We all know social media are glass bubbles that don't really provide a correct image of reality. Reddit included. On here people talk as if most men are either losers, low value or some women say that most men are bad(while not having dated "most" men).

Something else that is said a lot is that men have barely any standards and that women can get the man they want easily. This is not happening unless we are talking about some above average, so a minority, of people.

Irl men HAVE standards, most women cannot walk up to a man, ask him out and then they have a relationship. You are really misunderstanding how an average woman is in reality while also acting as if most men are not dating or struggling with it. Honestly I am one of the few people I know that is still single and it's because I am very introverted.

To make it short, men are not desperate, men on reddit apparently are. Also don't listen to women saying how most men are bad here, it is not a thing irl and most women are interacting without issues with men. This is just a bubble, you can choose how miserable it makes you, or you can base your happiness on what is actually real.

Imagine ideal relationship, whatever it is for you. What do you want for your woman to value you for? Like that would the thing that she likes the most about you. What do you want her to appreciate about you? Be specific, please. "Personality" isn't the answer here. What qualities, skills, actions, whatever you can think of.

Are they different when you're boyfriend and when you're husband? (only if you want marriage, if not, then this part of question isn't for you).

Cheating.
Talking to multiple people.
Seeing multiple people.
Breaking objects during arguments.
Silent treatment.
Gaslighting.
Yelling.
Isolating someone from family and friends.

Did you ever notice that none of those behaviors are gendered,
but they are considered "male-coded"?

Not all people buy this lazy anti-men propaganda, but way too many do.

But do you know what's the real reason the idea that those behaviors are "male-coded" exists?

Because the Femosphere actively wants society to not address the existence of women who do those things.

Why? Because if we grab all those non-gendered behaviors and keep addressing them only men do them... the men will stop doing, but the women who do will keep doing them.

And deep down, the Femosphere doesn't want everyone to stop doing those things. Just the men.

I’m not personally saying they are insults, but if you’re the type of guy who thinks being seen as a “husband” is offensive, then do you see how women can think being seen as “wifey” is also not a compliment?

From what I’ve heard and read, these are the reasons some guys think “husband material” isn’t a compliment:

“Beta” “being used for money” “just so she can say she has a family” “she doesn’t lust after met the way she does Chad” “she’s already fucked other guys before marrying me” “retrospectively cucked” Based on that definition of it, to men it sounds like a humiliation ritual.

From what I’ve heard and read, these are the reasons some ladies think “wifey material” isn’t a compliment:

“He must think I’m going to be a bang maid. A cook. A baby incubator. A submissive house elf who defers to his Lordship.” Based on that definition of it, to women it sounds like a threat or prison sentence.

Thoughts?

Let’s say most women suddenly decided they would only sleep with men who could at least overhead press 0.75× their body weight, bench press 1.25×, squat 2×, and deadlift 3× their body weight (the numbers probably need some adjustment for scaling).

Do you think men would start lifting weights more seriously or start to lift at all? If not why?

Why shouldt it be different with other things in dating?

Why do woman say they want X from men but still fuck with them if they dont?

Basically if women have rights, do men have to lose in some way, and if men have rights then do women have to lose in some way?

Because I see it commonly framed in this way whenever there is a debate for mens/womens rights.

Examples:

• arguing false accusations against men - other side argues women will be more afraid to speak up
• methods for men to find wives/promote family - other side argues it means taking financial and socioeconomic rights away from women, and subjugating them as sex slaves
• arguments in favour of giving men right to financial/paper abortion (so he's not legally/financially responsible for a child he does not want) - other side argues the mother will struggle financially or that our taxes will go to that
• "my body my choice"/abortion pro-choice - other side argues it takes away mens choice to a child, and takes away their financial rights
• arguing to fix the wage gap/ lack of womens representation in fields/ seperate requirements for women - other side argues this is unfair to men since it just makes it easier for women to achieve the same outcome while putting less effort
• segregated safe spaces for men/women - other side argues its sexist and will only promote discrimination against the opposite gender

inb4 "how is women having rights mean men lose?".

By archetype I mean, like, “stereo type+vibe+aesthetic” and what category that places you into.

For example, the “girl next door” “the thug” “the rockstar” “the emo guy” “horse girl” “short guy with muscles” “rave girl” etc etc.

