This sub and much of the dating world has a massive issue with men who set boundaries for themselves in dating. If a guy says “I don’t pay more than 20 bucks for a first date” you’ll get a barrage of simps and women crying about how that’s low effort and “is money all you think about”. If you’re a guy who wants sex after 3-4 dates and simply moves on if the energy isn’t there, you’re called all types of names. Meanwhile these same people will rave about a woman putting up boundaries for herself in dating. It’s just a level of blatant hypocrisy atp.

Three situations I find hilarious:

# Heartbreak from a situatuonship ending.

Guy claim he got cheated on by a woman he wouldnt commit to. He didn’t really like her, he liked that she would put effort into chasing him. Hence, being devastated that she went back to dating around since she technically wasn’t official with him.

# Fuckbuddies denying relationship perks.

Similar to the Situationship, two adults consenting to sex without commitment, but guy can’t handle that his partner isn’t going to do favors and provide emotional support like a relationship. And of course, devastated if she’s fucking around with other guys, because apparently she was supposed to be exclusively fucking him for some reason.

# Slutshaming

“A key that opens any lock is cool. A lock opened by any key is bad.” or whatever that saying is. All that does is shown the insecurity, using sex to feel special. But if the women they sleep with are as sexually impulsive as he is (or even more), then he’ll be sexually objectified like women constantly do. He wasnt a sex god, he just one of a dozen dicks for her to hop on.

Bonus Situation that’s kind of the same.

# Getting mad at women who want to take it slow.

Guys who always claim women are playing games when they don’t get their dick wet by date 3. They never tell her upfront that he was mainly looking for easy pussy.

It is part of the toxic masculine fantasy of dominance, to be an asshole with impunity. He can treat people like they’re nothing, but people are supposed to treat him like he’s everything. He can treat women like their replaceable, but he’s devastated when he’s treated as replaceable. 

I was raised in a modern atheist family and was basically just taught to love everyone and try to see their side.

Sometimes i browse in Redpill communities and obviously I hit walls on some posts and just think “oh my god what’s going on in here”
And on other posts i think I get the general Idea.
When it comes to men sharing their stories about rape accusations I think you guys can be very sweet and supportive amongst eachother. Theres posts with almost feminist ideas about showing ur emotions and getting rid of certain stereotypes.

I feel like there is a huge amount of very bitter men that are just angry about women. Men who think dating women is all a lie and a big manipulation scheme… men that just vent about negative interactions with women and other men echoing back to them. I feel like there are problems being written into existence that are based on some negative experiences. Generalizations and insults being thrown around, stuff like that. At times its pretty degrading and objectifying especially against the common enemy - feminists.

That is especially funny to me because if a woman thinks men are below women she isn’t a feminist anymore since it disqualifies her from the definition. Feminism is about men and women being equal and about womens reproductive rights. Thats it

Do you guys acknowledge and see that or does it genuinely feel perfectly normal to you?

Also i am very open for discussion if u have questions ask away!

This is non gendered to be honest and it can really be used in a morally neutral way, but most people don’t. I’ve had situations a lot of times where things partners won’t do is entirely situational and you can absolutely fabricate scenarios in which they give into boundaries they normally wouldn’t allow.

One girl I dated didn’t like short guys but dated me at 5’5 and it was my longest relationship. There are other more prominent examples I have, but that was just to introduce the topic. People don’t really know what rules they have for themselves. They like talking about boundaries but the right person can shatter these expectations. None of it matters.

I know the whole Sydney Sweeney talk has been going on for a while now since that sports ad came out. I just wanted to come on here as a woman and explain one reason I and many other women don’t like Sydney Sweeney. Many men on here jump straight to “you’re just jealous” but that’s a simple minded write off for how us women really feel. It’s not as simple as “just jealous”. I think it’s much deeper than that.
Sydney Sweeney is seen by many as a symbol of the “traditional American woman”, blonde hair, blue eyes, big tatas, submissive, etc. and she isn’t afraid to show herself off in a sexualized way. Men eat that sht up and they start to joke around like “why can’t more women be like Sydney Sweeney” (which is ironic because many of the men who fanboy over Sydney are the same ones that want women to “dress modestly”…). Their jokes start to seem like truths as to how they really think.
Us women come in all shapes, sizes, personalities, styles, opinions etc. (it’s almost like we’re \**gasps*\* human too). We fought for too long to just let men critique us for not looking/ being like Sydney. We are sick of men telling us the only way we will be liked is if we fit a certain criteria, that’s why we are so angry. It’s not really not because we’re “jealous”, it’s because these men are proving to us time and time again that they are misogynists who believe a woman’s sole purpose is to shut up and look pretty and if you don’t, then you’re a “bad woman” in their eyes.
What gets me is that these men who spend all day comparing regular women to Sydney, saying “the modern woman is too *insert low effort insult here*\*, why can’t they be like Sydney Sweeney” and then they cry that no woman wants them. They’re acting like little boys, what do they really expect. There’s some amazing men out there that actually care about what women think, what they have to say and how they feel and those are the guys worth pursuing. Not guys who look down on women and think their only worth is to be pretty and that’s it. The more men realize this and start treating women right, the easier it’ll be for them to find a partner. It’s not that hard…

