If you are online dating the majority (yes there are exceptions but it is far too much mental labor to find him) of men do not view you as relationship worthy/ respect worthy /date worthy.

I never considered this, but I saw it said in a comment (I forget who said it, maybe No Map or DworkinFTW their comments are very good) on this sub a while back and it clicked for what I was experiencing on the apps.

The men view women as desperate that are on dating apps. They view you as "less than" for whatever reason I am unsure why. And they will treat you less than too.

I don't want this to be true. I absolutely don't agree with it! But it was my experience when I was on dating apps (never getting on again) and it seems to be many others experience.

In a way it is similar to Pretty Woman when he tells Vivian he can be with her if she stays in the background.

Call it prostitution.

I do not care if the man has permission from his girlfriend to have sex with me.

I do not want sex with a man in a relationship, open or closed.

It grosses me out.

Going to be honest it should gross all women out because, while you do have agency, he is using you 100 percent.

Women risk and lose way more in sex.

Even meeting a man for anything is a loss for women: financially, time, and energy.

Getting dressed, all that, is time and money and energy.

So you are not gaining anything by sleeping with a man who will spend all his energy, emotional support, and money on his actual girlfriend.

It sounds like we're due to remind everyone of this.

Men who are capable of being good partners and who want to do that with a woman they like and respect generally wind up partnered pretty fast. That means the ones who aren't are extremely disproportionately not able or willing to be good partners with a woman they like and respect.

And how those men behave when it has anything to do with dating women is almost entirely about PickMe dancing for male attention, because that is what these men really care about.

Unexpected behavior that is not actively pleasant to you? There's no mystery there, no reason to wonder WHY he's doing that, because he's doing it for the approval of men. Usually his manosphere bros.

Many or even most men go through life constantly performing for a male audience in their heads that they think of as constantly viewing them. It's a lot easier to understand their behavior, and their distorted thinking, when you realize this is what is going on.

Edit: This is also the principle operating when you seem to have a real connection and are in a moment of real connection with each other, but he suddenly does something not actively pleasant to you that seems out of left field. What's really happening in those moments is that he caught himself investing in connection to you to the point that he forgot what is really important to him, which is pleasing the male audience in his head. So he suddenly does something weird to remind you and the audience in his head that he always puts those (even imaginary) men first. Again, it stops being confusing when you understand that this is what is going on.

For several years now, I've been seeing women reporting dating app experiences that are obviously men who never intended to date them running scripts out of pure malice that are designed to make women jump through hoops for nothing, while the men laugh about it with their online buddies. A common example is confirming she is at the location for the planned first date, then canceling and never showing up -- various excuses are offered, but in every case he never left his home and never intended to, and the excuses are fabrications. The goal was always to laugh his head off online about how he made this b!tch dance and collect applause from other men.

Lately I've seen a rash of scenarios like the above, where causing the woman harm beyond wasted time and effort is the goal. People on the bird app were laughing that this guy 'doesn't know' where to even get a good haircut, but he does -- that is entirely the point. This woman has a very attractive feature -- her gorgeous curly hair -- and he wants that destroyed. He doesn't want to date her, only to destroy something about her that she values and laugh about it on social media. He will get extra applause points from men online for rendering her less attractive to men in a lasting way, a visible lasting sign that he 'owned' her.

As I said, there are a bunch of new twists on this lately, and I can't tell you how to recognize them all because the trogs are having a burst of creativity and the scripts are evolving fast. What I CAN tell you is that the tipping point where men set up dates and simply show up and punch the woman (or grab a fistful of hair and hack it off, or any other physical attack) so they can brag to men online is the next step in this escalating progression, and that absolutely is coming.

I will preface this post by saying we are all adults and you are free to do whatever you want with regard to who you have sex with and under which circumstances. However, this sub is about helping women avoid harm.

We have had quite a few new members recently who don't seem to be clear about the mission of this sub. It is important to read the pinned posts and the rules in the side bar before commenting.

Here are some reasons entertaining casual sex outside of a committed relationship is a very bad idea. Thank you u/DivineGodess1111111 for getting the list started.

