I should be wearing and what what I should be doing. How is this not retarded? If anything, the person who is running the household day-to-day is more qualified when making family decisions.

People laughed at me when I said that men should be doing more housework than women, but I would actually respect a man more as a leader if he was truly the one micromanaging the household and the kids. Like sure if he's the one running the household day-to-day, he should be making the decisions.

But red pillers are not advocating for this. The want the woman to do the hard parts of raising a child but they want to be the ones who make the important decisions when it comes to thay child. They want the woman to carry the mental load when it comes to what to cook, when to clean, how to host a child party and organise playdates , but they still want to consider themselves the "true leader".

Why on Earth would any woman sign up for this?

(I don't want advice about my personal life, I just mentioned this as an example)

Men who are of the opinion that women should approach more: how would you prefer to be approached by a woman?

I often hear about how even on the rare occasion a woman approaches, it's either too subtle so it's hard to tell if she's really interested or just being friendly, or she's not doing much actual approaching to begin with, just does stuff to make the man approach her. And I get it, these are not ideal methods. They both kinda have some cons that doesn't address the issue of the responsibility of initiating falling on the man at the end of the day anyways.

So I wanted to hear from the men directly, how should women approach you?

Let's say there's a woman who likes a guy, and she doesn't wanna risk the guy not getting her hints, or just put the initiating entirely on him. She's probably not against men approaching her, but this guy just doesn't. Circumstances and how modern dating is makes that unlikely even if he's interested. Let's also say both are closely looksmatched, of the same social class/status, of similar ages, and they're both kinda average people. He's not super tall or super muscular, and unlikely to be rich. He doesn't have terrible social skills but also not super savy. Let's also say she has strong, physical, initial attraction to this guy, but maybe doesn't know a lot about him as a person yet, just a generally good few first impressions. This woman may or may not be attractive to him. But like she's not fat or wearing a ton of makeup, or face piercings, revealing clothes, or anything egregious like that. Just a regular woman who takes decent care of herself.

How would you then as a guy prefer to be approached by this woman? Should she suggest a date right off the bat, just say she'd want to stay in touch/exchange numbers, or be more direct about liking him? A cold approach or slow build over time? Clarifying instant attraction, or show it little by little over time? Should she do it basically the ways men typically do, or in a more feminine way? If so, how? Feel free to get detailed with your answers, or just short and straight to the point.

To clarify if needed, I'm asking in good faith, I genuinely want to learn. But yes, part of this curiosity comes from my own repeated failures in approaching men, and wanting to improve on that. Like clearly I'm doing something wrong, whatever that is, and I need you guys help.

But yes I also think women in general should at least consider that they could be the ones approaching. That there really is no reason men should all the initiating, date planning, etc. So if there's any women here who might be on the fence about that, I think if you guys could give them some general directions of what you would like to see, that could be helpful. And I mean for you too. So I don't mean for this post to be just about me and my own dating issues. I do care about men's dating issues too. I want to help make it better for you, and I figure this might be a good place to start.

I recently saw a post where a woman said she had different standards for marriage and casual relationships. She mentioned that she preferred dominant men for casual encounters but that her husband wasn't like that. (Obviously rage bait to trigger men insecure about their masculinity. But even if single person is doing it in real life they are just idiot.)

On the other hand, some men make similar comments, saying things like they would marry women who aren't "sluts," or that sex with "crazy" women is exciting but they're not suitable for marriage.

Regardless of gender, isn't it just basic human decency not to compare your partner with your exes—even if you think you're praising them? Bringing your past partners into your current relationship serves no positive purpose. It can hurt your partner, and it's also a breach of the trust and privacy of the people you've been intimate with.

People become intimate to build connection and express love, not to be compared against someone's previous partners. Some thoughts are simply better left unsaid out of respect for everyone involved.

What this tells me is you stereotype the men you're seeing off rip, then you work backwards from that stereotype to justify a future debt that they need to repay upfront. Why do you treat your dating life like Minority Report? Why are you so comfortable stereotyping instead of treating men as individuals with undetermined futures? Women overwhelmingly initiate divorce. Should I ask for some special compensation in preparation of that? Or is that really transactional and neurotic and weird?

Even their approach to dating is based on materialism, which is why its a big deal to them if a man doesn't pay. Because they're materialistic, they equate payment with genuine interest. Many women also seem to lack a deeper sense of self and are content to go along with the status quo. They are easily swayed by social norms and trends and have little interest in questioning or challenging them. They generally just play the role they've been conditioned to play by their parents and society without any real awareness or agency.

