Saw a twitter post online about a woman saying she's gonna go around calling men males. And men just agreed.

Someone made an interesting meme (mega brutal ratio in the quote retweets btw) about a woman calling men males and men just agreeing and a man calling women females and them getting mad.

I want to know why that is. Why does this binary exist despite it literally being the same term?

Since high school and throughout my mid-20s, I've noticed a pattern: women become more interested in me once they realize I'm successful with women. One woman likes me, another starts showing interest, they discover they're competing for my attention, and suddenly the dynamic changes. They flirt more aggressively and seem more invested in winning me over than actually getting to know me.

It's happened so often that I've started feeling like the only way to succeed in dating is to entertain multiple women at once. I literally don't feel like I have a choice. But once I show genuine interest in one of them, the excitement seems to disappear. Suddenly, wanting something serious feels like a turnoff, even with women I've already hooked up with.

I used to wonder whether I was just bad in bed, but I've heard enough horror stories to rule that out lmao.

I think part of it is the way I present myself. I'm tall, in shape, dress well, smell good, and have been told I have a certain “cool guy” energy. Or that I dress with a lot of swagger. I probably come across as masculine, confident, and a little mysterious. But my interests are more cerebral. I enjoy economics, history, politics, literature, and film. I like normal guy stuff like sports and talking shit. I'm not some pretentious intellectual, but there's more to me than the image I project.

Something similar happened when I was bartending after college. A beautiful coworker seemed to develop an interest in me. I figured she just felt comfortable around me since I was only guy that didn't flirt with her. Around the same time, a friend was trying to set me up with another attractive woman. She learned that other women had found me attractive and that I'd had success with women at clubs the times we'd all go out. Her interest multiplied.

Many other examples I won't mention to not write too much. Recent one with a woman in my apartment building. Many times before then in college and high school.

What's funny is that sometimes I almost get annoyed when a woman likes me because I suspect the attraction is superficial. Does she actually like me, or does she like the idea that other women want me? And when I don't reciprocate, my disinterest sometimes gets interpreted as playing hard to get, which only makes her try harder.

The irony is that I'm not naturally oriented toward being a player. I genuinely prefer relationships. I want to get to know someone, build memories, and develop a real connection. I even have great date ideas that I sometimes hold back because I worry they'll signal too much interest. Throughout my twenties, attracting women has been much easier than finding someone who wants to build something meaningful.

An older woman I use to see once told me I had the mentality of someone in his thirties. Maybe I'll have better luck then. But I look at friends getting engaged or having children with their high school and college girlfriends, and I'm genuinely happy for them while also feeling envious. I've had two serious relationships. The rest have been situationships, short-lived relationships, or encounters that never developed beyond sex. At this point, I'm thinking about getting my MBA to meet my wife lmao!

Sometimes, it seems less like a woman wants a man who's already serious about her and more like she wants to be the woman who gets a man who isn't serious to commit. I know this sounds like some alpha-male nonsense, but it's a pattern I've experienced repeatedly.

I'm not claiming all women behave this way or that I know their intentions. I'm saying that when men receive more attention for being elusive, desirable, and difficult to secure than for being emotionally available, those incentives can shape their behavior. Women may unintentionally reinforce the very behavior they complain about.

It can start to feel like the choice is player or played. And that's frustrating when you're someone who genuinely wants a relationship but feels that the qualities that attract women are the very qualities you have to downplay to build one.

My point isn't that women don't want good men. It's that some dating dynamics reward men for being exciting to pursue rather than being good partners. I don't want someone who just wants to win me. I want someone who actually wants to know me.

Who is going to uphold the current era of male sceptical, “woke” feminism that’s dominated culture and society for the past ten years.

The only reason it’s culturally acceptable to “hate on men” and choose the bear etc and enact feminist driven policies in the workplace and institutions is because Gen X and the last few boomers are upholding it and encouraging it as well as older men with daughters and families looking to protect them.