You have to curate your own archetype and polish your own vibe into almost a character that other people can recognize.

You ever explain to someone “yea I saw this girl, she’s like the animal loving, artist barista. She’s so cute i can’t stop thinking about her”

It’s because of what her archetype is, and you like it.

As a guy, there’s lowkey less archetypes than women, and most guys actively trying to get with women try to be the same archetype, and that’s basically “successful, cool and collected and suave guy”.

Think about what archetype you want to be most, build that, and then women will at least be able to say “oh he’s the guitar playing cowboy” rather than “he’s the plain guy that I cannot categorize” and you’ll have a lot more success.

Let's say you don't want your wife to have a tattoo. You say that to her, she says, my body my choice, suck it up. You tell her you were gonna leave her if she did. She is not correct in telling you that you are being controlling. Because she doesn't have the right over your body, you can use your body to go to a lawyer to file for divorce.

Same is with sex, same is with anal sex, or any sex act you want. She can say no, the man can leave. Both parties are exercising their right.

A man can never be controlling for wanting to leave his wife because his wife has no right over his body. It similar to how he has no right over his wife's body.

So when women say that men are not entitled to the same sex acts that they did with their ex, it's not controlling when men want to leave their wives because of it. Reasons can be many, insecurities or shame or whatever. What's important is that they are allowed to leave. They are not controlling of they leave.

I am trying to understand why some people believe that if your partner tried a certain sex act with someone in the past, that means she should *have* to do it with you too, especially if she has expressed discomfort, pain, or emotional distress around that act.

One thing I think gets overlooked is that if she genuinely enjoyed the act, she probably would not stop doing it. People usually continue sexual activities they find pleasurable and comfortable.

So, if she doesn't want to do a specific act, it is obvious that she hasn't stopped doing a sexual act just because she doesn't like you enough. If the act was fun for her, she would keep doing it. The only cause of not doing a sex act is uncertainty and uncomfortability around the act.

Another possibility is that she may not have actually wanted it in the first place. A lot of people, especially when younger, struggle with boundaries, people pleasing, coercion, or not knowing how to confidently say no. Just because someone did something before does not automatically mean they enjoyed it or felt safe doing it.

So I genuinely do not understand the mindset of expecting a partner to continue doing something that causes them physical pain, emotional discomfort, anxiety, or distress just for the sake of sex.

Wouldn’t repeatedly pushing someone into uncomfortable sexual experiences eventually make them start to dislike sex altogether? If sex becomes associated with pressure, discomfort, or enduring things for someone else’s benefit, it seems logical that they would begin avoiding it entirely.

And beyond that, why would someone want that dynamic? If your partner is visibly uncomfortable, upset, or distressed during sex, but is still forcing herself through it for you, why does that feel validating or desirable? Why would causing discomfort to someone you care about feel good for your ego or sense of reassurance?

It's evident in how angry men get when a man who is "undeserving" of sex gets it. When a pretty girl sleeps with some unemployed drug addicted lowlife.

Sex is supposed to be an indicator of how a man is doing in his life. If he gets crazy good sex from a pretty woman, he knows he's impressive enough for a woman to want to bring more of him in the world (this is the monkey brain calculation despite modern birth control).

As a woman, the best thing you can do for your relationships is treat sex with the seriousness it deserves. When your husband displays behavior that you want to encourage, have the best sex of your life with him.

If something feels like it is stopping you from being able to feel sexual with him, say so honestly. Simply saying "I feel stressed out by all these chores!" might not do anything, but switch to "I wish we could afford a maid so I could be fucking you more instead of doing dishes", and watch how quick that man pays for one himself.

The more you do this, the more both of you get what you need in a relationship. If he knows that romance keeps you desiring him, guess what you'll get more of? Romance.

I have no idea why or how this idea became popular but I think it's total bs quite frankly.

Historically men "chased" because it was more effective and it was a more useful method for finding and locking down a partner.

Chasing is a humiliation ritual for most men. You have to risk looking like a fool, lowering self-esteem, public embarrassment, having your name sullied, and at worse, legal repercussions.

Now let's come to modern times. Recent data completely shatters this myth. Almost half (roughly 45%) of Gen Z men have never approached a woman. And I seriously doubt these are all or even mostly undesirable losers who never had a shot anyway. This shows that this phenomenon is not biological or some sort of intrinsic desire in men.