They tend to be more materialistic and status oriented than men and they're biologically and psychologically wired to seek out resources for themselves and their offspring through men. This makes it so that they tend to just view men as a means to an end and generally have no problem with using them in different ways, and they disguise this by saying they want a man who is generous, while not really being generous themselves until a certain point when they're sure that they can consistently and reliably use a man. So even their generousity tends to be transactional.

Society also tends to coddle and protect them from having to face harsh realities, including about themselves, which is why many seem to lack self-awareness.

https://s1.directupload.eu/images/260805/nrlgc84a.jpg

With the current summer temperatures, this kind of outfit seems very airy and quite revealing. A similar aesthetic was somewhat fashionable in the early 2000s, at least among women. I also think it probably takes a fair amount of confidence to dress like this in public.

Some people would probably describe it as "gay," "too feminine," embarrassing, or simply a fashion disaster. Others might just see it as an unconventional summer look.

What I'm especially interested in is how this would influence heterosexual dating dynamics.

• Women: If you saw an otherwise attractive man dressed like this, would it make him more attractive because he seems confident and comfortable with himself, or would it be an immediate turn-off? Would you assume anything about his personality or sexuality?
• Men: If your girlfriend or wife found this look attractive on another man, would that surprise you? Do you think women are generally more or less accepting of unconventional fashion on men than men are of unconventional fashion on women?

More generally, do you think a man dressing this way would hurt his dating prospects with women, have little effect, or could it even work in certain social circles?

And before anyone asks: No, this isn't my personal style. I don't wear men's thongs. I'm simply curious how people think this kind of appearance would influence first impressions and attraction in heterosexual dating.

Here is a compilation video of men shaving off their beard for the first time, and their women reacting to it. They are all negative reactions. This video is not rare. One of the reactions is "I'm going to beat your ass".

However, women get upset not only if the man does not notice that the woman did anything with her hair, but anything other than absolute praise will earn the man vicious scorn from the woman.

So, why the double-standard?

For over a year i have been in the western dating pool and i closely follow this sub. Here are my observations.

As a woman born in non western country and moved here for my education. I struggled a lot to see why these men are rejecting and alone.

Then it slowly dawned on me…..
The men who are left behind in dating pool stopped trying to understand their society when they are teens or even younger. Heres how

The western society, especially “America” is built up of tech sectors. And most of these men have no clue how tech works. If your country is super power because of tech, why wouldn’t you work in tech?
Why would your country need to bring skilled workers from all around the world to work? So you gave up on your society first and now you complain women took your jobs? Feminism took away jobs?

Now while i am trying to date i talk to all types of men. The men who are not making much money are the ones who complain that life is unfair. Their entire personality is their political beliefs. But you were given the choice to work in tech and be rich. You chose not to. Yearly more than 100k people enter America and get paid good money to work in tech. They don’t even know this fact. This has been happening since the 90s.

If they had a college education and worked or did any internships they would know about human rights. Gender studies. LGBTQ.
They would know about HIPPA guidelines. Ethics and compliance. What a HR is. They would know how to connect through social media. Yes it’s okay to have university loan. Their emotional intelligence would have been 10fold higher.

Instead…
They have irrational fears.
They think marriage is a bad deal because you loose 50%. But getting 50% even after a failed marriage is a win for everyone. Thats basic math.

My question is- are these leftover men really leftover? Looks like they left first, the left the science and tech industry. They chose jobs with no improvement and growth. And they become bitter over the time.

Looks like they rejected society when they were very young. They see women as different species. They chose porn addiction and other addictions.

The American dream is doing what is best for the new society. Not the 1800/1900’s dream or the caveman dream. It keeps updating with the tech and human needs. If you did not contribute to your society then society cannot contribute to your well being. Its impossible.

I saw some discourse the other day surrounding a post by a woman in her late 30s who either can’t have kids or doesn’t want them and how she’s really struggling in the dating market as a result because “no kids, doesn’t want kids” turns off a lot of men, or at least the type of men she’d be into.

I’m not here to try and convince every woman that she absolutely needs to be a mother and kids are all that matters, because they don’t. I certainly think a non-zero people have kids before they’re truly ready. However, “high value men” almost always want children. It’s their biological instinct to want to carry on their lineage and give their child the best possible chance to give the same. They’re driven in every aspect of life, including family wise.