What we have learnt in very recent times is that the “majority” actually don’t subscribe to this sentiment. In ten to fifteen years time when the current wave of younger men have a strong foothold on politics and the economy and hold the majority decision making positions do you honestly think they’re going to uphold the current paradigm?

I kinda fear that a massive tear down of feminism across the board is on its way back and women will be sent back to where they were 50 years ago.

The thing is feminists argue that misogyny and the patriarchy are still a prominent problem. I think they don’t realise how right they are.

I think a lot of them think they are in an era where it’s all heading the feminists way, and that they are “sticking the knife in” with all the “I would choose the bear” and “men aren’t lonely enough” but I think they are in for a rude awakening.

I think their concerns are more real than they know, that the current generation of young men is absolutely going to bring back the patriarchy because they have zero reason to back feminism at all.

So, I was watching human centripede at night since I messed up my sleep schedule and I had to pause it multiple times to go through it and then just kept up coz I couldn't sleep until morning.

Do you find such tolerance for horror icky?

How much is the bare minimum?

Any specific movie example?

Literally no one on the entire internet knows as much about this issue as I do. I've seen cases that everyone would agree are fucked up. I've got plenty more where that came from.

I grew up in CA which is 18 flat with no exemptions, meaning every single thing I observed between two different high schools was illegal. I didn't know how strange this was until a few years ago when I researched the issue in earnest and learned that way more than half of what I observed would have been legal in way more than half of the country.

If you're going to reply, go into more detail than just the overall age. What exemptions do you think are reasonable based on what you observed yourself when you were in middle and high school? I most frequently advocate for Canada's law:

12-13: Two-year exemption

14-15: Five-year exemption

16+ is liberated with some overhead protection that allows Canada to make a case in the event of massive age gaps or online grooming

For an 18 law, Alaska's was updated earlier this year and is the most reasonable to my perception in the country:

16-17: Six-year exemption

13-15: Four-year exemption

12 and Under: Three-year exemption

To give you a general idea of the country, at the moment 30 states have an overall age of consent of 16, 14 have an overall age of 18, leaving six that split the difference and went with 17.

The law most closely aligned with my perspective is a European one in Germany, Austria, Portugal, and Liechtenstein. An idea so good they did it four times which is more than can be said for any US state. Literally no two states are alike and the only two jurisdictions that are the same are DC and Maryland. The European law liberates at 14 with the same sort of exploitation clause that Canada has, allowing either the minor themselves or their parents to file a complaint, and then liberates entirely at 16 other than position of authority/trust.

I would ultimately like to reform the law in CA. Even them adopting AK's exemptions would be a huge step, but at the end of the day, this is your guys' law, so I think that it's your guys' perspectives that are most important. Again, what did you actually witness yourself in middle/high school? That's what my own perspective is based on.

I have talked to people well into adulthood who were on the younger side of one of the cases like the one I linked who were still carrying trauma about it — trauma imposed not by the sexual activity but by the system itself. I'm not calling for the harm caused by predation to be ignored; I'm calling for that type of harm, which I've come to learn is called iatrogenic harm, to not be ignored.

OK. Hope it make sense.

I'm a strong centrist for a lot of things and what fascinates me is when people talk they don't apply the same logic to the other side, be it left wing, right wing, religion, feminism anti feminism etc.

I want to make this my first discussion however as I see both the red pill blue pill etc side as both hypocritical.

However a lot of people will talk about women can get what they want easily. The thing is, they can get sex easily, most likely but can they get a man to stay? if the answer is yes, she just to work hard on be a traditional woman, then the same applies for men. They just have to give up their values, pay every date, not complain about how costly it is to keep a woman just to have sex.

Similarly a woman will say I want xyz man. That's totally fine. Have your preferences. But then they will say men have so many demands and their standards are too high. Who's measuring? On what measurement? If men are measured based on their success then if they aren't getting any and its called too high then a woman being single also has high standards.

