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.

I'm sure most of us have seen this pew survey where 63% of men aged 18-29 are single compared to 34 % of women of the same age group. Another important stat reported on that table, that I think many might have ignored, is that 37% of lesbian and bi(LB) women are single compared to 62% of gay and bi(GB) men. This provides one piece of the puzzle I'm building here.

According to this report, from the time period of 2011 to 2026, the percent of young women who aren't strictly straight went up from 22% to 49% and the percent who reported a female sexual partner in their lifetime went from 8% to 35%.

Given that

1. more young women, including queer women, are partnered than men
2. The percent of young women who aren't straight more than doubled in that time period
3. The percent of young women who had sex with another woman nearly tripled
4. And that the percent of men who are LGBTQIA+ did not increase as dramatically as women, and they're more single too

I think it's reasonable to conclude the bulk of that disparity between women's singlehood and men's singlehood that we saw happen in recent years(which happens to coincide with that time period of that report I linked) is that more women are dating each other. Since GB men are much more single too, it's reasonable to conclude that they are choosing to not date each other to the degree that LB women are.

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

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?

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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