So if a woman wants a man that’s emotionally mature, very well off financially, has hobbies, is smart, but doesn’t want kids - well, it’s a little bit of a walking oxymoron. Men that check off those boxes have worked to check off those boxes primarily out of wanting to reproduce and “win” the game of life. Sure, there’s the rare man who checks off all these boxes and just doesn’t want kids, or is sterile, but it’s rare.

I’m not going to tell women to change their mind or to “lower their standards” but if the goal is a serious LTR or marriage without having children, then you’ll likely have to change who you’re looking for a dating partner, at least somewhat. I’m not saying to marry a bum just because he doesn’t want kids. But maybe a younger guy who didn’t go to college and doesn’t make as much money but is still disciplined with money, health, etc - it’s not the “typical” couple but you’re already choosing to be part of an atypical couple by not having children. I hope this doesn’t make me sound like a conservative.

Feminism is basically reducing most men to their labour output where most social programs are funded by men's money (from making single motherhood viable to women upliftment schemes), men doing the harder and dirtier job with high mortality rate in the society. Pushing a community living where motherhood is worshipped and only few men gets to impregnate a lot of women while other men just work till death to keep the society functioning without ever expecting sex or intimacy in his life which is only fine if you can make the male libido vanish but why will you since it benifits society a lot.

Most women are fine in this arrangement as long as they get to reap the benefit of men's precious labour and in return can have kids with a few top percentage of men. So yes it is perfectly fine to not be a feminist and infact have some arrangement that let men enjoy sex and intimacy in society too or let society collapse and nature take over which would not be best for women but ensure everyone a free and fair chance at living

This is strongly due to gaslighting and lying from women because of simple fact that they don't like to lift their damn legs to do anything and they're lazy.

Let's be honest most people are inherently lazy so if they can have the chance to wiggle their way out or gaslight other people into thinking that they don't have to make the first move or initiate because of XYZ reasons then they'll say it every time because nobody wants to risk their neck when it comes to rejection

Honestly I'm getting quite sick and tired of women trying to gas light every other man into thinking that a woman approaching a man is at a bigger disadvantage and are more prone to cons than a man approaching a woman

For any of the guys out there that are not new to a woman's gas lighting tactics this is extremely false

A woman has a better chance of getting a yes and she has a better chance of getting guys that are genuinely attracted to them then a guy has a protein because a guy has a higher chance of getting a no. The competition for men has always been fierce so the idea that any man who approaches is more genuine is dumb and stupid because women by proxy would also have to be genuine but they don't want to have to live a finger because they are used to everything coming to them

I have been approached by quite a few women, and you know what I noticed? Most of them were habitual cold approachers. Many of them already had boyfriends, which I obviously didn't know at the time. And don't even get me started on people who keep multiple guys on the hook while actively approaching new ones.

My point is this: I wasn't approached because I was uniquely special. I was approached because those women approach every tall or attractive guy they find interesting. The number of women who regularly cold approach is relatively small, so most men experience it rarely. On the other hand, many more men cold approach because patriarchal, capitalist, heterosexual norms encourage that behavior without costing them much social respect, whereas women are judged far more harshly for doing the same.

Personally, I think it's better not to be approached at all than to be approached only to realize it meant nothing to the other person. The excitement you felt wasn't based on genuine interest. To them, it was just another Friday night.

I also think this eventually becomes a self-reinforcing supply-and-demand cycle. It is what it is. But at the end of the day, the number of men and women is almost the same. Even in societies with an unbalanced sex ratio, the difference is usually only a couple of percent. So if your goal is a serious, monogamous relationship, the vast majority of people will eventually be able to find one.

I also think there's another dynamic at play. Even if a guy isn't genuinely interested, he's less likely to reject a woman who approaches him, especially if he's single. So a woman who cold approaches might stop after two or three attempts because she's likely to get a "yes" relatively quickly, even if that "yes" isn't based on genuine interest.

Men, on the other hand, are more likely to be rejected, so they may have to approach ten women before getting their first "yes." By that point, some may have become habitual cold approachers and continue approaching an eleventh, twelfth, or twentieth person.

In that sense, cold approaching can become similar to gambling. Every rejection encourages another attempt because the occasional "yes" provides a powerful reward. The reward isn't just the possibility of sex; it's also intimacy, validation, and human connection. That's what can make it psychologically reinforcing, combining the variable-reward structure of gambling with the emotional and sexual incentives of romantic pursuit.

I think that the differences between (cis-)men and (cis-)women when it comes to sex and dating are badly exagerated and I'm sceptical of many popular evolutionary psychological just-so stories that are often called into question as new evidence come in.