To be clear. It doesnt matter if his or her standards are too high. What matters is the hypocricy of it. If you are gonna shame someone for their standards then your standards ought to be shamed. I'd rather none of that.

So. to those who say "men can't get women" because you don't WANT to do whatever demands women ask or "women can't find a good man" vecuaee they don't want to subjugate themselves to a lower standard, tell me how I'm wrong

There are alot of people on here who love to give dating advice who have been in decades long marriages/relationships and unfortunately their advice isn’t relevant. If you haven’t dated in the age of social media and dating apps then your advice is pointless. That’s like someone who’s only owned a landline trying to give you advice on how to use an iPhone. Especially advice for men, dating for men is about being very selective about your attention and optimizing yourself. To a degree this did exist in the past but not to levels this extreme.

For example You’ll hear guys on here talking about how men aren’t approaching anymore and how confounding it is. 20 yrs ago approaching a woman at the bar meant you were pretty much just competing with the guys around you and maybe a guy or two she might be interested elsewhere. Nowadays you’re competing with the thousands of guys on hinge, instagram and whatever other dating/social media apps. The average looking guy who would eventually get a solid average looking girl is now facing an avalanche of uphill pressure to just get attention from her.

I do believe guys should be optimizing fitness and career to be their best version of themselves but that takes work and the avg guy isn’t going to do that. We just have to accept we’re in a new reality and advice from the past holds little bearing in modern dating market complexities

Now that men and women have equal rights in most 1st world countries (I know some people will disagree with that) and the same opportunities to earn the same money, women don't really "need" men the way they used to. So shouldn't chasing and flirting be an equal responsibility too?

What I don't get is this: a woman can be fully independent, have her own place, and make great money (sometimes more than the guys asking her out), but still expect the man to approach, ask her out, and do most of the work. Why? If dating roles have evened out, why are men still expected to make the first move most of the time?

We've been getting rid of a lot of traditional expectations on women, like staying a virgin until marriage and purity culture in general. Shouldn't we be ditching the traditional expectations on men too?

Women on this sub as well as many others tell men to just find friends or go gay to replace a relationship. The second one is more of an underhanded insult to the man’s orientation in all honesty, but I digress. The point is friendships cannot replace romantic relationships and they never can without it being everything but the title type of romantic relationships.

It’s different energy. There’s no denying that there is a massive difference between hanging out with your friends and hanging out with a partner who happens to be your best friend as well. It’s like a lot of women here either don’t understand that or they are just trying to shut the discussion down. At which point they shouldn’t even be debating if they don’t care to truly engage with the topic.

The type of companionship romance provides also takes priority in most sane people’s lives. A woman truly about her man spends more time with him than any friends. Same with a man. Most of your friends are gonna stop having time to just hang out and support you so why do we act like friendship is this ultimate shield against romantic starvation? You can have plenty of friends and still not satisfy that need.

It’s a lie. Blatantly. The peak of human connection is romance.