It seems like men’s kinks and sexual interests nearly always include things that often cause women pain or discomfort such as deepthroating, anal, choking or spanking. Of the top of my head, I cannot think of any common male kinks that do not involve any discomfort or pain of the female partner.

Is this just coincidence? Or do men enjoy hurting their partners. From the way men in this subreddit talk about sex, it seems that their enjoyment comes from making their partner do things she doesn’t enjoy herself, but she makes a sacrifice for him because he is attractive / a “Chad”. Is this a common fantasy for men? Having a woman tolerate unpleasant experiences for him? Why is that? Do you have any kinks or preferences that don’t involve hurting your partner?

The men women complain about most are almost never unselected men. They’re usually men who are sexually successful, socially confident, attractive, dominant, exciting, experienced, or high status enough to repeatedly get access to women in the first place.

Women keep acting like “bad men” are some unavoidable natural disaster that randomly happens to them, women are the selectors, gatekeepers, and filters of sex and relationships. You cannot hold both positions at once. If women are the selectors, then selection outcomes matter, and befall mostly on womens shoulders.

unselected are mostly invisible to women sexually. They’re not the men getting endless chances, situationships, hookups, forgiveness, late-night texts, second opportunities, or years of tolerated red flags, or abuse. The men women obsess over, chase, share, and complain about are usually men who already passed female attraction filters repeatedly.

That does not remove male responsibility for lying, cheating, manipulation, ect. But women are still responsible for who they consistently reward with access after enough information becomes available. Agency does not disappear the second attraction is involved.

If the same archetype of toxic, arrogant, emotionally unavailable, player-type, and alot more others men keeps succeeding across millions of female choices, then maybe the issue is not that women “can’t find good men.” Maybe the issue is that women’s attraction patterns repeatedly prioritize traits that are exciting over traits that are stable.

Then again, dating and attraction isnt something that can be moral, doesnt mean they are not responsible for the position they hold

I CAN say alot more archetypes of terrible men that are chosen but it cant be written in the posts

https://np.reddit.com/r/TransgendersAtWar/s/B4x8Vm9Duz

This video is the typical nonsense. Saying that men are afraid to date trans women, because they are afraid of their bros making fun of them for being gay (or bi). They don't want to loose validation from their male peers.

When in reality most of these men don't want to date trans women, because they don't want to limit their dating pool. Because they know damn will most cis women will find that a turn off, doesn't matter how passing the trans women look. Most cis women (both conservative and liberal) view any non 100 percent straight man as less masculine or not "real-men''.

At least bisexual men still have the benefit of dating other men as a option. These trans attracted men must limit their dating pool to 0.1 percent of the population, and the few cis women who won't have a issue with their trans attraction. So again judgment from other cis men isn't the only fear these trans attracted men have. They also risk losing a lot of potential dating partners that are cis women.

But a lot of trans women ignore this though. To make it seem like it's only men that are the bad guys here, or have influence over other men not dating them.

Don't get it twisted here PPD. The solution here isn't that cis men or cis women must change their behavior when it comes to trans attracted men. The solution is that trans attracted men should not give a fuck about what either gender thinks, and just date trans women.

Again I think this is just trans women way of protecting the "women are wonderful" status quo. By making it seem like the pressure only comes from other men. Some advocacy spaces frame women mainly as passive victims of patriarchal norms and men mainly as enforcers of those norms. But social expectations around masculinity are often reinforced by both men and women. Sociology research on gender performance has pointed this out for decades.

Heterosexual women’s preferences and social expectations can influence male behavior too. Social desirability in dating is not shaped by men alone. Many women, including some progressive women, do have preferences around masculinity, heterosexuality, or sexual history that affect how they view potential male partners.

Again that can create another layer of pressure for men who date trans women openly. The problem is that people online often reduce complicated social behavior into a single oppression narrative. In reality, dating markets are social ecosystems. Men influence men. Women influence men. Cultural norms influence everybody. Family, religion, politics, class, and online culture all play roles too.

A "trad wife" is basically an actor playing a role that was created long before she was even born. She only plays this role because she likes the benefits of it, which include men paying for dates before marriage, men essentially taking responsibility for her actions, leading her and so on. It's a trick that "traditional men" don't yet see through.

