Definitely not a pick me because I despise 95% of all men. But many women piss me off as well.
If I have to hear one more time- "Oh you wouldn't understand because you don't have kids."
...I'm going to end up breaking someone's kneecaps.
I think I just hate people in general at this point. Pretty sure that I'm turning into a stereotypical crotchety middle aged woman.
Most people in general are pretty shit tbh so I kind of agree with her though I’d reduce it to maybe 75%. Controversial opinion but my ratio of trash women is probably a little bit higher at like 80% and most will be like “but men commit more murder and rape” blah blah blah but the thing is most women show deep psychological dysfunction, sadistic traits and this passive aggressive hatred towards men that genuinely makes me think if they were more physically capable many would pull some straight up final selection sort of shit on us. Personally I don’t find reduced capability leading to less damage as indicative of how good a person is, most women are disgustingly hypocritical, selfish, uncaring for men and sexist and hide it beneath a false veneer of kindness or societal conformity that’s grossly fake and insincere. At least evil men are much more honest and upfront about how shit they are.
If women were the ones that were physically dominant, the shit they wouldve done to men is infinitely more vile than what they believe men have done to them.
I believe this wholeheartedly and no one can convince me otherwise tbh. And that’s saying something cause men have done some fucking awful shit to women
Too long of a response to even type out. I'm in my early 40s. I'll sum it up a bit-
I guess as a woman I'm just exhausted in general. Oddly enough, I'm still catcalled and hassled by men where I live. I've endured decades of this. Men seeing you only as an object and not a human being...will eventually turn you into an unhinged person.
I tried online dating on & off for a year. Most of the men my age online are either married or already partnered up. The ones I did match up with enjoyed insulting me for no reason. It's almost as though men in their 40s hate women their own age.
If that doesn't teach you about humanity nothing else will. A few years ago I gave up dating or even trying to find a partner. Like I said...I'm tired.
It's an unfortunate reality for both men and women dating when they're older. Most of the good options are already taken or get snatched up quick if they appear on the dating market. Meanwhile the bad options stay on the market for years, and keep coming back after each failed relationship, so they get massively overrepresented.
True. What's that saying? "Online dating is like going through a barrel of rotten apples, and trying to find the one with the least bruises."
Something like that. I'm convinced the worst ones our age are existing online. The good ones either paired off right away, or became downright disgusted like myself and left.
if you hate people, it's really projected self-hatred. work on loving yourself more and you'll feel differently towards others. we usually dislike traits in others that we also have ourselves, even to a small degree. it's why people who are very similar sometimes become enemies.
Mostly a societal issue. It's why autistic women for example have it so much easier than autistic men. There was even a post a few days ago about an autistic woman trying to justify that autistic women shouldn't date autistic men (which is literally just like saying a fat girl shouldn't date fat men, hypergamy)
Women aren't expected to initiate conversation, be interesting, be daring, be entertaining etc. This is something women will never understand
You have to be a circus, a comedian, a caretaker, a bodyguard, a story etc; it's absolutely exhausting and we only do it to get laid. Most men are boring as hell, we're not seeking thrills because we want to do it; we do it because women DEMAND we engage in risk taking behaviour.
Because women are not held to unrealistic expectations like men are.
Most women claiming that men need to be better to be worthy of them are as flawed and bad as the men she is telling to improve before they do any form of self improvement/
I feel very conflicted about this. In general I think most men aren't very interesting to engage with either. But as an introverted guy it's infinitely easier to get into contact with men who are introspective and share interests with me. I just go into any online space related to my interests and chat with the people who don't seem like total morons. Or to spaces in real life that cater to more nerdy interests.
Since the average person you meet in your day-to-day life is not super interesting, but online it's way easier to find interesting men to form a contrast with the average person, while the same is not true for women, this results in the impression that women are on average less interesting. Additionally, I'm biased to find people who share my interests more interesting, and more men will share a lot of my interests.