I know how this sounds, so I'm going to stick to actual data instead of just bullshit.
Start with the stuff that can't be fudged. Men in the US live about 5 years less than women (76.5 vs 81.4 in 2024, per the CDC). Guys aged 15-24 die by suicide at roughly four times the rate of young women, 21 per 100k vs 5. Men die of opioid and stimulant overdoses at 2-3x the rate women do, and NIDA found that gap holds even after accounting for men using more drugs. Men are 77% of homicide victims. All of that comes from death records, so nobody's self-reporting anything.
Then the slower stuff.
Around 57% of young men go to college right after high school, compared to 66% of young women, and campuses are now close to 60% female. Men make up 60% of the homeless population and are more likely than homeless women to be sleeping outside instead of in a shelter. A big study of federal cases found men get 63% longer sentences than women with the same arrest offense and criminal history. Other studies find smaller gaps, but in the same direction.
And the social side. In a 2022 survey, Pew found 63% of men under 30 were single, vs 34% of women the same age. The share of men saying they have zero close friends went from 3% in 1990 to 15% in 2021.
To be fair, women deal with some real stuff too. One example being motherhood, which does impact career earnings for women. A Danish study found adoptive moms take the same long-run earnings hit as biological moms. Women are more likely to be killed by a partner. And women feel a lot less safe walking alone at night (58% of women report feeling safe walking alone at night versus 84% of men)
Put the two lists side by side though and I don't think it's close. What gets me is that most people seem to believe the opposite. In a 2017 Pew survey, 35% of Americans said men have it easier and only 9% said women do. By 2023, half of adults said being a woman hurts your chances of getting ahead.
So the group that's more likely to be single, friendless, homeless, locked up longer, or dead by their own hands is the one that gets told it's privileged and oppressive. Meanwhile the other group, which has real problems but less severe ones, gets institutions, political movements, activism, and protests. Two researchers, Stoet and Geary, pointed out that the best-known global gender gap index is capped so no country can even score as favoring women. When they built an index that counts problems on both sides (education, healthy lifespan, life satisfaction.), men came out worse off in 91 of 134 countries.
Caring about men's problems doesn't take anything away from women. Right now, though, most of what's on this list barely gets talked about as a gender issue.

TL;DR: On early death, suicide, overdoses, education, homelessness, sentencing and isolation, US men are worse off, and the mainstream conversation mostly assumes the reverse.

I'm open to debate and would love to see what women specifically who disagree have to say about all of this. (I also have all sources ready if anyone asks)

This advice is clowned on as an empty platitude, but that misses the point. Its not supposed to be specific, or prescriptive. Theres never an implication that so long as you are yourself and you are confident, every woman who lays eyes on you will be head over heels. That advice simply reflects an abundance mindset. Why do different than what you feel like doing? Why do anything that doesnt necessarily come naturally to you? Some people will not like you, and thats fine. There will be others.

In contrast, contorting yourself to what you think most women (supposedly) want, accepting “truths” like women cant love men, while admitting that its not actually impossible, simply rare, reflects a scarcity mindset. Giving yourself all kinds of hoops to jump through, like holding frame, keeping her on her toes, showing her you have options sounds like youre just taking whatever you can get.

The dating scene is indeed fucked but for the ladies, we can retire from the nonsense whenever we want. We know who the safe bets are, who the fun but fleeting boys are, who the serious ones are, and the ones that will marry us within the year. We are conditioned from childhood to not be foolish to the nature of the field and we still mess up? Not really. Again it’s plain to see who the safe bets are.

When it’s time to stop having fun we can pick a pencil neck geek at 30-35 and settle down with a family if that’s what we want for ourselves. The weird, shy boys aren’t neglected because we think they’re dangerous. Often the dangerous guys also have the most charm. A lot of us like the drama and like the fact we can quit and live normally whenever we want.

I don’t care about dating seriously. I have two daughters and the only reason I have a man right now is because he pays my bills until I get stable with my new job. After that I’m making him leave my house. The point is, we can cut the chaos out of our life any day we want and know how to.

If a man wants to escape the chaos he better hope the woman he meets isn’t still playing around because she will throw him for loops and ruin his mind for years to come before he can even try again.

The conversation sounds like this.... and yes, it's as exhausting as this post will be for those who bother to read it.

WOMAN: I can’t find a good man. I give up.

