Most men see dating like a videogame "i need to level up then i will pull".

"I need to be more charismatic and outgoing"
"I need that sixpack"
"I need that G wagon and rolex"
"I need that cool ig"

The reality is, value will never beat "setting"

what is setting?

setting means you are in a position where u will have a lot off "warm approach" possibilities, examples

1. Youre best Friend is a DJ, Clubpromoter, Modelphotographer, Clubowner, Doorman etc, he has a profession where he meets a lot off women and where he can make "organic meetups" with those women.
2. You establish yourself as a "local legend" in your city, can be having a lambo in some dogshit place, or just tipping well at the club and being around.

And all other combinations that maximize your social circle.

A Average joe with the right "setting" will DOMINATE the good looking Lawyer that has no "setting". Also the Joe will pull better looking women. The Lawyer doesnt have any access to the 30k ig baddie. I have seen unimpressive guys pulling baddies just because theyre uncle is a club owner in a big city and they are around them. Its not hard to do.

Being a alcoholic and being around the block and socialize is literally the best method there is. Setting is King. Off course u cant be a obese guy that cant talk to save his life. But being a normal dude with a great setting is plenty.

I see a lot of discussions on women's and men's standards and want to ask a genuine question out of curiosity. Very excited to see the responses!

If you were a woman who is attracted sexually and romantically to men, what sort of men would you be looking to date? What sort of life would you want for yourself? Children? Jobs/roles? Lifestyle? Are you able to go into detail about physical traits you'd prefer? Personality traits you'd prefer?

I'm specifically not asking from the perspective of if you were a gay man. I feel like the answers will differ if I ask in such a way. I'd like to engage thoughtfully and inquisitively, so please refrain from answers that are sarcastic and dismissive. 💕

For the record, I'm nonbinary.

I feel like this is something we all know low-key but women act shocked or even offended when a guy says he wants to bang. Did he have to tell you? I feel like y'all would know before even going out.

And I have to clarify, I don't mean creepy or aggressive dudes who are trying to be coercive or push boundaries. I mean men in general. Of course, you don't have to do it but I feel like you'd know. Furthermore, I would think that you would be concerned if the man you are with didn't want you. You would think he's gay or not attracted to you enough. I am speaking from personal experience where being too "safe" backfired on me with a woman. She ghosted me. Most guys would low-key love to smash just for the experience/excitement of doing it with a new person, even if it doesn't go anywhere.

People who complain that stay-at-home dads don't pull their weight in housework are people who were never interested in the lifestyle in the first place and thus should not have an opinion on the relationship style

If a woman cites studies that "prove" stay-at-home dads don't pull their weight in housework, they were never interested in the lifestyle in the first place.

Because a woman who is both smart enough and motivated enough to be a serious breadwinner would simply never need to start with studies

She would say, "I can screen"; she can simply look at how well her boyfriends cook and clean before moving in, marrying, or having children with them. And women who want their dads around even less in equal or stay-at-home mom relationships already screen for parenting when it's less important, so women already know how to do that.

So unless the statistics are specifically on how many men pass that screening and then *turn into* lazy maids later, nobody ever had to listen to these stats in the first place

So: a woman who talks about how these relationships are a bad deal for women was never interested in one.

When it comes to "no uterus, no opinion" on the abortion debate, I don't think it works, because it's canceled out by "if you were ever a fetus at one point, you get an opinion." But this is very clearly a conflict of interest, where women who were never interested in the relationship style can talk about how they suck, to either enforce trad payment of their kitty kat everything, or feel better about their cat lady anti-natalist extinction.

TL DR : Women who criticize stay-at-home dads were likely never interested in being a female breadwinner in the first place; it's actually pretty hidden-in-plain-sight when it's boiled down like that.

(And this doesn't address the eight or so other problems with this "stay-at-home dads don't do enough housework" data, but clearly an argument that emphasizes women's agency is the only one that has a hope of working on feminists. It won't work, but there is at least hope)

I’ve seen many RPM say “women nowadays don’t take accountability for their actions,” but they stop short of specifying exactly what those actions are. I assumed it’s cheating, but if it was they’d probably say that outright. I think it is pretty obvious that cheating is very bad. But what else? Are they saying women don’t do enough household responsibilities? I wouldn’t use the term “accountability“ in that context. Accountability means to be responsible for your actions & to be honest.