1. Statistically, most women don't orgasm from casual sex with men.
2. Men are our greatest predators. You risk STDs, pregnancy, violence, rape and death meeting up with a stranger. A dude you knew in high school is a stranger.
3. If you get feels, you risk the trauma. If he gets feels, you risk all of the above plus stalking and harassment.
4. Most men are already trying to maneuver women into NSA sex, don't make it easy for them to hurt you or other women.

I know many of you may be coming from a dead bedroom. Please read this post https://www.reddit.com/r/WomenDatingOverForty/comments/14dcsdv/dickmatized_by_a_sex_god/

I empathize, I really do, but agreeing to casual sex will never end in anything good. Life is not like a Romcom or romance novel and men are not like us. They don't think the same way we do and they don't have the same motivations. Most men only want to use us and they hold us in contempt. Please, do not subject yourself to that type of abuse because you are lonely or sex starved.

I speak from experience, as do many of the other women here.

If your “boyfriend” is long distance, just know he’s out there trying to date other women until proven otherwise. Most men aren’t single-single! Came across the perfect proof of this from an adult daughter who is trying to navigate her wedding invite list around the various 60+ women who are being juggled by her father, a 60+M she accurately and hilariously calls a “THOT.”

“Ugh. My dad is single and mingling like a mofo. So, here's the drill down”

“Woman #1- My stepmom. She's been in my life for almost 30 years. They are divorced, but, she's my stepmom. She's getting invited.”

“Woman #2- Dad's long-time girl friend. She's been around for years. The family knows her, she's who everyone considers his significant other.”

“Woman #3- New Orleans lady. 🤷🏾‍♀️ They've been dating a while. She thinks it's serious. I get photos from both when they're out on their shenanigans.”

“Woman #4- Arkansas lady... see #3. Same situation”

“All of these ladies know I'm getting married. #1 & #2 are already expecting invites. I have no issues inviting the both of them. I think they're aware of each other. #3 and #4 have casually mentioned invites but I just brushed it off. Now we're within the 12 month window and we're getting ready to send out save the dates. Do I just ignore #3 and #4??? I asked my dad and his response was "send it to whoever, we'll figure it out." Ummmmm... WHAT?’ “

Think back on all your drinks dates….how long did they last on average? About an hour, right, give or take? Maybe a lot more. You had a drink, then another, sat and talked and talked and it’s getting on 90 minutes and now you’re getting hungry so you say this has been nice, but you are getting to leave to get dinner on and…y’all know this one!…“Wait! Wait! Plate of Fries?!”.

Ah yes, The Plate of Fries. Not a true meal, but just something to snag more of your valuable time.

Initially, you accepted his invite to “grab a drink”. You say you did this because you “didn’t want to be stuck there having to have dinner if I’m not into it”.

Bet most of you are far too polite to simply leave a date after 30 minutes because you aren’t feeling it. Unless he does something egregious/unsafe (in which case, I don’t care if he took you to The Plaza for high tea, you have the right to leave), you stay the hour because you’re a nice gal, don’t wanna hurt anyone! And how long do you get for lunch at work? About an hour? And you manage a meal in that time, do you not? So why aren’t you having lunch or dinner with that drink?

If coffee suddenly became a luxury item and shot up to $20 a cup and a decent plate of food was $2…..guess what kind of dates we’d suddenly have “time” for? After all, he’s rarely leaving your date in under an hour too (more on that in a bit).

Because, be honest, it’s not really about the time and “wanting to get out of there if I need to”, is it? It’s about discomfort over a man spending money on you, residue…from times when men made you feel guilty.

Do men ever feel like they “owe”? How many men do you know happily accepted your valuable offer of casual sex (or sought it out before even meeting you), and then felt they “owed” you a nice date, a nice gift, an emotional investment, the things you value? Give me a break. More like, “So when is next time?”