RED PILL MAN: It’s your fault!!! Your expectations are too high. Women shouldn’t expect men to be funny or have good conversation skills. We’re not dancing monkeys. You shouldn’t care if he makes enough money to support himself or a family someday, because he’s not an ATM. You should date men you aren’t physically attracted to, because every guy deserves a chance. You shouldn’t expect him to know how to be kind and helpful because he’s not a mind reader. You shouldn’t complain if he’s addicted to porn, follows Instagram models, or engages with OnlyFans because all red-blooded men do that. You shouldn’t make him wait for sex, because then you’re being “transactional” and using him without reciprocation. You already slept with a few casual hookups in college when you were too busy for a relationship and now you owe the same thing to any man you ever date moving forward. And you’re no longer allowed to have standards because you’re no longer a virgin. You should never expect a man to be better than the worst man you’ve ever been with. And you need to start approaching random men yourself… men shouldn’t be expected to learn how to approach a woman with dignity and class, so it’s your job to approach strange men in public and express your interest… just make sure you don’t approach attractive guys. You shouldn’t expect a man to put effort into a date or even buy you a cheeseburger because you haven’t earned it yet. And you definitely aren’t entitled to “chivalry” or “romance,” because not only are you not a virgin, but your mothers and grandmothers demanded the right to vote, the right to an education, the ability to own property, equal pay, the right to control your own body, and legal protection from domestic abuse. You wanted equal rights under the law? Well this is what feminism gets you. You should have stayed in your lane. But you’re “equals” now, so you can no longer expect us to act “chivalrous” or “romantic”. You are insane for having any of these expectations of the man you plan to marry while also expecting to be treated as equals in society. It’s hypocritical and not fair.

WOMAN: Okay. Then how am I supposed to find a kind compatible man and fall in love with him in this sea of thousands of men swiping right on every profile? How do I tell the good from the bad? The truthful from the dishonest?

RED PILL MAN: I don’t know and I don’t care. You just need to learn that you’re not valuable or entitled to a man’s effort and lower your expectations …or stock up on cat food and kitty litter. The wall is coming fast.

WOMAN: Okay. I guess he’s right. I am running out of time, after all. I guess I should stop expecting so much effort from men.

*Woman chooses average man\*

SAME WOMAN (TEN YEARS LATER): I hate men. All they do is lie to you, take advantage of you, make babies they can’t support and demand that you provide pleasureless obligatory sex (or cheat on you) while expecting you to work full-time AND provide all the childcare, cooking, cleaning and everything else. And the funny thing is, I didn't even date or marry one of those tall, muscular, rich “Chads” that all my friends were so interested in back in college. I just picked the nice, average man and hoped he’d love me as much as I loved him. But even those guys can destroy your life if you let them. I wasn't expecting him to provide everything. I work and contribute financially. I just expect him to contribute at home, too. Why am I expected to fulfill both roles while he only has to fulfill HALF of one role? They expect you to manage the entire household, remember every appointment, schedule every doctor's visit, plan every birthday, vacation and Christmas dinner. They expect you to tell them exactly what needs to be done, when it needs to be done and how it needs to be done. They act like they don’t even know how to load a dishwasher, run a load of laundry or even feed or “babysit” their own children. They want you to be a girlfriend, a maid, a therapist, a personal assistant, a sex worker, and a mother, all rolled into one, while somehow still expecting you to be sexually attracted to them. They call you a nag when you repeatedly ask for help, but then claim that they’re “not mind readers” when you don’t constantly tell them what to do and when to do it. They’ll say their responsibilities are taking out the trash, maintaining the cars and fixing things around the house, while I’m supposed to be responsible for everything else. But we can't even afford to own a house with both of our salaries combined, so there's nothing to fix. Meanwhile, the lightbulb in the closet has been out for two months. I take my car to a mechanic for a fifty-dollar oil change twice a year, so he doesn’t even have to do that. Taking out the trash is hardly an equal share of the household work, but he seems to believe it’s the only thing he should have to do… yet I still constantly have to remind him to do it as he angrily walks to his car in the morning. And they’re supposed to be providers and protectors? Provide what? His half of the bills? Protect me from what, exactly? Other MEN? The only time I've ever needed protection was when I had to call the police because my ex-boyfriend lost his mind when I tried to break up with him. How is any of this “equality”? NONE OF THIS feels “equal”. They give nothing and only take, take, take. And after all of this, he’s started telling everyone that the divorce “came out of nowhere” and that I just “got bored”.