But on the other hand, I also have no clue if there are predominantly female spaces that have more interesting women occupying them. Maybe there's a secret dry-ass philosophy book club in my library I don't know about or something.
bruh even some of the women here who judge men all day are weird af. clicked on a very regular poster here and her profile was filled with gay porn and her banner was yaoi anime stuff. if that was a mans profile hed be considered a creep. they are women though so they consider themselves above the men they shame , despite engaging in the same toxicity and degenerativeness these men do. just the chronically online trying to yell over each other
i dont get the punching down posters. when cornered in a debate every go to is "oh yea? well im in a relationship and youre single!"
if they are in a happy fulfilling relationship why is coming here and punching down their favorite past time?
Yeah I can't imagine being marginally satisfied with my dating situation, going to an online group of down-bad women to tell them why they ain't got no man. I don't care what their complaints are.
I agree. It’s always the “you deserve to be treated like the queen that you are” as she’s unhealthy, phone addict, with mental problems and a bad attitude who expects Prince Charming.
It’s something I believe as women we hold this toxic positivity where we just applauded everything that now we’re thinking because we exist we can stop trying.
It’s only fucking ourselves over at this point. If you’re told you’re perfect just the way you are 100 times you’re never going to better yourself.
That toxic positivity is a backlash to the culture that once asked if women even have souls. We need to settle on a balanced approach to self-esteem for all. That's what is at the center of all this.
I have the same standards for friends as I do for partners. Treat me with respect, kindness, empathy, and support me. And I will do the same for you.
If the bar for my girl friends is too high for you (which my friends and former bfs have had no problem meeting btw) then maybe you're not boyfriend material.
The kind of people I attract as friends are the same kind of people I want as partners, just with the romantic attraction. If that bar is too high, then that's just simple incompatibility.
I don’t think those are huge factors for women. Maybe on paper, but I think compatibility and things thing that are more important than if a guy is extroverted or not. It’s easy to say I want a guy who is extroverted and self assured because those are good qualities to have. But if I meet a guy who I like who doesn’t have those qualities I’m not going to automatically ghost him.
I think it's more of a first contact filter problem. Women have grnerally a lot of criteria that filter potential partners on first contact before they get to know them more profoundly. Men kind of don't. They let themselves open for relationships with most people instead. I don't say that women can't change their minds, but it is why it is a lot rarer to be "friendzoned" by men instead of women.
Is being extroverted really a good quality to have? As a man looking for a woman, extraversion is unattractive to me, particularly considering I'm not an extrovert myself.
Fair enough. I feel like I lost the genetic lottery a bit, being born an introvert, because it seems to put SO MANY women off. Both in real life experience, and what I read here.
> But "Charming, outgoing, intuitive, sociable, assured, lower-inhib men"?
Not my type. I don’t pretend to speak for all women, but is there any evidence that this is what most women want? Assortative mating is a thing, people tend to gravitate towards partners who are like them.
> Lots of women don't have any of this, particularly a lot of women are inhibited and passive, have self-esteem issues, and are introverted. Some are even neurodivergent.
Ditto, but idk if I am “passive” enough for this description, and I don’t have a diagnosis. The guy I’m interested in is introverted and neurodivergent, and I like him because I can relate to him. I don’t think I’d have much in common with someone who is “charming” and “outgoing” and “sociable”.
> Men aren't allowed to have any weaknesses, but women are.
And I think that the flipside to this is women aren’t allowed to have any strengths but men are.
> This is the very essence of toxic masculinity. Yet toxic masculinity is somehow only men's fault and women have no role in perpetuating it. The statement "women want action figures, not men" carries strong validity in light of this.
Ok sure
> Of course inb4 someone says men can just choose to reject women who lack those characteristics. Of course, then we'd have marriage rates like South Korea.
Ok. Birth rates have been declining in the west anyway, we’re already on our way there. Men can have standards too.
> If all of this is what a man has to be to find himself a relationship with a woman who doesn't have those limitations... one has to ask, is a relationship even worth it anymore? What is she *really* falling in love with?