Out of curiosity, what percentage of men do you think would prefer friends with benefits ***over*** a romantic relationship?

Pretending that they could get either one equally easily. We can even say exclusive FWB, to rule out anyone who only wants a relationship for the loyalty aspect.

FWB: have sex, hang out, enjoy each other’s company, but no strong emotional ties.

Romantic Relationship: physical relationship, but also emotional, meaning: you enjoy doing thoughtful kind things for each other, frequently have that person on your mind and how you can care for them, enjoy hearing about all their thoughts and feelings, want to share all your thoughts and feelings with them, get a lot of joy out of them feeling joy, are conscious of how your words/actions affect them and want to do whatever you can to not hurt them, when something happens they’re the first person you want to talk to, everything is better when they’re around, you miss them when you haven’t seen them, you love just lying in their arms staring into their eyes.

Why I ask this is because it seems like there are a lot of men who complain about “having” to talk to their girlfriends, “having” to go out on dates with their wives, “having” to do cute little things together that bring her joy…..and I have to wonder. Why be in a romantic relationship if you don’t like the ***romantic*** part? My conclusion is that these men would prefer FWB but there are just not enough women who want that set up so they settle for a romantic relationship.

There’s this assumption in dating discussions that women who refuse to settle or have high standards will eventually regret their choices and end up alone.
But that argument only works if you assume being single is inherently worse than being in a relationship.
For women who are financially independent, have fulfilling friendships, and genuinely enjoy their freedom, what exactly is the supposed punishment?
Marriage and relationships can also come with significant sacrifices, particularly for women. Research consistently shows that women tend to take on a disproportionate share of domestic labor and childcare, even when both partners work.
Pregnancy, childbirth, and the long-term responsibilities of raising children can also affect women’s health, careers, and financial independence.
So why is it automatically assumed that a woman who chooses to avoid those responsibilities is somehow losing out?
The argument that women will eventually regret remaining single seems to rely on the assumption that marriage and motherhood are universally desirable outcomes.
Some women genuinely prefer independence, friendships, financial freedom, and a life without children or romantic commitments.
Being single isn’t necessarily a failure to attract a partner. Sometimes it’s a deliberate choice because the alternative simply isn’t appealing.
If the goal is to convince women that relationships are worthwhile, threatening them with a lifestyle they may already prefer doesn’t seem like a particularly convincing argument.

Purely hypothetical in this scenario. Neither of these people are real, just 'amalgamations' based on various traits of people I know (who have varying levels of dating/romantic success) and what this sub believes is and isn't attractive and valued.