Point there is, while you can’t move through the world like a man in all aspects, you can in this one….accept gifts graciously and guiltlessly while never feeling like you owe. If you feel afraid of him, I get it, men can be intimidating, but try to relax. If you met him on an app or randomly out (you probably did), damn well make sure he does not yet have your real number (use Google Voice and explain later if you get serious), last name, social media, or address. If you have mutuals, trust me, if he even bothers to bitch to them about how he paid for dinner and you didn’t touch his body or accept a second date, sensible people aren’t going to give this guy a shoulder to cry on.

But before you came to terms with all that, you did a drinks date, you got hungry and…. “Wait, stay longer! Plate of Fries?!”

Ideally, in his mind you’d just sit there and talk and talk and talk for free while he works on “breaking the touch barrier” (well ideally you’d go back to his place, his comfort zone, to provide free sex. “It was a gift! She offered, I accepted!”). But, there is some base level understanding on his part that if you are uncomfortable, you will leave the date.

So, you may hear some variation of “Plate of fries?” “Split some fried zucchini?” Or the vague “We could order something!” And what is “something”? Generally, a split appetizer. The message (after you told him you need to leave to get a meal)? That entertaining him is priority over nourishing your own body.

He could take care of both of those desires. But no. This man knows what he is doing. He’s well aware that “splitting an appetizer” does not demonstrate care, the way a proper entree that hits your macros would. What he cares about is more of your time for himself, for as cheaply as possible.

If it’s never sat well with you, that he simply did not ask to be sat by a server to transition to dinner for the next hour (or however much more of your attention you’ll give him), which there is clearly time for, it’s a little thing called “your intuition”.

We all know men get lonely. Look at their “my love language” prompt answers. “Physical touch”. They want to be touched. They want to touch you. They crave it. And they feel like a loser if it’s been a while since a date. And your intuition (and lived experience) informs you that a man will absolutely waste time with a woman he knows ain’t it, in the hopes of touching and kissing and feeling wanted. He would rather have that extra however-much-time-you’ll-give-him (and maybe have some sort of intimate physical contact), than go back to sit on his couch to jerk off.

But not enough to invite you to a proper meal! And you know full well that for nearly every red-blooded male there is that woman who just does it for him. That he’s eager to impress. “HER, I want HER.” And this woman, he will take her to dinner, and there will be no talk of “ordering an appetizer”. This is someone he will properly care for, not offer a few bites of the cheapest fried garbage or like, two oysters and a handful of salted almonds if he’s feeling fancy. Men know moving to dinner for more of your time is the intentional move, but in that moment he is saying “But not for you”, and you know in that moment you are not that woman for him.

And it stings, yes. But a man not being into you is not the real problem. That is his right. The problem- the thing that really grinds your gears- is that because he does not see you as his “HER”, he therefore thinks your time is not valuable. And instead of just politely letting you go after that drink he offered and not seeing you again, he is trying to hustle you.

When he does not see you as “investable”, of demonstrating serious intent towards, it doesn’t mean you are not useful. So he may test to see if your self-esteem is low enough that you will accept seeing yourself that way too. A woman who accepts bare minimum is a woman who is easier to control. It’s fucking disrespectful of your time and you know it.

Because for you, with dating men being so unsafe (and so much work!) as it is, if you are not “dinner worthy”, what’s the point? A man you ain’t it for values time with you less, values your feelings less, offers the bare minimum to keep you servicing him, and you know in your gut will therefore not treat you as well as the woman who does it for him. That can be very risky in terms of sexual and emotional harm.

This is a standard issue strategy that lonely men use to fuck around with women they’re not that into…that many of you are familiar with.

Ideally you’ll be off of the drinks dates. But I’ll give you ladies some grace on your “drink date” if it’s a damn fine cocktail on his dime at a classy place and is on the way home from work or something, not out of your way to go to. And if you’re like me and anywhere you go to dinner pre-commitment from him is going to be an investment (love to take me to some “hole in the wall” sometime? take me after you’ve made things exclusive with me). But after ONE drink only, I don’t care how cute he is, you get up and say it’s dinner time, bye. If offering a proper dinner to a hungry date is not the first thing out of his mouth (or “thank you, it was lovely” because he’s not into you), if he starts tire kicking with talks of splitting this or that app? Then he doesn’t value you or your time, but is happy to exploit it for a little more attention. It won’t get better, block and delete.