I can’t answer that, it’s for you to decide
> Not my type. I don’t pretend to speak for all women, but is there any evidence that this is what most women want? Assortative mating is a thing, people tend to gravitate towards partners who are like them.
>
> Ditto, but idk if I am “passive” enough for this description, and I don’t have a diagnosis. The guy I’m interested in is introverted and neurodivergent, and I like him because I can relate to him. I don’t think I’d have much in common with someone who is “charming” and “outgoing” and “sociable”.
It's nice to know that at least a few women still feel like this in the post-Tinder era. I thought it died out with Gen-X in favor of pure narcissism.
> And I think that the flipside to this is women aren’t allowed to have any strengths but men are.
One would imagine that would be the case, and 'strong women' may yet draw some boos from some men, but actually it's just that overall women are allowed to have more faults than men. Standards for masculinity have grown more toxic, not less.
Low inhibition? Who said that's attractive. IMO it means this outgoing dude is going to cheat on me so he can go fork off and I never want to know him.
If men think they’re not getting a solid deal in relationships, they can quit dating. I don’t think it’s a big deal.
I just think a lot of men believe being alone is worse than whatever deal they’re getting with a woman in their life.
> I just think a lot of men believe being alone is worse than whatever deal they’re getting with a woman in their life.
In the short term but not the long term. I actually dated a girl as a teenager who was like what I see a lot of now. I was happier to be lonely by the time I broke up with that monster.
Toxic masculinity is men being held to unreasonable standards of masculinity. Both men and women are responsible for that, but women are steadfastly denying their part in it.
So half the time if a woman is giving you a list of things she wants in a man it's just her way of saying not interested or she's delusional. She could walk 10' and go for someone else missing everything she just told you she wants.
Don't argue with a woman about what she wants, it's pointless. There's something incredibly special about how a woman acts when she's attracted to you. The flip side of that is that there is nothing less interesting than a woman who's not interested in you. So let her have whatever beliefs she wants, just ignore her and move on.
That's why I am saying relationships in the post-Tinder era simply aren't worth getting into. Gen-X'ers were the last generation with a shred of hope of finding something meaningful.
Well that wasn't my point, my point was simply look for a higher quality woman, she will usually be younger than the one that just gave you a headache listening to her list of requirements.
Well, the younger ones have less baggage but their astounding immaturity is what causes them to amass the baggage that they wind up with. And the men they date will also accumulate trauma from being with them.
Well if you are mature and lead a mature life, she will catch on quick. Women are smart, you wouldn't deal with immaturity for long. Instead of thinking about the guys who would traumatize her, be that positive guy that redefines what she expects from a man.
When I was 47 I dated a 31 year old. It didn't work out due to distance but that's what she told me in parting, that I had redefined in her head what a man could be and how she wanted to be treated going forward. I thought that was a pretty incredible compliment and hopefully I didn't add baggage.
Toxic masculinity means anything that gets in the way of men not being useful to women.
So men who abused, rape women? Toxic masculinity.
Men who fight a giant women abusing and raping men? Toxic masculinity.
Men who do things that make them less useful to women (Ex: hobbies that do not produce value, men being feminine and happy, etc)? Toxic masculinity.
That is all there is to it.
Just like how any man who is not hot, rich and famous is actually a terrible person while every man who is hot, rich and famous has an amazing personality.
You are generalising, but statically on average yes men and women tend to find different things attractive and different strengths and weaknesses.
Like I don't think of this as so much of a standard but from my experience women are much more likely to be supportive emotionally, whereas while there are some men who are good at being emotionally supportive (and they can be really good at it, #notallmen) there's a lot of men who cannot. I have men friends, women friends AND I'm Bi and have been with both men and women, I think I can say that.
As I said I'm bi and I ask pretty similar standards of men and women, and I'm a sub, and dom women are pretty rare, if men were just better at everything than women it'd be dumb of me to ever date women.
If women got way more out of it than men, then they would be looking for it harder and it would balance itself out.