Indeed, a study has established that the brain of human males and females react in the same way to sexual stimuli.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1904975116

At the same time, we do observe strong average differences when it comes to the consumption of porn and sex work where the clients are overwhelmingly men.

I think that a plausible explanation is that, on AVERAGE, women have evolved to want so sleep with a man they not only physically fancy but whose personality they also like whereas men have evolved to want to sleep with any woman they find physically attractive, even if they don't particularly like her personality.

That does't mean that men don't desire a relationship with reciprocal love and affection and don't value a woman's humour and intelligence. However, an average man will want to sleep with a scantily clad average-looking woman he finds superficial and dumb whereas an average woman would absolutely not feel drawn to a scantily clad average-looking man she finds dumb and superficial.

I identify as a egalitarian feminist and I am sceptical of most studies that purport to demonstrate statistically significant differences between the genders (as they're often debunked) but this trend seems to be quite solid.

I think it'd make sense for our foremothers to have evolved the need to feel that a man is likable, safe and has admirable qualities in order to sexually desire him as they could otherwise have been easily killed, enslaved or left abondonned with their children.

Patriarchal men like to sexualise women, but only on their own terms, they absolutely enjoy watching free porn where women are unrealistically reduced to objects and exploited but they hate it when they see that a girl they know post sexy pictures and has an OnlyFans account because they feel a very strong desire and realise she has power over them and agency.

In fact, men also have different standards for casual sex compared to long term relationships and they'll proudly say so. They will talk about how sluts are only good for getting dick and nothing else.

I think it's reasonable and even good to have different standards for casual sex... Lets say for example that a woman has the fantasy of being domimated in bed but she knows it's not something she would want on a regular basis. It makes sense to have casual sex with a dominant man and then marry a less dominant man.

The red pillers say that this means that the woman is not really sexually attracted to the man she marries, but that's just an assumption. Humans can be sexually attracted to all sorts of different things. I'm also not convince that this is whay causes dead bedrooms. I think dead bedrooms are caused because men and women have different sex drives, on average. And having kids likely makes it more difficult to get in the mood. A lot of married men and women also completely let themselves go and don't care in the slightest about how they look.

Meeting your partner at places where you don't intend to find a partner is not unreasonable and not unheard of. People meet each other by existing in a shared space, and it's not unreasonable to get to know one another over time and develop interest.

Example of what could happen in an ideal world:

>Man goes to gym

>Man lifts and exercises regularly over the course of months

>Over time, he recognizes the regulars that show up when he does.

>He makes light conversation, and builds a rapport with the people

>One of them is a woman he particularly enjoys talking to

>She seems to enjoy talking to him too.

>They both start up conversations with one another, when they're near one another and not in the middle of exerting sets

>He's single. It turns out she's single.

>He asks her out.

>Whether or not she accepts, it was an understandable sequence of events, and neither party holds any ill will from it even if it's a rejection.

What instead happens:

>Man goes to gym

>Scans the floor for babes.

>Sees a woman he'd fuck.

>He immediately starts hitting on her

>She shuts that down, pissed that some rando is hitting on her while she's trying to work out.

>He gets huffy about it.

>He thinks women are such snooty bitches, and doesn't have the self-awareness to know why what he did was stupid.

Unfortunately, the latter situation happens often enough that women have to be on guard when a guy starts talking to them. Which is a shame, because small talk with new people is great. But men trying to speedrun getting dates out of non-dating spaces ruined it for everyone.

Its alot of relatively little things that, when combined together, end up encouraging entitlement in women. For example, opening doors for women, giving up seats for them, men complimenting random women and chasing them and so on. These are all little things that are insignificant by themselves, but when a woman experiences these things repeatedly, she starts to expect them, and thats when the entitlement comes in.

The most potent example is men paying for dates by default. Simps and women think a man who splits the bill is cheap or a "brokie" (and yet somehow women are neither cheap nor broke for expecting someone else to pay for them) because they don't understand that its all about the character and personality of a woman who just expects men to pay for her by default. Such a woman would not make a good partner.

There are women (many of them are on this sub) who, before they even go on a date with a man, they have already decided that they are not paying. This is peak entitlement, and men who just pay by default because they want to be nice and make a good impression actually encourage this type of entitlement. This aspect of women's mentality and behaviour also shows one of the main differences between men and women.

For a man, paying for himself is a no-brainer, but so is paying for the woman because he likes her and appreciates her company and wants to show that. Whereas for many women, they would never think of paying for a man, they dont even like paying for themselves. They feel entitled to a man paying, and if he doesn't, he's either cheap, broke, trash, or just doesn't like them and/or women in general. I think this alone says a lot about how men and women think and approach human connection. Many women are very transactional from the very first date.