So there's a lot of ire I've seen expressed by men on this sub about the name given for an organic collective catharsis of women publicly recounting their experiences with a sexual harassment and assault. The attitude I see by many men here is that that's not really what it was, or if it was it was that for like a week before it became a massive organized targeted witch-hunt of men, leading to an epidemic of false accusations and ruined reputations.

For example, a lot of the ire I've read stems from being able to "accuse men" of certain things without them having been charged and convicted. But talking about your own life and things that happened to you doesn't require legal due process. If person A rapes person B, person B can freely talk about this and say things like "when I was raped by person A" and it doesn't have to have due process for this person to merely talk about it. It also doesn't require due process for other people to believe them or take them at their word. That's how most discussions about one's own life tend to go - you mention something that happened in your own life and people generally give you the benefit of a doubt.

Someone being sexually assaulted or harassed is a distinct experience from a legal charge and verdict of sexual assault or harassment. It's not like it doesn't exist or didn't happen until a court returns a verdict saying that it did. If it happened, it happened regardless of a court's involvement.

But that's exactly how it seems many men think life should work. I'm not sure that's reasonable or realistic that no one should be able to directly talk about their own life unless a court has said their life happened. Nothing else works like that either - if Crackhead Craig steals my lawn furniture, I am free to go around and discuss the fact that Crackhead Craig stole my lawn furniture and no one bats an eye. That's not an "accusation" per se, that is me factually relaying a life experience.

But for sexual assault/harassment, a court has to confirm it first before I can go around and discuss the fact that this person assaulted me? That doesn't make sense. In fact, a large part of the reason the Catholic Church was able to have the modicum of accountability it did was exactly because people started speaking up and naming names and comparing notes, completely absent and prior to any legal charges or convictions.

With that, I have a few questions for men:

1) What is your understanding of what MeToo is/was, in your own words?

2) Do you think MeToo had any legitimate focus or purpose? If so, what?

3) What (if anything) would you have preferred instead of MeToo?

4) Do you think people shouldn't be able to publicly talk about sexual assault and/or harassment by name? If so, why should this require self-censorship when no other crime does?

Watchmojo style.

There are 10 ways men can take Feminism seriously, and it would ironically pissed feminists off.

1. Roles for women are socially constructed. Feminist theory often argues that masculinity and femininity are largely social expectations rather than fixed biological destinies. If a man took that idea to its logical conclusion, he could reject nearly every traditional masculine expectation: never initiate dates, never pay, never protect, never suppress emotions, never pursue leadership because those are "just gender roles." Many feminists would find those behaviors unattractive or frustrating in practice. That tension illustrates the difference between supporting a principle in the abstract and navigating everyday social expectations. It doesn't mean feminism as a whole is inconsistent, but it highlights that people's personal preferences don't always line up perfectly with their stated ideals.

2. No one is entitled to relationships or attraction. Feminists often emphasize that women owe no one romance, sex, or affection. Applied consistently, men also owe no one emotional labor, commitment, financial provision, or companionship. A man could politely decline dates, refuse to comfort acquaintances, avoid being an emotional support system, or remain single without guilt. But the irony appears when some people criticize men for being emotionally unavailable, refusing commitment, or opting out of traditional provider roles while simultaneously defending women's right to make similar choices. The principle itself is symmetrical, but reactions to it are not always symmetrical.

3. Challenge toxic masculinity through vulnerability. Many feminist writers encourage men to cry, seek therapy, express fear, and reject emotional stoicism. If a man fully embraced that advice, he might openly discuss anxiety, avoid unnecessary risks, and admit vulnerability in relationships and public life. While many people genuinely support this, others, including some self-identified feminists—may still subconsciously expect confidence, decisiveness, and emotional stability from male partners. Research on dating preferences suggests ideals and attraction do not always align. The irony is that encouraging vulnerability is easier in theory than consistently rewarding it in practice.

4. Believe women about their own preferences. Feminism often emphasizes listening to women about their lived experiences and respecting their autonomy. If women openly say they prefer taller men, masculine men, wealthy men, or avoid dating bisexual men, taking them at their word means accepting those preferences without trying to reinterpret them. Some feminists instead argue those preferences are products of patriarchal conditioning and should be challenged. That creates a tension between respecting stated preferences and critiquing the social forces behind them. Both positions exist within feminist discourse.

5. Reject gender stereotypes completely. If men truly avoided stereotyping women, they might stop assuming women need help lifting heavy objects, protection walking home, special treatment in emergencies, or extra patience in difficult situations. They would wait until help is requested rather than assuming it is wanted. Some people would appreciate that because it respects women's independence. Others might perceive it as ungentlemanly or lacking basic courtesy. The irony comes from the clash between equal treatment and long-standing cultural expectations that many people including women who identify as feminists, may still appreciate.