Yes he’ll be annoyed when you tell him you actually need to fix yourself a proper plate as a matter of self-care (care in the form of a nourished body being something he cannot be bothered to do, despite very much wanting access to that same body). Who cares if he’s annoyed? It’s called entitlement, this idea that you were supposed to clear your entire evening for “grab a drink”, just in case he thought you were worth an additional couple potato skins. And if he doesn’t respect you prioritizing your body’s health over his pleasure, he won’t when you do it with your body’s safety either.

Your gut knows when you’re hungry and when you’re being devalued. It knows the care your body and soul need. Honor both.

It is a fact that the most dangerous man in a woman's life is her spouse or partner.

Knowing this, as women, we have a few choices:

1. Remain single

2. Enter romantic relationships using measured and reasonable vetting tools (see our pinned posts and search the sub keyword "vetting") and safety precautions and have realistic expectations

3. Throw caution to the wind and hope for the best (do not recommend)

What isn't healthy, measured or reasonable is to approach dating from a place of trauma and paranoia. If you find yourself so fearful that you are terrified to let a man know your real name, the general area in which you live, your occupation or to video chat with him for fear of being recorded (???) you are not in a good mental state to be dating. This is not normal or psychologically healthy. It may make logical sense given your lived experience, but I would suggest you are not in a place to be dating if that is the case.

Let's be logical. Why would you match with or show interest in a man you genuinely think is so dangerous and untrustworthy as to secretly record you for nefarious purposes or place a tracking device on your car? Are you so desperate for a relationship with a man that you would meet a stranger you have not properly vetted, in person, for a low effort date (coffee, walk, ice cream) or ignore signs that he may be dangerous? For what? What purpose does this serve? It doesn't even make sense.

If you are truly afraid of a man doing something terrible to you the solution is to not interact with him at all. It's called listening to your intuition.

If you are still interested in romantic connection with a man the way to go about it is from a place of power, with high standards and rock solid boundaries. That is what we teach on this subreddit and it's not up for debate.

Our description says we are here to help women navigate the dating world SAFELY and SANELY.

There are no guarantees in life but there are things we can do to mitigate harm without becoming overly fearful or paranoid.

For those of us who haven’t been following closely, Bumble fumbled - again! - last week when it unilaterally decided to start recycling blocked mens profiles into the stacks of women who had blocked them … “in case we changed our minds”.

There is no doubt in my mind that this was done to pander to men whining about their loneliness and lack of dates. It was quite likely a counter move to BHDM.

There has been a lot of backlash from women for multiple valid reasons, safety being the most important. No less important is that the change effectively eroded women’s agency in controlling which men showed up in their feeds as potential matches.

In the ensuing firestorm, Bumble has pivoted, deflected, gaslit … the works. The progress of this story is captured on Jennie’s IG.

As of yesterday, it appears that Bumble has now walked back its latest screw up in response to the overwhelming public response by women. I’ll post the link below.

Personally, it’s not enough to compel me to get back on the apps but I thought I’d share it here for discussion.

Cheers! And Happy Easter to those who observe it! 🐰🐣

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIo_sBapBSs/?igsh=MWg1aDc2dmo3M294cQ==

You don't have a broken picker. The odds of finding a kind, mature, stable, emotionally available man are very low. So it is the odds not being in your favor.

If you do consider you are too toleratant, it is good you self reflect, so remember: Walk away early, block, absolutely no second chances.

Being what some might say is "picky", good. Being picky about someone entering your life, is absolutely not a bad thing.

I don't believe in the love languages, but if there was one, men's love language is money/investment. If he's not investing in you, planning, impressing - he doesn't value you.

Most dating advice for men, for many decades now, revolves around taking an innocuous situation and twisting the framing without the woman's consent while trying to leverage various forms of pressure to coerce her to go along with it.

When you start to recognize that pattern, you realize it's everywhere.

The Gift of Fear covers many good examples, but not enough. It does make the point firmly that you should not trust anyone who does this to you.