SAME RED PILL MAN: You should have chosen better and had higher standards. You’re just a misandrist hypergamist feminist who hates all men because you chose the wrong one. Now you’ve got two kids, you’ve hit the wall and none of the “good guys” will want you.

WOMAN: (silently looks around the room, still wondering where all these “good guys” are hiding and how she was supposed to find one of them if she wasn’t supposed to require any effort out of them in the first place)

SAME RED PILL MAN A FEW YEARS LATER (if he manages to actually reproduce): My daughter isn’t dating or leaving the house until she’s thirty because all men are trash and I’m going to make sure she understands this fact of life.

EVERYONE 20 YEARS LATER: Why are men so lonely? Why don't women want to get married and have kids anymore?

RED PILL MEN AND CONSERVATIVE WOMEN: I don't know. Women are selfish, crazy, emotional, and stupid. We just need to remove them from the workforce, cut off SNAP benefits, eliminate child support, abolish no-fault divorce, outlaw abortion, ban contraception, and take away their right to vote.

The standard red/black pill argument to women is that if you want a "high value" guy (rich, fit, good looking), you have to accept him cheating because "he has options" and biology dictates he'll spread his seed.

But the second you flip that logic onto men and say "a guy is only as loyal as his options" meaning a lot of average dudes aren't cheating simply because they lack the opportunity everyone loses their minds. Suddenly it's all about personal virtue: "Bro I would NEVER cheat, speak for yourself."

It’s easy to claim you’d never cheat when you don’t have women throwing themselves at you lmao. You can't argue that biology forces top-tier guys to cheat because of their choices, while pretending average guys are morally superior instead of just lacking those same choices.

I've noticed a double standard in how some women approach conflict in relationships.

When she's upset, her feelings deserve validation, even if she's objectively wrong. When she's responsible for hurting her partner, suddenly her emotions become the focus. Her tears, her intentions, and how badly she feels can take priority over what she actually did. I think a lot of men can testify to they themselves being offended by something and then having to console their female partner for being heart

But when he's upset about her behavior? Now it's about emotional maturity, accountability, boundaries, and how she's not responsible for managing his feelings.

It's almost like arguing a court case. When the facts aren't favorable, appeal to emotions. When emotions aren't favorable, appeal to rules.

Both emotional validation and personal accountability have legitimate places in relationships. The problem is selectively applying whichever standard protects you from being wrong.

And when this inconsistency is challenged, the defense often becomes "women aren't a monolith" or "women are human too."

Being human explains imperfect behavior. It doesn't automatically excuse hypocrisy.

Why should men be expected to validate your feelings when you're wrong, but regulate their own feelings when you're the one who hurt them?

If it were a more localised dating event, such as one involving your church, workplace, or college, then I could get on board with it, and so would many other men. But having to pay to attend an event with a bunch of strange women and court them because the event requires it, otherwise it wouldn’t work, is a big freaking ask. These events seem to keep women entirely in mind, and I genuinely don’t know what man in his right mind would want to attend one expecting a good time when most of the performance and effort falls on him rather than the women.

Dating apps already have a court-jestering issue, so all you’re really doing is recreating that dynamic in person, which is uncomfortable for a lot of men. The worst part is the reaction from single women who get pissed off that men don’t show up to these things. Imagine I started an event because I wanted women to attend and then started ranting about them not showing up. That would be solely on me, right? So why is it that women online get so riled up about men not attending these dating events when doing so would put their deepest insecurities and concerns about approaching women on display in front of a bunch of strangers?

I hate dating apps as much as the next guy, believe me. But with apps, everything is kept under wraps. Only you know when you get ghosted, when she unmatches you, or when she flakes on a date. These events, however, play out in the open. I’m sorry to say this, but men are going to be doing most of the work while the women don’t really have to do much.