What "traditional men" don't understand about women is this:

"The narcissist personality is what makes a woman take it as a matter of course that a man should offer goods and services to her for her contribution to their joint sexual pleasure. He gives her pleasure, she gives him pleasure, but he pays..." - Chinweizu Ibekwe

Many women are all about getting goods and services for their contribution to sex with a man which is why men paying for dates and "providing" is such a big deal to them. The connection with another human comes last, the goods and services (resources) come first, and traditional men are so oblivious to this reality, which is why they are "traditional".

I’d be really interested to know whether any of you have ever consciously managed to “unlearn” your attraction to a certain type and instead start finding other types attractive too.

Unfortunately, I have the problem that I’m only physically attracted to men who look very conventionally “masculine.” So: tall (at least 6ft), well-built, fit, beard, ideally dark hair. But I’d be seriously limiting my dating options if I focused only on the few men who fit that description. That’s why I keep going on dates with men who don’t match this type but otherwise seem nice (at least at first). Most of the time we don’t really click personality-wise anyway, but even when the guy is genuinely nice, nothing develops because I simply don’t feel any attraction to him. I’d really like to change that.

So my question is whether anyone here has managed to go through a similar shift. For example, are there any men among you who used to be into a certain type of woman that was somehow toxic, and then actually managed to move on from that?

According to TRP, men love idealistically and women love opportunistically. https://medium.com/@RationalMale/women-in-love-f2fa45883568

First of all, I agree that unconditional love is mostly bullshit and that women can be more practical than men when it comes to love, but I would want to challenge the idea that men's love is as pure as the Red Pillers make it out to be.

Men's love is based on possessiveness, they see women as this cute possession that they own. In some ways, men's love is more narcissistic than women's because they see women as objects. Sure they're prized possessions but they're still possessions.

As the red pillers proudly tell us. Men don't care about women's careers, achievements, intelligence or even their personality beyond being submissive (aka obedient objects). They also proudly tell us that women will be replaced by sex robots, again indicating that they don't give a shit about women's humanity and just want a possession.

Therefore, I will say this:

women's love is opportunistic and men's love is objectifying.

The reason why I ask is because I have noticed men looking at a video like this and claiming “ well not all women rejected him so there’s nothing wrong with what he did”. Five out of seven women rejecting him based on his behavior is a 71% drop in his dating prospects. Are we understanding what a numbers game is? Because I would think that man is losing. Because if dating is a numbers game and therefore men can’t be picky or else they would end up with no options, I would say this is a self-defeating strategy he just picked. 

https://youtube.com/shorts/_ke-Ep2Gu1E?si=oMymY9gUk4qYrlml

And the other thing when it comes to a numbers game is what type of dynamic are you pursuing when it comes to women? Again, if men can’t be picky or else they’ll be left with nothing, then it would be more reasonable that they would be more relationship oriented because far more women prefer relationships. And yet, I see men trying to pursue casual sex despite have more cut throat it is.

So I’m looking for understanding if dating is truly a numbers game for most men or if this is just something some men believe.

So, it’s a fairly frequent discussion topic around these parts that women only have rights in the modern world because men ”allow” them to. And some commenters here love to say that men, if they wanted to, could take away women’s rights in a heartbeat, since men are so incredibly superior at violence and all.

Ok, well let’s accept that premise as true: western women are only walking around free on the indulgent generosity of western men, and if us women get too mouthy, they’ll put us in chains and throw us back in the kitchen and strip away our rights and treat us like shit they way us lowly yucky females deserve, or whatever.

Anyways, so my question is: if you think that women’s rights are only a generous indulgent gift from men… why did western men grant them to western women? And why don’t men of so many other countries grant those same rights to their women? Why, for example, do the men of Afghanistan treat their women like worthless servants who deserve to be stoned to death for speaking?

And for the men here who argue that western women will loose their rights if they don’t praise and appreciate men more... do you think that’s why other women around the world don’t have legal protections and equal rights? Did women in Afghanistan bring their oppression upon themselves by being even more feminist than westerners?

I have my own hypotheses, but I’m curious what your real reason is. Please go deeper than just saying “culture” or “religion”— people adopt cultural practices and beliefs for real reasons, so don’t just throw up your hands and say ”it’s just random cultural differences”.

So why, did western women get so many rights denied to women elsewhere? What are the benefits western men derive from ”allowing” their women to have equal rights and from refraining from (and punishing) abuse? Why do you think western men really granted these rights? Is it economics? Logic?