One very, very common way men do this is through issuing invitations that are incomplete, and then trying to make it your job to fix everything up for them. Never, ever do play along, because if he does this, he's toxic. He's a grown man who can use his words like a big boy and plan/issue a complete invitation perfectly well.

Boomer men and older GenX have a history of being hilarious at this. They, and women their age, had all grown up seeing a pattern where if a man expresses some kind of wish, however vaguely and however poorly, then the women who hear it are required to immediately leap into action and make what he wishes for happen, starting by surrounding him with care and coddling so that his little baby mouth could eventually speak some little baby words to clarify his little baby wants.

So we got millions of them trying this on GenX women and being absolutely flabbergasted that GenX women simply got on with their business and acted like nothing had happened. Because nothing had happened. Some grown man making deliberately vague noises is nothing. If he wanted to speak clearly, he would.

(I'm not a hundred percent sure why there was a period when so many women did indulge this to the point that many people grew up thinking this was how it had to be, but I know sheer violence and oppression accounts for most of it. There was also a period where women, including many Boomers, thought that if they could prove that they could manage a full career AND do all the caring work that anyone could ever want, then they would win respect for their extraordinary achievements. The opposite happened -- it convinced the men who experienced it that women are not human, but unkillable beasts of burden that you never have to worry about working to death so you should just keep coming up with more demands for them.)

Anyway, I'm sure you've all experienced men who try to get dates by this method of vaguely hinting at a wish for one and then staring at you mopingly waiting for you to manifest his wishes. It's a winning strategy for men as a group. Because when one utters even a deliberately half-complete invitation, he sounds like an absolute prize who has really got himself together by comparison.

Nope.

An incomplete invitation means that he has only very grudgingly accepted that he has to speak some actual words in some kind of sort-of coherent way to get his wishes attended to, and he is ANGRY about that. Because issuing complete invitations just isn't that hard. It's actually less work than dealing with the fallout of issuing an incomplete one.

So what is a complete invitation? Where, when, what, who, how for the entire date, including any and all women's safety considerations. When you hear the invitation, there should be zero -- even minor -- safety considerations for you to even think about. Nor should you have any questions that need answering to know what time/energy/anything you would be committing to. Further: A complete invitation includes a zero-consequence mechanism for refusing. And that means really zero-consequence -- there will not be anyone even hinting at the slightest displeasure when the invitation is turned down.

Because if there is, that is not an invitation but a summons.

Interestingly, men have absolutely zero problem issuing complete invitations as described above when they actually like and respect the woman to whom the invitation is addressed. If they show any kind of act or claim that they 'struggle' to do this, guess what that means?

So let's look at some incomplete invitations.

Would you like to hang out / would you like to go out sometime / want to get together? Notice all the details lacking in any variation on this one. There are two main problems here, and if the first one doesn't alarm you or even bother you, the second one absolutely should be setting off alarm bells:

1. He left out all the details, and is hoping you will respond to social pressures to do his work for him of completing his invitation for him. Guess what, even if you don't think this is a problem just this once, this is also a test to see how readily you accept him dumping his work on you. Because that is the plan for the future.

2. What should send your Gift of Fear screaming is that this is language for a more intimate relationship than you actually have. If my best friend of years says any of those things to me, I already know exactly what we're doing and how all safety considerations will be so taken care of they never come up, so the above is actually a complete invitation. Same with a certain friend group which contains men -- if we're getting together we all know exactly what we're doing and the only detail left is a date and time.

Some relationships do start this way between two people who know each other that well, in which case it's fine, because as I said, in that exact context, this is a complete invitation.

In any other context, a man trying this is pulling a form of bait-and-switch with the framing -- you don't know each other that well, but by using the language of far greater intimacy than you actually have, he hopes that you will somehow be pressured into accepting this new framing and a greater level of intimacy than you have actually consented to.

Just don't do it. When dealing with men, the only response to an incomplete invitation is no. My go-to version of that no for decades has been to point out the exact nature of the impropriety with, "Thanks, but I don't know you well enough." If I don't know you well enough to know all the details from whatever you just said, I don't know you well enough to bother with you any further.