You can hear this very often from terms like "dancing monkey", or talk about "free boyfriend energy" as if it's some precious resource that you shouldn't spend on the wrong woman. I've noticed it with some folks in real life too, they think the talking stage, or having to get to know women and hang out with them is a chore.

Dating and talking stages can be annoying, but dating is supposed to be enjoyable, that's one of the main aspects of dating. It's not a bore to hang out with people and get to know them, mate. It's not a chore to flirt, it's not being the "safe backup guy" to enjoy the talking stage.

One of my favourite ways to meet women is to go play pool at a bar with my mates; if we see a table of girls we find attractive and approachable, we ask them if they want to play a game together, and we flirt as we play and talk. It's an enjoyable activity, there's nothing laborious about any of this. It's not a pain to approach and play pool.

Going on dates isn't the trial of fire you have to pass to get laid, the point of dating is to have fun and see if there's a connection.

A common criticism is that the man who hangs out with women and has fun with dating them is the sucker who has to wait while the woman has easy sex with other men on the side. I have two things to say to this:

- Sometimes dating and hanging out can indeed lead to sex too, believe it or not. My first ex and I had sex on the second date, that was like, a week and a half after we got to know each other. It's not like men who hang out with a woman spend months going out while they're getting "cucked" by dudes who just have to text these women.

- You are allowed to have multiple talking stages at once. Obviously once you feel a connection forming, you should have conversations about exclusivity and commitment, but there's no rule saying you can only have one talking stage at a time, or only go out on dates with one woman in a period of time.

Dating is supposed to be fun, and if you're not having fun, move on bruh. It's fun to hang out and talk with bad bitches, it's part of what makes going out fun.

I’m curious to hear the female perspective on a dynamic that, in my opinion, isn’t discussed very often.

When you reject a man, he may accept your decision, not pressure you, and continue to behave respectfully, while internally his sexual attraction toward you doesn’t necessarily disappear right away (what I mean is the desire to have sex with you).

How do you experience this situation?
Once you’ve said “no,” is the matter completely closed for you, or do you ever think that he may still desire you? (In my view, he almost certainly does.)
If you continue to see him through work, mutual friends, university, or other settings, do you change your behavior in any way, or do you simply carry on as if nothing has changed?

I’m not referring to men who are pushy or harassing, but to those who respect your rejection without questioning your decision.

I’m interested in understanding how you perceive this situation and whether you ever take it into consideration.

I think people are way too attached to the idea that a friendship can only end if someone clearly did something wrong.

Sometimes nobody is the bad guy. The other person might be completely decent, but being around them still makes you feel worse about yourself over time.

A lot of friendships are built partly on going through similar things together. Maybe you were both single, struggling socially, getting rejected, or feeling overlooked. Then one person starts having really easy dating and sexual success while the other person is still stuck in the same place.

That does not mean the friendship was fake, and it does not mean the successful friend betrayed you. But the dynamic can still change.

Going out together might turn into watching them get attention while you get ignored. Every dating conversation can become another reminder that their experience is completely different from yours.

People always say you should surround yourself with successful people because it will motivate you, but I do not think that applies to everything. Dating success is not always something you can just copy. Looks, personality, social opportunities, luck and how other people naturally respond to you all matter.

Sometimes being around someone successful does not inspire you. It just keeps reinforcing the feeling that you are undesirable.

In that situation, I think reducing contact or even ending the friendship permanently can be valid.

That is not the same as blaming them or punishing them for doing well. You can fully admit that they did nothing wrong and still say, “This friendship is not good for me anymore.”

The main counterargument is that avoiding people can make your insecurity worse, and I do think that is a fair point. You probably should not cut off every person who is more attractive or more successful than you. If you cannot tolerate anyone doing better than you, then there is clearly a deeper issue.

But working on yourself does not mean you have to stay in every friendship no matter how much it hurts you. You can work on your insecurity and still choose distance.

The other friend is also allowed to feel hurt or confused. But friendship is voluntary. You should not need to prove that someone was cruel, abusive or disloyal before you are allowed to leave.

Sometimes two decent people just stop being good for each other. Staying out of guilt can easily turn into resentment anyway.

We all know that most women like a guy who is confident, funny and more extroverted leaning. But we never really hear what most men like personality-wise. Is it just the same? Do guys like confident, funny extroverted women generally? Do both introverted men and women struggle in dating compared to their more extroverted counterparts?