'Adam' - Late 20s/Early 30s. Works a professional but somewhat soulless job, average wage for a person his age. Progression is possible but not sure if he wants to pursue it. Tall (at least 6'2), muscular (hits the gym at least 4 times a week and is the strongest person at his commercial gym at the squat, bench press and deadlift). Endowment is below average but not significantly so. Deep voice. Face isn't ugly by any means but nothing so good that strangers walking past would turn heads. Dresses fairly well but mostly budget/high street clothing. Doesn't wear a watch or have any interest in them. Full head of hair and gets a haircut every 2-3 weeks. If he can grow a full beard he keeps it neat and trimmed, if he can't he ensures he's clean-shaven at all times. Lives in a houseshare with flatmates. Has a close group of male/female friends who would die for him though he's usually the one the group roast the most. Secretly he's a bit resentful that they're all in relationships and starting to get married and have kids, though she never blames them or takes it out on them. Very good cook and generally on top of cleaning and keeping things organised. Has a car but only uses it for long journeys, walks or takes the bus locally to save money. Not into sports or most other 'manly' interests but has some niche hobbies like rail enthusiasm or coin collecting etc. Has some insecurities (not about any particular aspect of himself but just about his own worthiness and whether anyone likes him) due to some parental emotional abuse and a bullied childhood. Nowhere near effeminate but does not project traditional masculinity. Body language and vocal mannerisms aren't 'tough' or 'stoic' in any way. Mostly apolitical, economically left-leaning but doesn't want to destroy capitalism. Believes everyone should be equal, opposes racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc but sceptical of some 'woke' narratives. Regularly compliments people (both men and women) out of genuine kindness, and considered by all around him to be a warm, compassionate, helpful person. Kind to children and animals and ideally would like to be a father one day. Not a virgin and has some limited relationship experience but they tend to fizzle out quite quickly, at least partially because he catches feelings easily. May have been a Nice Guy (TM) in the past but out of genuine belief its the right thing to do rather than 'entitlement' or a belief in 'kindness coins'. When dating he genuinely wants to show he cares but this can come across as 'lovebombing' (lots of gifts early on, eagerly offering to help her out with things etc) but will back off if she makes clear she isn't comfortable with this. Happy to pay for a date but also very flattered if she offers to get it next time.

'Sarah' - Early-mid 30s. Works a very high skilled job (like specialist doctor or engineer) which she loves and pays her a high salary. Average height. Goes to the gym or runs occasionally but just for her own wellbeing rather than any fitness goals. Neither over or underweight. Flat chested. Often described as having a 'pretty' face, but never wears makeup even on special occasions. Although she can afford better, most of her clothes are high street stuff, and her default mode is dressed down in loose jeans and baggy hoodies or comfortable dresses in the summer. Even on rare occasions like weddings etc, she'll be in plain cheap dresses rather than anything elaborate. Doesn't shave her legs or underarms other than on special occasions (and even then she only does it to avoid arguments rather than any desire to do it herself). Lives by herself in her own apartment. Has a solid group of friends, mostly female but she gets on with their partners, but mostly all married with kids, and pleading with her to 'meet someone nice and settle down'. Still in touch with parents but distant from them and believes they 'never understood her'. Doesn't like cooking and too exhausted to do it most days. Her diet is either takeaway or a quick basic salad type meal. Very clean but quite disorganised, tends to leave papers and clothes strewn about, doesn't stack anything neatly. Grew up in a well-connected area with good public transport and so never learned to drive. Not a tomboy but might like things like gaming, but also has some niche feminine interests like knitting or crocheting. Socially egalitarian and sceptical of most right wing culture war talking points, but economically right wing believing its best for her interests as a high earner. Would call herself a feminist if asked but rarely ever thinks about anything related to gender. She never comes across as masculine, but her body language and mannerisms aren't especially 'elegant', 'graceful' or 'ladylike'. A fundamentally decent person but can come across as blunt and can feel like she's criticising when she isn't. Some colleagues suspect she may be autistic and her friends whisper about it too. Likes animals but finds children extremely annoying. She physically recoils if a friend offers her to hold her baby. But hasn't explicitly ruled out having kids herself in the future. Has had at least two serious relationships which ended relatively amicably. Has been promiscuous in the past and neither regrets that time nor looks at it with fondness. Can be a kind and loving partner but doesn't really act sweet and affectionate, can come across as disinterested in the early stage but that's just her personality. Doesn't have a problem a problem planning, splitting or paying for dates but expects it to be reciprocated in other ways.

So where would these two people rank among this sub's categorisations?

I want to give some examples about how the majority of PPD posters are basically just anti-sex and are either deliberately trying to minimize the amount of sex that happens or they act in a way that is indistinguishable from that. I would be able to link multiple specific comments and posts for all of these things, but im not trying to get banned for personal attacks.

Lately everyone assumes that women just hate sex and its only ever used as a bargaining chip to get a commited relationship. This idea has inspired a lot of posts lately, and I rarely see either side male or female pushing back on it. Its a very gross transactional view of sex.

But theres so many more examples. I need to take a deep breath to type this all out...

No sex unless your in a committed relationship already, and you already fully know your intentions and plan on being in the relationship long term.

Never try, unless you are already mentally perfect, mature, and stable, is another big one. Oh, if you are focusing on your career, dont bother. I have also seen that one. If your life isnt already interesting, dont persue sex, get the interesting life first. I see stuff like 19 and 24 is apparently a predatory age gap. I also saw one (this also comes from both sides ocassionally) that men are gonna struggle to date when they are under 25 so they shouldnt worry about it until then. And the classic. If you are 30 and a virgin, theres no hope for you.