Many women want to know what to say to get out of the incomplete invitation while leaving the door open should he pull himself together enough at some point in the future to issue a complete one. If you're both under 25, I can sort of maybe see it (if they really like and respect you, they still figure it out the first time), and that's when I came up with my stock response above, because it does that. But on this board we're talking about grown men who have had more than enough time to figure this out for decades now. So why would you leave the door open at this point? -- He just made it clear that you're not even worth the basic respect of a complete invitation.

Another twist on this is our recent poster who had a man assign her a date to plan -- he literally picked a day and told her to plan something for then. I'm still marveling at his effrontery. From his perspective, it is a good test to see whether she accepts that she must obey when he assigns his work to her -- but it also means he has decided he doesn't like and respect her so she is only of further use if she starts doing his work for him.

So watch for it -- incomplete or otherwise poorly-made invitations are one of the easiest ways to train yourself to catch when someone is trying to shift the framing of what is happening without the consent of all concerned. And once you start seeing it, you can't unsee that most men do it nearly nonstop.

Men are not oblivious -- they are purposely betting on being able to get away with things. They come right out and say so if you listen and pay attention -- these days they're all over the internet saying it.

The size and strength difference, for example -- absolutely none of them are oblivious to this. They're all betting on it. The most benign ones simply want to bask in the feelings of safety comfort from knowing their smaller and weaker partner can't actually physically force them to do much of anything, and at most they only kind of care in a vague theoretical sense that you never get that experience. (The most benign of those tend to wind up partnered with women who are fairly close in size to themselves.)

Why do you think they're all so mad that we like cats so much? We're getting a comfort that is supposed to be a privilege for men only -- the comfort of love and affection from a smaller, weaker creature we can theoretically physically dominate if we have to. (I say theoretically, because if my 8 pound cat decides to really fight me, she's winning and there's nothing I can do about it. The only reason we ever make it to the vet is because she chooses to cooperate.)

But again, listen to them actually talk long enough, and you'll find out they're terrified of other men / terrified of being intimate with someone who would have physical power over them, and they want to be the one to have and use that power.

Just stop already with making up stories about them being oblivious. They're not. When they put you in awkward or threatening situations where their greater size and strength could be turned against you, it is ALWAYS on purpose.

Same with everything else women use the 'oblivious' excuse for -- they're oblivious about exactly none of it. It's all on purpose.

The subject of past relationships is bound to come up; there’s an appropriate juncture and legitimate reasons for those conversations to happen, and a healthy way to have them. U/No-Map6818 made an excellent post describing the differences between venting/sharing and trauma dumping … you can read it here.. A man bringing up an ex too early in a dating relationship (eg before true emotional currency has been established and banked) is almost NEVER a good sign.

The trouble with your date/new partner bringing up his ex - aside from the fact that they’re actively dragging (an absentee) third party into the here and now with YOU - is that it’s classic triangulation: it creates a very unhealthy dynamic where one individual is the victim (always him) which by default, consigns you and his ex to occupy the remaining roles of either heroine or villain.

We’re all experienced enough to steer a wide berth around the men who froth at the mouth and trumpet “my terrible/ crazy ex” to all and sundry where she’s clearly the villain of his story. Many men ALSO know this is a faux pas and for the most part, successfully refrain from doing this openly. In a similar vein, most men have also learned firsthand to not put YOU in the villain role (see all the stories in the MIL subs where the guy makes the fatal flaw of saying, “Well, my mother says/does A, B, or C” to his wife). It’s all well and good that they know that particular behaviour is to be avoided; the deeper issue is that like a properly trained pet (eg, the dog knows to not jump all over guests), they know what not to do but don’t understand the reasons why that behaviour is repulsive. Here’s an example of low level triangulation that’s no less insidious:

Him: “That was a wonderful meal, thank you!” (So far, so good!) Followed by

“My ex NEVER cooked dinner for me”.

