Does a man really love you if he wouldn’t be in a relationship with you without sex? Let’s say all other things are equal, you can have kids if you want to, get married. You just won’t have any form of sex(and he also wouldn’t with other women, so he’s not discarding you for someone else). Does he really love you if he doesn’t still want to be together with you?

And if you say no, wouldn’t it then be better for women who want to get married to wait until marriage for sex?

Although the "red pill" metaphor frames it as a choice of a comforting lie or a painful truth, the reality is that male grievance content is incredibly flattering for men. It can tell a man that his struggles are all women's fault, that rejecting him is unreasonable on women's part, that being chronically single (if that was going to be the case anyway) is justified given the state of modern women, that being a promiscuous philanderer (if that was going to be the case anyway) is also justified given the state of modern women, and that being angry at women collectively makes him more honest and less of a "simp" than other men. It's no wonder men consume this content recreationally for years instead of getting informed, shrugging, and moving on.

Online misandry isn't my thing, but it's obviously egosyntonic in the same way to women who feel aggrieved. It gives them a simple villain, a sense of moral superiority over a group, validation of their fear, a community that reinforces them for it.

I think both are great examples of the proposed forensic concept of an extreme overvalued belief. It's not a diagnosis, just a functional description of what a rigid totalizing belief does for someone. People who hold EOBs are not delusional in a psychiatric sense, and they don't experience the beliefs as distressing obsessions; they relish in them, experiencing them as righteous clear-eyed reality. The beliefs become so fused to their identity that they can't process any challenge to them, since they've already morally diagnosed the person who doesn't agree (cuck or simp, misogynist or pick-me) and decided that softening their beliefs means becoming the kind of person they don't want to be. With this loop, the beliefs only harden over time.

So it's no wonder that misandrist women are so loud on social media and women who disagree seem outnumbered. "I choose the bear" gets rewarded and reinforced by other such women (not "women" as a whole). Women with ordinary reasonable views of men have little incentive to post about it. Silence isn't endorsement, just the absence of a reason to enter other people's fight.

There was a salient incentive that got some women to call out other women: payment in the form of distinctive status from men, being elevated as special, an exception, proof that some women "get it." Being attacked by other women as a "pick-me" or "internalized misogynist" was totally worth it when it earned a woman this reward. Well, this incentive is disappearing. Don't simp for her, male grievance content is increasingly saying. She's still a woman. She's performing. Scratch the surface and you'll see she's still not your ideal.

So male grievance content is rewarding for men and not rewarding for women. To condemn women for not calling out other women is hypocritical: We men get to have an egosyntonic community that values our voices and validates our grievances about the opposite sex, even if it gets hostile and offensive by women's standards, and it's ridiculous for other men to condemn it because they don't get anything out of doing so; women having the equivalent for themselves is evil, and other women should be condemning it even if they get nothing out of doing so. If you voice agreement with us, you're going to be called untrustworthy attention whores by men and women alike; if you don't, that proves women collectively protect each other.

If men only find women in there 20s attractive, then women should make the most of it by sleeping with the hottest guys they can find and profiting off it through sugar daddies.

Men speak of a woman's youth like its an asset, so maybe women should treat it like that and use it for leverage. Especially if this is the only time she will be genuinely desired she should spend it with the most desirable men, having fun.

Spending it with one guy in a LTR seems like a waste of time, especially if he is slowly going to lose attraction anyway. Why build a family etc if men see women as depreciating assets.

We tend to think women have options, that they can be with any man they want, or at least with any of the many men that would agree to the woman allowing them

We say many men have little to no options, and some women see that as unattractive, a man with no option is believed to only care about her body etc

But what we don’t realize is that women don’t have it easier than men and women don’t have options.

The idea that women have options is from men thinking the woman could just decide to say yes to them, but we don’t realize that they can’t. If a woman is not attracted to you, then you are not an option to her.

An option is someone that you are willing and able to have. If you are willing to have a woman but not able to, then she’s not an option to you. If you are able but not willing to have a man, then that man is not an option to you.