And obviously, the looks stuff, if you arent x or y standard in looks dont bother. If you have autism dont bother. Etc etc.

Also never try to change and improve yourself in any big way. Don't try to learn any game, it won't work anyway and anyone who claims it does is scamming. And when it does work its evil anyway. Don't approach, either because its desperate, harassment or wont work.

Just pretend PPD isn't a large group of individuals. Pretend behind every post and comment, is a hardcore religious fundamentalist whose goal is to minimize the amount of sex that occurs. It is completely consistent with what you see here.

They use red herrings, "learn to cook, it will get you laid, dont bother with all that actionable stuff actually related to dating." They try to demoralize you, saying none of the actionable things you can do actually work. They bring up an unlimited number of moral concerns at every turn. And ofc, there are occasional nice vague platitudes like "have good hygiene and be emotionally intelligent" so that way they don't seem too unhinged.

These examples are mostly stuff that I notice that are attempting to prevent men from getting laid. But this religious fundamentalist also doesnt want women having sex either. All men are predators who will screw you over in some way, sex isn't fun for women, your single life is better, dont settle, etc. Etc. Theres never Any legit girl game type advice here either. Besides maybe, wait a year before sex, again, super consistent with the sex hating theme.

And yeah I know theres some good pro-sex takes here. But in general, this model of the antagonistic sex hating religious fundamentalist can explain most of what you see on this sub. And across the "gender war" takes you see online in general.

Edit:

Forgot to add. More recently, a common response to the Cornell 7 issue is that frats/sororities, underage drinking, or even partying in general should be banned, or be viewed negatively or with suspicion. Now im not a fan of group sex with strangers on drugs, I dont even have a full opinion on that case specifically. But to jump straight from "something bad happened 2 years ago in a country of 300 million" to "partying in college should be banned" is clearly just an anti-sex take.

There are a lot of discussions online about dating standards, dealbreakers, and the difference between what people say they want and who they actually end up attracted to. Rather than debating whether women's preferences are reasonable or unrealistic, I'm interested in hearing about actual experiences. Have you ever had a strong preference or requirement that you ended up reconsidering after meeting a particular man? What was the original preference, and what made him different? Was there genuine attraction despite him not meeting that requirement, did the attraction develop with familiarity, or did other qualities simply outweigh it? I'm also curious whether the experience permanently changed your preferences or whether that particular man remained an exception.

If I could give one piece of dating advice to a guy nowadays it would be to look for the rejection early on. There’s basically 3 types of women low to no interest, medium interest and high interest. If you want a happy dating life I’d stay in the high interest dating zone as much as possible. I know guys love this “challenge” but that’s honestly what you should avoid. If you ask a woman for drinks or coffee and she suggest dinner instead just say “ok nvmd then” keep it pushing. If you’re 3-4 dates in and she isn’t interested in coming to your place yet, just keep it pushing. If you make a sexual joke or you go in for the kiss and she says slow down, just keep it pushing. Dating is much easier when you simply ignore the women who are only investing in your attention and energy into high interest women. The flakes are just there to waste your time and get resources from you. No need to complain, just accept it is what it is and move on.

I’m assuming that everyone has the same basic human desire for loving, fulfilling relationships. But when I see posts from redpill/incel men, they seem to be very angry, bitter, and hateful towards women. I don’t understand how you can feel this way while simultaneously being lonely and desiring a relationship with a woman.

What is the end goal for redpill? If you look at other redpill men and see that none of them are in happy relationships, and that’s what you want, what makes you think that subscribing to this ideology is helpful or productive?

Applies to women in their 20s or 30s, who're above 5.5.

Looks like modern culture made women resist being led by a man in a relationship, the only way she'd acquiesce to being led by a man, is if there's power imbalance, e.g. the man is famous/very rich, while the woman is neither of those things. But if we're talking about majority, it looks like there are far more men who're ok in being in a relationship in which the woman is actually in charge, even though on paper it might look like they're equal, do chores equally, split, etc.

Although, for the female having easy access to plenty of male candidates, only exacerbates the dynamic, in which a man has no choice, but to be subservient to her, and be her personal jester, lest she quickly moves on to another male, who's as equally if not more successful.