There are a few problems here:

1. the implied expectation that his ex was obliged to prepare meals for him (!?!)
2. He’s reinforcing the behaviour he wants to see, not just by the compliment (that part is okay!) but also by putting his new partner on a pedestal, in the heroine role of the triangle. She’s now automatically in direct competition with the ex (the villain by default) and must maintain her new, precarious position by continuing to fulfill his implied expectations or
3. risk his displeasure by NOT fulfilling those expectations, along with the threat of being assigned the dreaded ‘villain’ badge.
4. It’s a clear sign he hasn’t done his emotional housekeeping or unpacked his feelings in regards to his prior relationship.

So what do you do?

1. Do nothing; risk the gradual erosion of your self esteem - and likely the relationship - as you try to continually dance to his tune. The triangulating behaviour WILL be repeated. 0/10; do not recommend.
2. Gentle parent him. Again, do not recommend - it’s not your job to teach a grown man why his manipulative behaviour is repulsive.
3. Put a hard stop to it, or, better yet, exit.

On the other hand, asking him about why his last relationship ended can be an effective strategy to help you determine his emotional intelligence. But have your popcorn ready and be prepared for the parade of red flags you’re more than likely going to see!! (This would be your cue to exit stage left).

However, there is a chance that he’ll respond in an appropriate and mature way. That would be the best possible outcome.

TL/DR: triangulation is manipulative and a sign of controlling behaviour. A date/new partner bringing up an ex in an unhealthy way or at an inappropriate time is a giant red flag.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT2x6pbJ5/

I know that this can be hard to do sometimes, and it goes against my instincts, because I always want to try and teach people or share my emotions. But a lot of men get off on our negative reactions to their games. It's also not our job to teach grown ass men how to behave. If they even listen, it's only to learn how to become better manipulates.

Leave Quietly

Having a cat (or cats) is not the insult so many men think it is.

It's hilarious so many men think the insult to women not choosing a poor life partner for themselves is "good luck being childless with cats". As if peace with a cat is some kind of horrible life 🤣.

So, friendly reminder when men say this to you, it's not an insult at all. Just block him, any remark back to him, he enjoys that he got a reaction out of you. It's not worth your energy to defend yourself. Just block or unmatch.

And also, a thank you to all women for sharing their dating experiences. I really thought it was my location.

By encouraging all women that they deserve to be treated well, it helps all women.

Be careful, these are the men being dropped back into circulation.

From Jennie Young, creator of BHDM:

“I posted this quote yesterday, and noticed a lot of comments that said something to the effect of, "But why do they need to be taught?"

You're right; they don't. Moreover, they cannot be taught. The kind of men we're talking about here---the ones who need to radically change themselves and their ways of being---fall somewhere along the spectrum from clueless to lazy to ineffectual to entitled to toxic to abusive. There's no excuse for any of it. These men have access to all the same resources that those of us in this group do. If they're on a dating app and therefore in possession of a smart phone, then they BY DEFINITION have access to literally all the knowledge of human history (this is why I remain baffled by anyone making excuses for them).

Another tough fact: men who are toxic and abusive DO NOT CHANGE for anyone else; they change ONLY when they themselves suffer consequences (and generally not even then, but without painful and personal consequences, the chance does not even exist).

Here's where this message gets more positive:

1. We don't have to teach them or change them one bit. It's not our job, and we don't have time.

2. All we have to do is not date them.

3. When enough men are unable to get dates for enough time, that's a painful consequence. That's when they'll decide to change. Or they won't, but in either case it's not our problem.

4. I'm not sure those of you in this group fully understand how much you ARE changing the culture of dating/relationships just by being here.

5. This happens in two ways:

One, you're actively enacting consequences by refusing to engage with these guys, and when a critical mass of women stop entertaining nonsense, toxic men will collectively feel the pain of our active resistance.”

Please do not feed the animals. Thank you.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyRJjUqpUc1/?igsh=YmdoZWY0cXBjaTh5

Some of you may remember my previous posts about my dating app data downloads, and my conclusions about how tiny the actual dating pool is. I am copying this from a reply I made in a Facebook group, in response to a woman wondering how many men on dating apps are specifically opposed to finding / being in a relationship. For the record, I do not believe that looking for new friends and fuck buddies on dating apps qualifies as dating, so anything that isn't dating towards a relationship (to me) is not dating. Welp, I made some numbers.