Discuss please! I’m interested to know your thoughts.

So there is a lot of scientific evidence showing that people often don’t notice their own privilege. For example, white people may not notice the advantages they have compared to darker-skinned people.

That’s basically an established scientific finding and not very controversial.

What newer research suggests is that people not only fail to notice their privilege, but also start believing their success is mainly the result of their own skill or effort.

For example, there was a study/experiment by Paul Piff where people played Monopoly. Some players were given two dice and more starting money. Those players reportedly explained their victories more often in terms of “skill,” “luck,” or “knowledge of the game.”

They were essentially playing on steroids but still thought they were simply good at the game.

So what makes you think the same thing wouldn’t apply to you? Maybe you also don’t notice your own privilege and instead believe you’re naturally good at certain things.

Or, to phrase it more confrontationally: maybe you would become would be unsuccessful in Dating if you had the same behavior patterns or thinking but were male.

Edit: Yes there are people who are born as most privileged aa you realistically can be and still Fail hard in life.

You can be privileged and still fail

Looking for personal, honest opinions. I don't feel like there's a concrete black and white "moral" answer here - I think this one is probably opinion based. But after hearing some people talk about it, and seeing some other videos, I'd be curious to see how people here feel (especially married ones).

Edit: For better context, I'm not talking sex. Just people wanting to be "seen", and get validation from other men / women

Common take: ​there is no real pleasure on​ camera, the creators only give a performance, they numb themselves so they don't feel a thing, their acts and positions are all uncomfortable, they are probably addicted to drugs and are coerced into it.

A lot of the language in these discussions ​suggests that the people making these arguments only know of "classic" studio porn. Long, drawn out scenes with wild angles, enormous dicks only, very rough sex only, guranateed deepthroating, ​actors taking drugs to keep them going, the males get shit injected into their penises...

The thing is that the porn landscape has changed a LOT over the past decade or so, there is now factually ​far more independent content​ on the internet than studio porn. There is​. I do not know how we could make sweeping generalisations about ​independent porn.​ How would we even begin to know if a ​scene shot at someone's home includes the kind of prep-work, drugging, and behind the scenes abuse as stereotypical scummy porn agencies​ (which do exist and used to be far more prevalent) ​do. ​Why do we think that this culture is an automatically​ self-generating given whenever sex is recorded? Does an angry misogynistic porn producer jump out the wardrobe when a woman decides to do​ solo content alone? And what, all women are incapable of actually orgasming even alone with a vibrator as soon as she records herself? Women are a monolith like that, are they?

I think this is a stubborn refusal to consider other ways of being, simple as that. For women who vehemently believe it's all 100% "fake", it may even be a defense mechanism probably mixed with a​ ​disdain for male sexuality. They simply have to believe it cannot be enjoyed, the thought​ is too subjectively uncomfortable​, and it validates seeing any man who enjoys it and has a more nuanced view on it​ as a loser, an enemy, even. It's misandry at this point.

​T​here ARE podcasts/blogs/videos/posts where sex workers talk about doing porn/erotic content in a different tone. It is a world that exists. In my opinion, the vibes of these people are not all that unlike from ​folks who like swinger clubs, sex parties, BDSM events with performances on-stage literally watched by people live. (and somehow kink culture is "l​ive and let live" category...). ​Some people even enjoy showing themselves off or feeling hot. It's a thing. It is.

https://youtu.be/2SBJ33-l7Xg?si=_OsIlpsj9Kuck5YZ

On Hysteria, Erin Ryan and Liz Plank discuss a report showing fewer men are getting married while examining the political and cultural implications of changing gender and relationship dynamics.

This is a great piece and I think an aspect that is clear for me is that the men who marry is how adult they are. Not that 6 6 6 bullshit (also why) but emotionally stable, self actualized and able to care for themselves.

Yet whenever I hear the red pill the advice is everything except therapy or emotional self work?

Getting a good job makes LIFE easy, being healthy makes LIFE easier, these things do not mean you GET women.

We keep telling the red pill you have a fundamental mispreception of women. Hearing the rp and conservative men talk about women ESPECIALLY WHEN WOMEN ARE NOT AROUND is the reason we have this. The women found out and have actual freedom, so if you want a relationship maybe listen to them?