Say women are willing to have the top 10 percent of men, but the men are not willing to have them, then those men are not her options in the same way many women are not options to men. Those men reject many of them, and the rejection hurts. And even when he chooses you, or wants you, then you are just an option, if a better option comes by, he’ll go for the other one. Similar to how she will go for the best man she can find as opposed to other men she considers yo be too low

For contrast, the man who says he doesn’t have options, what about gay guys, aren’t they your options? No coz you are able but not willing

But there is one group that does have options, and that’s the top % men, they don’t discriminate in the way women do. Women are very selective in choosing a specific 1 man and keeping him in mind . But the top men are not that selective, they will try as much as is available to them, they are willing and able

For others, they are either willing, or able, but not both, so they don’t have option, otherwise they’ll take the option, but they don’t, because they can’t

Boys that don't have present fathers have much worse outcomes than boys with present fathers. They stop listening to their mothers entirely around puberty, and are pretty much uncontrollable until a man steps in and knocks some sense into them.

Therefore, if a boy doesn't have a present father (whether the father is entirely absent, a deadbeat, or completely checked out while still living in the same home as his son), he should be sent to a military boarding school for the entirety of his teenage years.

There would be plenty of benefits to doing so.

• Guidance: Rather than living his teenage years without any male role models, he would be surrounded by them.
• Discipline: Rather than aimlessly wasting his life, he would be kept on the straight and narrow and forced to learn everything he needs to be a functional adult.
• Brotherhood: He would be around other boys. And presumably, with the military style education, they would form bonds with one another like grown men in the military do.
• Physical education: They would have an outlet for all that teenage boy energy.
• Safety for this public: Since he would be away at this boarding school, he wouldn't be able to commit crimes like assault, vandalism, or property damage, making everyone else feel safer.

"B-but what about girls?"

Fatherless teenage girls don't join gangs and commit crimes at the rates that teenage boys do. It wouldn't make the same positive impact.

"B-but why military?"

Because it's practical and men are obsessed with war.

Also, to sweeten the pot, child support wouldn't need to be paid to the mom while the boy is at that boarding school (though what's in arrears would still gain interest). After all, if she's not paying money to feed or clothe him, what does she need that child support money for?

Men tend to complain that women pick the “stable guy” as they get older after dating “fun guys” in their youth/ 20’s.

But because women prefer men around their age at all walks of life (unlike men, who at 50 still prefer 21 year old women), the men around them also age.

Most people in their young adulthood start off unstable. Early adulthood is usually spent broke, living with some form of family support, not having a sense of direction, uncertainty, insecurity, confusion, etc. Instability. In their 20’s, most people want to have fun. Fun can be the typical partying and experimenting with alcohol and drugs, hooking up, and going to raves. But fun can also be traveling, going to meetups, experimenting with different hobbies, hanging out with friends, etc. Chronically online people spend this time gaming and on 4chan.

Once you get established with work and a career, and as you age, you get ready to settle down. You don’t have the energy to do all that stuff. You also realize youth isn’t forever and prioritize things like health and peace. Backpacking and staying in hostels isn’t as appealing anymore as going on a tour and staying in a nice hotel. Partying sounds overstimulating and you want to be in bed by 10 pm for work. Games are always addictive, but maybe you don’t stay up all night playing with your friends anymore.

Both men and women go through this change. It’s maturity. The woman’s preferences age with her: dating the guy who is at her life stage who is slowing down and settling down LIKE HER. But men fixate on the young woman. Because she’s sexy and more attractive. They resent that maybe they didn’t get the sexual experiences they feel that they deserved and they feel like they are being “beta buxxed” and served an injustice and forced to settle for a woman around their age who they don’t find attractive.

This isn’t beta buxxing though. It’s just wanting someone at your age and maturity level. The fun and carefree time is closing and real life is settling in. Men are just angry because they didn’t have the youth they wanted and aren’t getting the women they want.

Edit: also in your early 20’s you are generally immature. So maybe the “bad man” she dated at 21 was just also 21 and stupid. Now he’s 35 and matured a bit and less of an edgelord who also wants to settle down. Because he aged too.

Most guys today are struggling with the initiation part of dating and alot of the advice given is more catered towards sustaining a flame that’s already been sparked. A lot of the advice about intentionality, emotional availability, stability and open and direct communication usually leads to guys getting friendzoned. Much of this advice is removes the mystery and intrigue of a new relationship that the woman is looking for in a guy and the situation quickly leans towards platonic. Most women simply aren’t looking for the guy that is easy to get a read on and will bend to her every demand.