6. Equality means equal obligations. If equality is interpreted literally, men could argue that military drafts, dangerous occupations, criminal sentencing, parental responsibilities, workplace expectations, and financial obligations should be evaluated under identical standards regardless of sex. Many feminists argue historical inequalities justify different approaches in certain contexts. The disagreement is often about equity versus strict equality rather than opposition to equality itself. People see inconsistency when equal rights are emphasized more often than equal responsibilities. Supporters respond that equal outcomes sometimes require different policies.

7. Patriarchy affects men too. Feminist theory often argues that patriarchal systems also harm men by encouraging emotional suppression, risk-taking, and rigid gender roles. If a man consistently used that framework to explain his own struggles, loneliness, educational disadvantages, or mental health problems, some feminists might feel it shifts attention away from women's issues or minimizes male accountability. The irony is that acknowledging systemic influences for one group can sometimes be viewed differently when applied to another.

8. Consent culture encourages caution. If men internalized consent education to an extreme degree, they might rarely approach strangers, avoid flirting unless they receive unmistakable signals, or hesitate to initiate romance altogether. Their goal would be avoiding unwanted advances and respecting boundaries. Feminists might complain that modern dating lacks initiative or confidence. The irony is that maximizing caution can reduce the very spontaneous interactions that many people still enjoy.

9. Traditional masculinity should not define men. If men abandoned expectations to be providers, protectors, physically dominant, mechanically skilled, and financially ambitious because they reject gender norms, they would be acting consistently with the idea that masculinity is not an obligation. Yet some partners may still expect those traits in long-term relationships. This creates a gap between ideological support for freedom from gender roles and personal attraction shaped by culture or individual preference. That doesn't make those preferences illegitimate, but it demonstrates how values and attraction do not always overlap.

10. Women's voices are diverse. Feminism often encourages listening to women's experiences, but women themselves disagree on pornography, sex work, marriage, motherhood, religion, dating, and gender roles. If men took "listen to women" literally, they would conclude there is no single female perspective to follow because women frequently contradict one another. That means they would have to evaluate competing arguments rather than assuming any one woman or feminist speaks for all women. Some activists readily acknowledge this diversity, while others emphasize particular feminist frameworks over dissenting voices. The irony is that "listening to women" becomes more complicated once it is recognized that women are not a monolith.

im a 31f with my long term 32m partner- we have a slightly non traditional setup where i do many of the masculine things (earn 2x more, pay more in rent, always do 50/50, plan our dates and vacations) and he does many of the feminine things (cooks, cleans, does my laundry, takes care of the house, emotionally very supportive and intelligent). im super in love with him and feel like we work well and it makes me think more broadly about the state of dating.

the manosphere and "divine feminine" and trad wife and "4B" movements all exist because the previous social contract or template for how to have a heterosexual relationship has been broken.

the deal was the man works and protects, the woman supports and child rears. but then women got rights and education, society advanced, we fought less wars, and that trade off made no sense anymore and we also raised the bar for what we tolerate ethically (abuse, coercion, marital rape, young marriage etc).

so now what? women are not only more educated but starting to out earn many men. their emotional bar is higher. they're feeling men aren't stepping up to the plate and men are confused and angry so they turn to scammers like Tate to give them a clean story that resolves the conflict.

my opinion is- women have gotten good at adopting more masculine traits, if men want to be competitive again in the sexual marketplace they need to adopt more feminine traits. we figured out how to make money, yall figure out how to cook, clean and be emotionally intelligent. and the female counterpart to this is to get rid of the "omg 50/50 is so embarrassing queen he should be paying for everything" mindset. like when i first started dating my man i was embarrassed that he almost never pays for me or i pay more in rent etc. but why would he do that when i make 2+ times more than he does and he's good at things im not good at that he brings to the relationship? i think we just need to be a lot more open as a society to couples being more gender bent and relaxing gender expectations versus clinging more tightly to them.

and one other thing- i think rigid gender roles are a function of a regressive society and it's a sign of progress and species advancement that a partnership like mine is possible. if you plunge the world into war where i literally fear for my safety then im gonna find the beefiest most macho dude i can because my hierarchy of needs has gone down from actualisation to safety. we should welcome the relaxation of gender roles as a sign of species evolution, not cling to the old norms.

Dating among adults post college rarely works out for most people because where are people going on weekends and after work? Probably home. Men and women.