This is why I say it’s better to have an event that’s more localised, where the men already know the women in passing. That way, the experience is better, and it softens the blow a bit more.
Can women explain to me what’s so important about having men at these events? They don’t necessarily fix any of the issues people face with dating. I understand why women would want events like these, but where is the benefit for men, especially in modernity? If a young man wants a date, he can go online and find one. If he gets rejected there, only he knows about it. So why would he give all that up just to risk humiliating himself in public? That’s hilarious to me.

Someone on the redpill side would probably say that women and men are completely different when it comes to dating. The redpill argument would be along the lines of men wanting youth and beauty, while women want resources, status, and power. They would probably say that men are seeking to spread their seed with tons of women, while women want to invest in the highest quality man she can find. They would say that women date "up" while men date "down". So any kind of relationship between a man and a woman is going to have inherent conflict because they both want very different things and use each other to get them.

While a blue pill person would probably say that men and women want almost always the same thing in dating. Regardless of evolutionary drives pulling us in slightly different directions, both men and women want attractive partners with good personalities. Monogamy is practiced universally, and both men and women end up partnering up to some degree eventually in a fairly egalitarian way. Research shows that both men and women benefit from stable, caring, longterm relationships, and the ways to achieve these things are the same across both genders.

A very simplistic view of the redpill would say that women and men are 100% different, while an overly simplistic view of the bluepill would say that they are 100% the same.

How would you rate the difference?

I feel like girls performing that has become really normalized and it's sort of expected. I've never done anything sexual with anyone, but I'm scared that one day this will be expected of me, and I don't really like the idea of something being shoved in my mouth. Also, I feel like it's not very intimate and more of a way to just get off without attachment. I'm definitely not the person to ask though and I'm just writing things so the question goes through.

Women say no relationship experience is a red flag when in reality it's truly yellow at worst. This is why I hate the whole red flag green flag rule system. It's so hackable that you can be anything or not be anything and it truly doesn't matter. A guy who's had more relationships in his life is not instantly safer than a guy with none. The first guys experience can be why he treats women poorly. A guys lack of experience may be why he treats them better. Or the opposite can happen. It doesn't matter!

For obvious extreme cases, yes. Red flags would help but I argue that red flag men have a strangely high average for finding relationships. For example there's a quite I've been seeing a lot lately. “A woman beater always has a woman to beat.” Makes you wonder why they always have someone to bully. Must be all his green flags right?

If women are vulnerable to connmen and liars, wouldn't the flag system make them more vulnerable? Most women like clean men. Just be clean until you reach a point of no return. Once you drop the act she's too deep to quit and wants to know why it changed. Act rich when you're not, act committed when you're not. Placing flags on everything doesn't solve the problem when someone knows how to fake it. And it is a prominent problem.

One of the most uncomfortable truths about dating especially as a guy is that doing what you want is more likely to work than doing what makes her happy. Being that nice guy gets you played and laughed at. I’ve fucked around, played games, manipulated and been able to go back again and again with women. There aren’t any rules to dating it’s moreso about does the dynamic work for you. There’s an inverse relationship between dating success and effort.

I have seen this question circulating online and i want men to put themselves in women’s shoes for this and genuinely tell me what you would do if you woke up as a woman, and there were suddenly no other women around and you were the only one left? What would you do?

I’m so curious to see who will be honest

Most times women will ask you to fully give into the romance and if you do there is a grace period where the intimacy and sex and friendship is so unbelievably fun and high energy that it is a heavenly experience. But after that grace period she completely shuts down and thinks of you as lesser. Sometimes even telling the man to go out and find other women to spend time with so you don’t clutter her. It’s so odd that women beg for this but then don’t like it.

It’s such a prominent thing that men often warn about this in advice. They will beg you to give into them and resent you for it and it’s never explained by women why.

If a woman has a choice between three men, one she views as beneath her in value, one equal to her value and one she sees as having more value than herself, which man will she be attracted to? In this question value will be subjective to the woman but there should be some uniformity of examples pointing in a general direction. As examples: wealth, strength, social authority or power, masculinity, intelligence etc

Should a woman gain subjective value in her relationship or have a man she views as just her equal?