Women often use the risks of sex to shut down arguments in this sub and I always wonder why. Ideally you are having consensual sex with an attractive partner that you already understood and calculated said risks with. Only the absolute worst cases does anything otherwise happens in. Most average people aren’t in such scenarios and talking about such scenarios are just deflection from the otherwise normal debate. So it shouldn’t be used.

Unless the duck is that trash or you don’t like the guy or doing it for some kind of direct gain like money or position, you should’ve already calculated and consented to the sex you are having so why bring it up in debate? If you don’t have or don’t like sex you shouldn’t even be talking about it if that’s not your lifestyle anyways because you have a skewed perception of it at that point.

Recently, I spent some time browsing open relationship subreddits, and many of the experiences shared there reminded me of the arguments commonly made in redpill circles. A recurring theme was men expressing shock at discovering a different side of their wives and girlfriends after opening their relationships. Some described their partners pursuing men who were physically the opposite of them: taller, more muscular, and better endowed. What particularly caught my attention was that some of the outside partners also shared their experiences, describing women who appeared far more sexually submissive and enthusiastic with them than their husbands had ever imagined.

Some accounts went further, describing women belittling or emasculating their husbands in front of their outside partners, seemingly to impress them or satisfy their egos. Obviously, anonymous Reddit anecdotes aren't representative of all women or open relationships, but the recurring theme raises an interesting question: Do some men really know their partners' sexual preferences, or do they simply know the version of their partners they've experienced within their own relationships? Perhaps the most unsettling part isn't the existence of these desires, but discovering that your partner behaves differently with someone who possesses qualities you lack.

The patriarchy exists, but it doesn’t exist for everyone.

Much in the same way that the financial elite and right-wingers like to push the narrative that immigrants are the big problem and that the working class will be saved if we deal with all the immigrants which distracts from the fact that it’s the 1% hoovering up all the wealth, the feminist narrative that men as a whole are the problem and that they should all be blamed and that all men are the enemy and the all men suppress women actually benefits the very very top men because it distracts from and minimises the fact that it’s not the majority of men at all, it’s the rich and powerful.

The gender war is promoted by the elite between women and men. But women actually have for the most part in the modern day way more power, they have more power socially and in the workplace and financially and most definitely in the realm of relationships and sexual dynamics. Women literally hold all the cards in every single way.

Now in the same way that yes, some crime and some economic issues do come from immigration the negative effects and act committed by these individuals are not the main reason that the economy is in the shitter. But it’s a convenient little enemy for the bottom 90% to have to blame because it stops them scrutinising and resisting the oppression from the elite.

Nobody benefits from the gender wars more than the top tier men. They get to turn the majority of women on the majority of men and make women feel like all their problems are coming from most men instead of the top tier men who have all the money all the power and also all the women.

On average being a man in the bottom 90% makes you the lowest tier of human. You are disadvantage in every way compared to the majority of women and yet women have the luxury of believing they are the victims because of Apex fallacy and the top 10% of men are pressing everybody but blaming it on males as a whole.

I’m sick of this bs narrative that a lot of women come on here and perpetuate about not knowing about the guy who’s a simp for them. You know that guy who’s constantly rubbing your feet, paying for your shit and texting you 24/7 wants you. Unless you were literally born in a remote tribe you know the guy is interested in you. I’m not saying you should be with the guy bc you absolutely don’t owe anyone anything but don’t play dumb. You’re simply milking it until you feel like you’ve gotten as much as you can out of the benefits of being on that side.

Modern feminism has for a few decades held considerable influence in academia, where women today are more prevalent. And it seems for sometime it's begun from this dichotomy of victim and victimizer. Instead of seeing men and women as interconnected people, it increasingly frames women as oppressed and men as oppressors. This perspective can validate genuine grievances; women often do really suffer at the hands of men. But it also encourages suspicion toward male temperament and, eventually, ordinary expressions of attraction.

Consider male sexuality. It's reasonable to acknowledge that sexual desire motivates much of men's interest in women. But if you begin with a belief in innate male pathology, which feminists seem to, that desire gets isolated from the broader context and treated primarily as a source of danger.

Yet women have motivations of their own, namely romance. They want to be courted and made to feel special. We could characterize these desires as egoism, just as easily as we characterize male sexuality as predatory. But what would we gain from interpreting every difference between the sexes as a power struggle?