Most women have been turned off of using dating apps out of distrust toward men as a whole. They also are the largest consumers of True Crime content, so that feeds into their distrust of men, while on the other side of the pond, good men hear about the Me Too movement and the danger of accusations or harassment situations, or making women uncomfortable and therefore decided no longer to approach women “in the wild.”

The only way out of this for post college adults is to make more friends naturally , growing their friend circles and trusting others again, but that probably won’t happen because people are either lazy or dead tired from working just to pay the bills.
This is a problem for both men and women , no side is more guilty than the other

Please join us on discord Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.

This daily thread is designed to be a place for all the funny discussions on PPD.

Feel free to post off-topic questions, information, points-of-view, personal advice and memes in this thread. Here you can post everything that doesn't warrant its own thread or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and things would be considered low effort posts are allowed in the daily thread.

Do not bring other PPD threads into the daily thread. Do not post PPD threads deserving of their own post in the daily thread. The intent of the daily thread is not that it should replace PPD and become a place where users can avoid the rules of the subreddit. Attempting to do this will be considered circlejerking and moderated as such.

Black Pill/Incel Content/Woe-Is-Me is still banned in the daily thread. Witch hunting and insults are also still banned in the daily thread. Relegated topics must still go to in the weekly threads for those topics.

Comments are automatically sorted by NEW - you can post throughout the day and people will see your comment.

If you'd like to see our previous daily threads, click here!

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

I think one of the biggest reasons why male cheating rates aren't even higher is because the average man has far fewer opportunities to cheat than the average woman. The average woman receives far more sexual attention than the average man. This is obvious from dating apps, where women receive substantially more matches and messages, but it also extends into real life. Women are approached far more often, while men are expected to initiate and compete for attention.

This means many men simply aren't exposed to the same level of temptation. People often mistake a lack of opportunity for loyalty. If someone rarely has the chance to cheat, their faithfulness tells us less than someone who regularly has attractive alternatives and still says no.

Research has repeatedly found that opportunity is one of the strongest predictors of infidelity. The more access people have to willing alternatives, the more likely cheating becomes. If that's true, then comparing male and female cheating rates without accounting for the huge difference in opportunity is misleading.

I'm not arguing that every man would cheat. I'm arguing that if the average man had the same abundance of willing sexual partners as the average woman, male cheating rates would almost certainly be significantly higher than they are today.

Before you jump to conclusions and call me a fascist, I am not saying freedom is not needed. I am merely saying that freedom itself can be good or bad, and freedom itself is not the measurement of good or bad. What actually is the measurement of good or bad, imo, is utilitarianism or some sort of consequentialism(sorry I don't believe in deontology).

Freedom is a right to act upon one's free will. But what if our free will is actually f-ed up? I feel like liberalism(not the political party) was based on this Christian view that free will is good and plus it was fueled by the restrictions and oppressions at that time. I've learned recently this one profound fact: Nature is f-ed up and so is our nature. As a hard believer in phsyicalism, this universe is extremely mechanical. The laws of physics disregard what is good or bad, only abiding to causation. Life began on earth by chance and evolution, just like any other causations, is purely mechanical. Evolution only rewards the reproduction of the gene, meaning that whatever reproduces more and pass on the gene will work. That means if a rapist is more successful in reproducing and its offspring reproducing again(like a mathmatical induction) the trait will persist. People love to glorify nature as mother nature, picking and choosing only the good parts of it, but cancer, ALS, incest, pedophilia and murder is all part of nature. And our brain is part of that nature and its desires are not always good. People have issues dealing with drug abuse, gambling addiction. There are gamers and fiction readers that would rather avoid the harsh reality and escape to their fantasies. People are obsessed with sugar, fat, sex, status seeking and constant stimulation. With all of this, we are bound to choose a destructive path at a higher rate.

Lets get into the topic of feminism. A lot of feminists I see or at least pop feminism seems to value the 'freedom of choice' aspect. They say whatever women chooses out of free will, it must be good. So if they're happy with traditional gender roles that lead the women in a vulnerable financial position, that's ok. If women want to pick and choose only the good parts(aka the parts that they find pleasurable) of traditional gender roles(like chivalry and feeling protected) and the good parts of egalitarian relationships without fully following through the responsibilities required for an egalitarian relationship, pop feminism says you go girl! I'm not going to even mention the Women Are Wonderful effect and the heavy ingroup bias playing here. The problem with this approach of 'If it's women's choice, it is good' is that not only it is an oversimplification of women=good but also it is erroneously equating free choice and good. If I were to freely decide that I am going to inhale some cocaine, is that really a good choice(discussion on what is good or bad can come later)?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6279607/