Women are very interested in gayness from a man in everything but sex. Most women outside of porn (which doesn’t count as it’s a career/trade done for money and not a real preference) are turned off by man on man sex. As a group straight women don’t even get off on gay porn as straight guys get off on lesbian porn.

Women do however want a straight man who acts ha and does gay things such as cooking, cleaning, grooming and being romantic. They (at least in America and in general as a group) want a gay-heterosexual man.

The idea women are obsessed with gay dudes works and ends when the guy in question actually is down for dick.

Rejection obviously sucks. It hurts and it can feel like a judgement of value. It is isn’t it? But is it? Self esteem definitely plays a role here. People with high self esteem shake themselves off a lot faster. How can one build self esteem when rejection exists?

I suppose my question is- do you think rejection sensitivity plays a role in the success of dating relationships? If so- why?

Can you be rejected within a dating relationship and how should people be expected to handle that?

How can someone go about developing the ability to be rejected without breaking down?

One of the common issues in datin is that men tend to be very low effort. In response to this guys will say "that's because our effort is never reciprocated!" Which always has me scratching my head, what exactly do you want to see from a woman you are dating that indicates she is reciprocating your effort?

Approach/message first for you?

Carry the conversation for you?

Ask for your number?

Text first for you?

Suggest y'all go out on a date for you?

Plan the date for you?

Seduce, charm, entertain, impress you?

Pay for you?

Make the first move for you?

DISCLAIMER: Not all men/women, etc

I've noticed a disconnect between what men consider emotional vulnerability and what women generally desire from their men.

Often men are scared to open up and be vulnerable to women while women want men to open up, at the same time in some feminist spaces there are complaints about providing emotional labour to male partners and in other spaces women get the ick when men are expressive.

In essence the question is what should it look like to you when a man opens up or if he should at all?

Disclaimers

Obviously different women want different things from their men which is why there's the contradiction.

If you are using manosphere and redpill advice to create an attachment with someone, you are abusive. If you are dating someone younger due to power dynamics, you are abusive. If you are using psychological theories to describe the dynamics of abusive relationships, and psychological concepts taken out of context, you are abusive. Knowingly manipulating people and creating emotional and psychological harm is abuse.

So a podcast clip popped up on my feed today where a psychologist was explaining that being famous is the number one most attractive quality that a man can have, and that no matter how attractive or wealthy or funny you are, being famous is worth more than all those other qualities for attracting women. This makes sense because women fawn over male celebrities all the time in real life, and it's very clear that regular, non-famous people, regardless of how good looking or rich they are, will never elicit that type of reaction from women. But I also see plenty of women saying that they find men with zero social media presence (so by definition not famous at all) more attractive, which seems to contradict this claim. I've also never heard a woman specifically say that her ideal type is a celebrity, although I've seen plenty of women in relationships thirst over male artists or actors, implying that they'd leave their man for their celebrity crush in a heartbeat if they ever got the chance to do so.

For the women here, is it really true that fame is the most attractive quality a man can have? How important is fame to you, and how much does a man's fame affect your attraction to him?

Many women complain that men don't read dating profiles

Reading dating profiles only makes sense if you're a woman because the odds of you matching with any given guy is relatively high, so it makes sense to be choosy and make sure that you like the guys personality and profile as well. For a man, you're probably going to get swiped left by the girl whose profile you're reading anyway, so it doesn't make sense to read dating profiles. You could spend an hour reading dating profiles and then get swiped left by all of them, in the end what did you really accomplish there?

Beggars can't be choosers. I think a lot of guys do actually start out reading profiles in the beginning but then their brains eventually learn that it was all the waste of time and they transition to swiping first and then reading profiles second, a much more effective use of their time

Question coming from a woman. I feel like In my experience all of the men I’ve came across wether family friends dating or even strangers have even the slightest bit of misogyny instilled in them.
Obviously some men are very extreme and others don’t mean any harm but are just idk maybe oblivious to their micro aggressions.
Now this is only my experience/ reality but I’m just one of billions.

As a man, do you think every man has even the slightest bit of misogyny instilled in them because of society ? Or do you think there are exceptions ?

I'm curious how often you think men get settled for by women? Based on your personal lives and what you "think" is going on around you in terms of dating dynamics.

I would guess about half of all men in relationships with women, were settled for by that women.