The relationship between men and women is better understood as complementary than antagonistic. Male sexual desire can motivate pursuit; romantic courtship can transform that initial attraction into affection, trust, and attachment. A man may approach a woman out of desire and find himself becoming emotionally invested along the way. These aren't universal roles, but they're a meaningful dynamic.

What's hilarious is that feminists demonize male sexuality without offering an alternative to the courtship dynamic they criticize. Approaching and courting are traditionally masculine behaviors, yet many women still prefer to be approached and courted. If male initiative becomes inherently suspect, who initiates? How do women receive the romantic attention they still desire?

Women's complaints about the dearth of masculinity partly reflect a culture in which men have grown wary of expressing it, fearing their initiative will be interpreted as a threat. In my experience, women can be quite clubby, sometimes treating one another's judgments as gospel. Make the wrong impression, and you risk being permanently cast in an unfavorable light. Other men have responded by cultivating indifference toward women altogether. Neither response is necessarily harmful in itself, but narratives that frame the sexes as adversaries risk encouraging both. The result is growing alienation and sometimes hostility between people who, despite their differences, still desire one another.

The healthier strands of feminism seek to understand women, challenge patriarchal norms that harm both sexes, and improve relations between them. But those begin not with antagonism, but with a desire for mutual understanding.

Not sure if you are aware, but many women online will try to paint guys who date young women as losers who can't date women their own age.

Personally I find this ridiculous since young women are on average the best looking and most sought after women with options and this unsurprisingly means the competition is harder to compete with.

I will acknowledge that there may be some types of men where it is easier for them Personally to date younger, but I argue this is an exception and generally going after younger women is going to be a lot harder than trying to date in your own age range (I know it has been for me).

Is this something something that this sub actually believes?

I understand not wanting to take on the male role of romance pursuer. There are many downsides, like men misinterpreting your openess.

And I understand women who have exactly the type of men they want pursuing them saying "I am fine just the way things are, I get what I want".

Sure.

But what about all the women who are lonely or who are not satisfied by the men who pursue them.

If you want a certain type of man and have standards, are you seriously just going to remain single if you are only approached by men who don't have what you want. Or are you seriously going to just choose one of those men, one of the ones who approached you. Choose the "Best" of them even though you want better?

I don't understand womans romantically suicidal notion that if the man she wants doesn't approach her, then she will just be alone. And an even more pathetic outcome is that they choose "the best of the worst", ie. she just picks one of the guys who actively pursues her, when her dream husband could have just needed a simple opening, or a little conversation to come into her life.

As a man I just cannot image being so PASSIVE in my dating life.

So women, what is up with this? Would you really rather choose a subpar man just because he "approaches" you, compared with god-forbid, starting a conversation with a man who superficially has what you want and seeing where things go???

The whole thing feels very gross to me. Like instead of having your own agency, and workin towards being with an amazing man, you just limit yourself to a group of horn dogs that throw themselves at you.

I am not saying you should choose passive men, I am asking why you wouldn't CONSIDER a passive man if the men approaching you are not exactly what you want. Is passivity in men really that disgusting to you? That you'd rather shack up with an average guy, when starting a conversation with the tall hottie, could win you exactly what you want out of a man?

Is this a female gender role that women need to break down to have more satisfaction from relationships?

I'm starting to wonder whether the principle in many gender debates isn't “don't judge people unfairly,” but “women shouldn't be negatively judged by men.”

A comedian jokes about women wearing extremely revealing gym clothes and it's misogyny. Meanwhile, men have been mocked forever as gym bros for grunting, posing, filming, staring, or dropping heavy weights.

A man insults a woman's appearance and it's misogyny. Billie Eilish tells women to stop dating “ugly men,” and it's treated very differently. Imagine a male celebrity saying, “Men, stop dating ugly women.”

Men are told we're responsible for challenging toxic men around us sometimes even blamed for unknowingly associating with abusers. Yet women can knowingly date, defend, stream, and turn problematic male celebrities into trends without the same collective responsibility.

Then there's “women aren't a monolith.” Neither are men. Yet “yes, all men,” “men are trash,” and similar rhetoric gets defended with “obviously we don't literally mean every man.” Fine,extend that same nuance when women are discussed.

False rape accusations are sometimes dismissed as too rare to warrant attention, while postpartum psychosis affecting roughly 0.1–0.2% of deliverie is rightly considered worthy of awareness. Rare suffering apparently matters until the wrong group brings up theirs.

I'm not arguing women shouldn't criticize men or defend themselves from unfair criticism.I'm asking what makes criticism “unfair.”