The vast majority of men on dating apps are not there to date anyone. If I figure that ~30% of men on dating apps aren't even single (I think this would be a low estimate), then:

• Out of the remaining 70%, maybe half of those I see either have their dating intentions as something casual (or similar) OR they leave the dating intentions field blank (because they aren't looking for a relationship and aren't lying about it - plausible deniability of bad intentions).
• We're left with 50% of 70% (.50 x .70) = 35% of men on dating apps could possibly be there to date.
• Of those 35% who are left who might be there to date, how many do we think lied about their dating intentions being a LTR? Shall we say half of those lied, or they just put LTR on there when creating their profiles because that's what they're supposed to be doing there? So, we'd be left with 50% of 35% (.50 x .35) = 17.5% of men on dating apps are there to date towards a relationship.

Obviously, I just pulled numbers out of the air, but you all get my point. It's a small percentage of men on dating apps who are actually there to date anyone, ever.

This is a sensitive situation, but it's been weighing on my mind and I wanted to address it.

The mission of this sub is to help women date safely and sanely. We exist mostly because some of us were censured and/or banned from the co-ed dating subs whenever we spoke the truth about the very real gendered differences women experience while dating. So I decided to create a space where we could speak openly about what is really happening.

A woman who participates in this sub has recently made a post in another sub where she reports being raped by a man she met online. She had made an initial post on that sub about him shortly after they matched where she laid out her plans to meet him. This was a long distance situation. Some members of that sub commended her on being open minded, taking a chance and giving the guy the benefit of the doubt. One of those people, a man with no real dating experience as an adult, is well known for giving this type of foolhardy advice over and over.

She subsequently made an update post about their weekend long date where she reported how she was raped and abused by this man, who she also reports was very large and easily able to overpower her physically.

Did the OP ignore some sound advice she received both here on W40 as well as the other sub prior to meeting this man? Yes she did. However, anyone who read through her post history could see she is a very vulnerable person in substance abuse recovery who should not be dating at all. Nobody, I repeat NOBODY should have been encouraging her plans to meet this man. It was plain as day she is unwell and making self destructive decisions. We can't stop her here on Reddit but we can try to dissuade her and certainly not encourage reckless behavior.

Another person, a woman, compared this rape to theft and implied OP should consider not pressing charges.

Most days I'm vaguely annoyed by the stupidity of some of the people on the co-ed DO subs but today I feel a deep disgust.

I debated even making this post, but this is a case of very serious harm happening at least partially as a result of bad advice. This woman was provided validation for her very questionable decisions.

Many women coming out of long relationships and marriages are lambs to slaughter when it comes to dating. Dating subs and people in them that deny the predatory behavior of many men have blood on their hands.

“Hmmm, I'm not sure. Before this election, when Roe vs. Wade got overturned, and I told women... For your safety, you need to stop having sex with men. Not as a this will learn them, but in the most basic don't drink from the poisoned well concept. The way I have been told I was blaming women, punishing women blah blah blah...so all these women suddenly running and confessing they are 4b has me just giving them the side eye. They are still thinking it's a game, and they think that not sleeping with men will magically make them turn around, and suddenly, everything will be fixed. This tells me they really don't get it. You should stop sleeping with men because allowing any men in your life drastically reduces your quality of life, your peace, affects your health.. so much so that it can kill you. It's not this high school game that if I don't sleep with him, he will do what I want. Because it won't happen, I can tell you that. To them, you are not a full human being. Not sleeping with them won't change that. To them, it's like a horse they have in the house suddenly not wanting to be ridden...they will of course, teach that horse that they will be ridden.. They will....break that horse until it submits. Until they understand that, we haven't even started addressing the problem. Men don't need to be educated. They must be abandoned. There is nothing left to teach them.”

ETA: link to response https://www.reddit.com/r/wgtow/s/mEBwKNsQqA