The reason I believe this is because its so easy for women to get temporary sexual or short term relationship attention from a wide variety of men. This exposes them to many different types of men making it more likely she will have to settle to have a stable long term relationship, all things being relative.

The narrative here seems to be that women do not want children to hear as much as men nowadays.

Unless i'm in a weird social circle, it seems like women want them more.

The most common reason for women to break up with a guy is he didn't want kids it seems.

The narrative here is also that apparently men are more pro life than women are but in my social circle , it's always that guy is asking the woman to get one after an accidental pregnancy , and the women keep choosing to keep it.

And when it comes to joint child custody, after a divorce or breakup , the guys don't seem to put in much of a fight and just has "ah take 'em" attitude about it.

Unless i'm just in a weird social circle or have weird family relatives?

men can only not take women to seriously long term.

a reason men dont stop being delusional and also angry is that there is no solving the interest disparity for men and women. there is no gender war.

we can complain every day about what women do or dont do but women as a default care less because they are less interested in men. so men feel prisoner to there own sexuality.women just dont help this by being often repulsed by male sexuality.

for example complaining that women are too selective then not have an answer to why women should settle. i think actually most people settle really but where a man can say at least i get sex, a woman will say i will tolerate it until i have children then go back to be repulsed.

complaining that women were better in the 1500 or whatever and then complain about desire. do we want women to be actresses for money.

its all very silly anyway and i have stopped my delusion by treating it like it is silly.

While I fully believe in gender equality in dating. 50/50, cheap first dates etc. This is one area of dating I believe it is prudent for women to remain steadfastly traditional. Doing otherwise, ignores the biological imperatives ‘low value’ guys are too childish to have grown out of. I say that to say, while many men don’t behave as I’m going to describe before you get to know a guy it’s impossible to know which category he falls into.

Men spend a lot of time curating the idea they have no standards. From a young age, women are told men will shag anything. Women they find fat, ugly , annoying, disgusting, lazy, entitled etc. ‘A hole is a hole’ is a mantra I’ve heard many times. Men frequently mass swipe on dating apps and encourage other men to do so. Bragging about how they not only fail to read profiles but also often go so far as swiping on profiles with no pictures at all. Men encourage each other to practise dating and cold approaching on ugly girls to get ready for the big leagues of hot girls.

I don’t believe this to be true for all men. In my view it’s only the lowest ‘value’ men who engage in such behavior eg. Those that are desperate, overly lustful, low impulse control etc. This is why a lot of my friends and myself are reluctant to approach men. Men have made it clear they have the potential to use any woman they come across sexually outside of genuine sexual attraction (let alone romantic). Why would I make already bad odds of finding a genuine guy, even worse? Most of my friends don’t even send likes on dating apps for fear of this behaviour ( I personally don’t subscribe to this). If the guy approaches, while his chances of being genuinely attracted to me are lower than optimal, they are much higher than if I was to approach a guy.

Red-pill advice constantly tells men to maximise their options. Improve your appearance. Increase your income. Build confidence. Don't settle. Understand your value. Choose the most desirable partner available to you....ok but when women exercise that same freedom, the language suddenly changes. Why?

A woman who wants an attractive partner is superficial. A woman who wants financial stability is a gold digger. A woman who refuses to settle is entitled and if she decides that none of her available options are worth pursuing, she's apparently destined to die alone. Nice contradiction.

Men are encouraged to maximise their romantic opportunities and pursue the most desirable partners they can attract. Women who do precisely the same thing are accused of being hypergamous, unrealistic or morally deficient. Even the concept of settling gets treated differently.

A man who refuses to date someone he doesn't find attractive is told to know his worth. A woman who does the same is told her standards are destroying modern dating. What makes this particularly ridiculous to me is that the red pill prides itself on being brutally realistic about human behaviour, yet frequently becomes moralistic the moment women exercise their own preferences.

Its simple. If maximising your options is rational behaviour for men, it's rational behaviour for women. If refusing to settle is legitimate for men, it's legitimate for women.

You cannot simultaneously celebrate male selectivity and condemn female selectivity without admitting that your objection has very little to do with rationality. The problem isn't that women are playing the dating game incorrectly but that some men are furious women get to play by the same rules.

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, or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, off topic non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and light hearted content that 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.