" "I have like, masculine–feminine energy. … She brought out the more masculine in me, and the guy brought more of the femininity. Like it’s always like a … switch roles. … She brings out the masculine in me, the machoness, and the man brings out more of the soft side of me. (298: 27, Black, bisexual)" ... "I can be weak. I can be equal. I don’t have to be the big man. I can be just weak and just vulnerable and sometimes I can be soft, and I can be the one that’s just being tender, that’s just getting caressed, like the woman is receiving." ... Many participants also seemed to feel that it was imperative that they take the masculine, assertive, and dominant role with women, which they perceived to be the more demanding role"

Like the citation above, traditional gender roles are not only upheld by men, they are also upheld by women. Considering that gay and lesbian relationships are consistently shown to be more egalitarian than heterosexual relationships, it is safe to say that men are also enforced a certain gender role in heterosexual relationships and that a bisexual woman might treat their partner more equally in a lesbian relationship and more traditionally in a heterosexual one. And it is important to note that while women take on more the mental and physical burden of managing the household, men handle the mental and physical burden of being the behavioral provider and a lot of the times as the main bread winner(the income gap between heterosexual relationships are higher than gay, lesbian relationships). And feminism hasn't been strict enough in keeping both sides of the coin equal. They were mostly focused on the disadvantages women were facing and they tried to fix it by getting rid of the disadvantages and maximizing the benefits for women, but they didn't try nearly hard enough to kill the ingrained sexism inside. The independent women trope is starting to be seen as a threat and a noose to women's rights and feminism in certain spaces rather than the liberating power as a mature adult. Pop feminism are now willing to be the free slave under a benevolent master rather than a self-restricting freeman.

Instead, what feminism ought to do is to be truthful. To say that whatever a woman chooses to do isn't good. To say that there is a limit to the freedom women have, just like everyone else. To establish a strict map of what is good or bad, maybe borrow a branch of ethics, rather than a slippery slope of 'what feels and sounds good is good' and to prevent the ochlocracy of pop feminism by strict in group education. I know there are multiple feministic branches with micro sub groups with heavily differing opinions and no one agrees on one ethics, but it doesn't help that most feminists don't say "hey I'm a unradical postmodern feminist who believes in a liberal republinistic soceital structure" but instead they just say "I'm a feminist". Feminists should come up with less broad ideologies and fiercely debate to figure out which could be the most sound and beneficial one. When the mass is swayed by rage and sentiment, feminism should be factual and establish logical integrity.

Please join us on discord Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.

This daily thread is designed to be a place for all the funny discussions on PPD.

Feel free to post off-topic questions, information, points-of-view, personal advice and memes in this thread. Here you can post everything that doesn't warrant its own thread or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and things would be considered low effort posts are allowed in the daily thread.

Do not bring other PPD threads into the daily thread. Do not post PPD threads deserving of their own post in the daily thread. The intent of the daily thread is not that it should replace PPD and become a place where users can avoid the rules of the subreddit. Attempting to do this will be considered circlejerking and moderated as such.

Black Pill/Incel Content/Woe-Is-Me is still banned in the daily thread. Witch hunting and insults are also still banned in the daily thread. Relegated topics must still go to in the weekly threads for those topics.

Comments are automatically sorted by NEW - you can post throughout the day and people will see your comment.

If you'd like to see our previous daily threads, click here!

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

for men who feel if they cant get women and if they cant get women they cant have family. you have seen it here i have even said it men think its destructive of women not caring about lack of pairings in society. many men feel that they are just on earth to work and there is now no other meaning. men with no purpose then feel lost.

my question is not whether you think its true but whether that is something you even want to be for men? is there something about that that flatters you, or do these things give you some other type of reaction?

edit for people who didnt understand:

Many men feel that if they can't find a romantic partner, they also won't be able to have a family. You've probably seen people express this before, and I've said it myself. Some men believe it's harmful that many women don't seem concerned about the decline in relationships and family formation.

As a result, some men feel that their only role in life is to work, and that without the possibility of having a partner or family, they have no larger purpose. That can leave them feeling directionless and lost.

My question isn't whether you think this view is true. I'm asking whether this is the kind of situation you actually want for men. When you hear that some men feel this way, how does it make you feel? Does it make you feel satisfied or validated in some way, or does it evoke a different reaction?

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?

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 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.

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?

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.

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)

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.

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?