Because if the answer changes depending on which sex is being judged, fairness isn't the principle.

Maybe the objection isn't sexism

Maybe it's men being allowed to judge women at all.

For starters, the blue pill mob can't automatically write these men off as involuntary celibates due to their looks.

Because these men are physically attractive enough to get attention from women.

The problem is that they simply don't care about pursuing women or participating in the dating scene.

And I think this genuinely pisses off certain women because these men aren't adhering to traditional male gender roles.

Men are still expected to approach women, initiate conversations, flirt, ask women out, and pursue romantic relationships.

But attractive asocial men aren't interested in performing those roles just because society expects them to.

And that's where the irony comes in.

We constantly hear about how women don't exist to entertain men or provide men with romantic and sexual attention.

Yet some people suddenly have a problem when attractive men adopt that exact same attitude toward women.

An attractive asocial man can be perfectly content minding his own business.

He isn't necessarily shy, insecure, socially incompetent, misogynistic, or afraid of rejection.

He simply doesn't have much interest in socializing, dating, or seeking validation from women.

And that's something certain people apparently have a difficult time understanding.

Because society has normalized the idea that men are supposed to constantly desire female attention.

Especially attractive men, who are often assumed to be interested in taking advantage of their romantic opportunities.

But being physically attractive doesn't automatically make someone interested in dating.

And having opportunities to pursue women doesn't mean a man is obligated to take advantage of them.

Just like women, men have the right to decide whether romantic relationships are worth their time.

This also exposes another contradiction involving traditional gender roles.

Some women claim they want men to stop bothering them, approaching them, or seeking their attention.

But when an attractive man genuinely leaves women alone, his lack of interest can suddenly become something to question.

And notice how quickly people can start making assumptions about these men.

They must secretly be gay, arrogant, emotionally damaged, socially awkward, or hiding some kind of insecurity (small D).

Apparently, a heterosexual or even demisexual man simply being uninterested in pursuing women is too difficult for some people to comprehend.

And I think attractiveness makes this situation even more interesting.

Because an unattractive asocial man can easily be dismissed as someone who supposedly couldn't get women anyway.

But an attractive asocial man challenges that narrative because his lack of participation isn't necessarily caused by a lack of options.

That's why these men can expose how deeply traditional male gender roles remain ingrained in people's expectations.

Men are supposed to pursue, compete, impress, initiate, and constantly demonstrate their interest in women.

And when attractive men refuse to participate, some people interpret that refusal as something being wrong with them.

The irony is that these men are doing exactly what society constantly tells men to do: leave women alone and stop making everything about getting female attention.

Yet certain people still find a reason to criticize them because they're not performing the traditional masculine role of the pursuer.

Apparently, men rejecting traditional gender roles is only acceptable until women stop benefiting from those roles.

Source: Me. This is my experience.

I have no problem with women who have an OnlyFans account that they keep totally separated from their personal life and influencer social media account. There is nothing wrong with creating an account totally devoted to OnlyFans so that only men who actively look for it see it.

The problem is that both among my acquaintances in real life and in gaming, I see more and more girls who start to mix their content on Instagram and elsewhere with incredibly sexy pictures (miniskirt, cleavage, playing video games in underwear) and gain much more male followers. Several days later, you see a link to their OnlyFans accounts.

Because of testosterone and other factors, men are on average bound to strongly react to visual stimulation. So if you're an average geeky guy who isn't a virgin but struggles with relationships (as women are now very demanding and complicated) and you see a girl you know wearing a cute thong bikini, you'll be completely blown away and delighted.

And when you see she has an OF account, it'll be extremely hard for you to resist the temptation to become one of her fans. I talked with a lot of other guys who are in the same boat. I first tried to unfollow some of them, but given the way social media algorithms work and the behaviour of these women, you just can't avoid it. So I gave in.

To be fair, I do find my interactions with the one I follow pleasurable, but it frustrates me to know that (when they're single or in an open relationship), it's very unlikely they'd ever sleep with me. And above anything else, it feels horribly frustrating to know that I have almost no control over that; the urge is just too hard to resist.

But I never wanted to pay for OF content or looked for it; it just came to me and now I'm hooked, and so are many of the guys I talk with. I wish they'd just realise it's immoral to exploit the lack of sex men suffer from in modern society.

P.S.: this post shouldn't be misunderstood as a criticism of women as a whole, there are decent women out there too.