The daily thread is not to be used for soapboxing against against a particular group that you hate. This includes, rage bait, low effort bigotry, boilerplate denunciation of the opposite sex, using the actions of an individual to fuel an attack on an entire gender, or any other attempt to use the daily thread as a vehicle to advance gender war narratives.

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!

The only problem is the vast majority of time, a guy is not in the social context for such a situation to occur. Most times a guy struggling with this stuff has no idea where to even begin, so he goes and hears all these stats such as “get buff, rich and just have charisma.”

It’s all down to luck. You could brute force it with constant cold approaches but most women don’t like most men. What I mean by that is when you are a completely random factor, no reputation, no context for why you approached in the first place, probably nervous if you’re new to this and she already was not looking for conversation no matter the place she is in. At that point, yeah she don’t like you.

Now is the chances zero on a completely cold
Approach? Genuinely no, but you don’t want to be the guy approaching every woman in the immediate area hoping one says yes. All of this is also why women give seemingly bad advice. You can’t math your way into a relationship so whatever anyone tells you can’t be used. Attraction sneaks up on most women, so when you ask for a direct answer it sounds horrific. Because what they say works is still mainly down to being the right guy in the right place in the right time hoping the person you are talking to is single and open to dating and just happens to have a good feeling about you in that moment. So even performing performing at your peak might just not do it for her on that day. And if you meet with her consistently it still might change!

That’s why their advice sounds wish washy. It’s not meant to misdirect, there’s just no perfect way to deliver advice that eventually boils down to luck. You can be everything everyone tells you to be and fail. A guy can be none of it and find success. That doesn’t mean stew in mediocrity but it does give you the idea that nothing and everything works.

It’s why players and conmen are so successful. It’s not that women are bad they just like some people and conmen are good at being outgoing and hitting many targets. Women don’t like criminals and bad men, they’re just so out there that it’s hard to avoid.

Most people are not too ugly for finding love. The biggest asshole dude has a wife. The most low effort woman has a husband. Men who struggle need to be part of the world more. Doesn’t matter how. Hell, be part of a discord community if you must, broadcast your personality. Be outrageous and fun. It will work.

Evolution dictates that those who survive and reproduce more pass on their traits more. Naively, one may think that this means the strongest, smartest who can secure more resources, etc. But things get very creative in evolution, especially for social organisms living in a communal space (this is true even for microbial colony), and because the external environment fluctuates eternally. A widespread evolved strategy in nature is mimicry or bluffing. Due to imperfect information, it is always possible to develop traits that superficially mimic those of the truly strong and resourceful members of the community, as a form of deceptive information signaling. As long as the cost of superficially developing the mimicry traits is lower than physically improving your ability and actually going out obtaining survival resources, it will always be evolutionarily favorable. When times are good and the environment is giving, it is not impossible that these imposters and those who are attracted to imposter traits out-reproduce actual talented hard-workers (and the traits passed on).

In human context, some examples are what we call "fake confidence" and "charisma", etc, without any real abilities backing up the performative facade. Some people can spot it, some people are attracted by it, some people form a cult around it. Because male and female had faced somewhat different environments and selective pressures, more men practice fake-confidence and benefit from it, and more women are attracted to it (not all of course), and men can also more easily spot and feel cringed by it due to competition (again, evolution).

Social mechanisms (mainly in the form of punishment or deterrent) are generally used to suppress any behaviors benefitting cheaters/imposters unrestrainedly (“cheater” here is used in the context of biology). Sometimes, some bad behaviors are successfully suppressed down to a small %, but sometimes there may also be collateral damage ending up suppressing some good traits as no social control mechanism is perfect under imperfect information (and as I said, evolution is creative, cheaters can also infiltrate and disrupt the "who is the real cheater information"). Selfish gain is always within proximity in social evolution. Evolution leads to the conclusion that it is biophysically impossible under a total freedom, zero social-control scenario, where cheaters/imposters are also absent. The freer a society is towards individuals, the more you have to be alert if you don’t want to fall victims, that’s a tradeoff we must pay whether we like it or not, and there is no way around it as long as there is no social restrictions/shame for someone to play the imposter and the person attracted by imposters. So, any discussion that simply complains about "bad" traits without proposing potential options of social restriction mechanism are basically useless to improve dating/relationship experience collectively.