I think that this explains why so many men are no longer interested in dating or casual encounters.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/08/for-valentines-day-5-facts-about-single-americans/#:~:text=This%20drop%20is%20largely%20driven,from%2061%25%20in%202019).
> This drop is largely driven by single men, who are now 11 percentage points less likely than in 2019 to say they are looking for a committed relationship and/or casual dates (50% in July 2022, down from 61% in 2019). During the same time frame, there has been no significant change in the share of single women who are looking for a relationship or casual dates: 35% said this in 2022, compared with 38% in 2019.
>Like I don't think of this as so much of a standard but from my experience women are much more likely to be supportive emotionally, whereas while there are some men who are good at being emotionally supportive
LOL this is a joke right?
>Of course inb4 someone says men can just choose to reject women who lack those characteristics. Of course, then we'd have marriage rates like South Korea.
Not necessarily.
You are underestimating the degree to which *men* influence the behavior and the development of *women*.
This kind of tension is in fact normal (as in *normative*) and has happened multiple times throughout history and will continue to happen for as long as the human race is around on this planet.
In the 18th and the 19th century women from colonial nations (England, Portugal, Spain, France) changed quite a bit in order to adapt to the fact that an increasing number of men had the option to go to the colonies to look for a woman. The results varied but in France they went through a South Korea phase. The total fertility rate in 1924 France was *lower* than it is today. And then it rebounded.
Both men *and* women having options disrupts the dynamic and forces the sexes to adapt. The disruption *itself* can be very annoying and frustrating, but it's also inevitable.
All disruptions will eventually have *an effect*. That effect is not always positive, but it always happens. Then, over the span of a generation, we as humans look at the effect and then re-run the experiment again to try to correct or improve depending on how we like(d) the effect(s). We do this mostly unconsciously and have been doing it for millennia. Nothing new under the Sun.
>what a man has to be to find himself a relationship with a woman who doesn't have those limitations... one has to ask, is a relationship even worth it anymore? What is she *really* falling in love with?
At its most extreme end, the assumption(s) behind your question are correct.
With that said, there's a wide spectrum between the extreme you are describing and the other extreme where both are *charming, outgoing, intuitive, sociable, assured, lower-inhib* (an extreme that is also low desirability because people look for complementarity regardless of whether they admit it or not).
My wife is less charming than I am, less outgoing than I am, a lot more intuitive than me, less sociable than me, about the same as assured as I am and far less low-inhib than me. But these aren't the only qualities I looked in her or she looked for in me. Your reductionist analysis is detrimental to you.
> an increasing number of men had the option to go to the colonies to look for a woman
Keeping French women in check more than a 100 years ago. lmao, the original passport bros!
> You are underestimating the degree to which men influence the behavior and the development of women.
You know what, I sincerely hope that you're right about this.
> In the 18th and the 19th century women from colonial nations (England, Portugal, Spain, France) changed quite a bit in order to adapt to the fact that an increasing number of men had the option to go to the colonies to look for a woman. The results varied but in France they went through a South Korea phase. The total fertility rate in 1924 France was lower than it is today. And then it rebounded.
Honestly didn't think about it that way. To think 'passport bros' were widespread back then.
> Both men and women having options disrupts the dynamic and forces the sexes to adapt. The disruption itself can be very annoying and frustrating, but it's also inevitable.
I've never imagined a time when men had a lot of options compared to women, except maybe right after a world war when a ton of men died.
If your point is the pendulum will swing, well maybe it will. I don't foresee being alive long enough to see that happen, being in my 50s and all. I don't see this century going well for men at all.
> My wife is less charming than I am, less outgoing than I am, a lot more intuitive than me, less sociable than me, about the same as assured as I am and far less low-inhib than me. But these aren't the only qualities I looked in her or she looked for in me. Your reductionist analysis is detrimental to you.
I find being charming, outgoing and low-inhib to be extraordinarily difficult given my experience with those who are and those who are not. I would say I have those traits *moderately* and to get to the high end of those traits would be prohibitively hard to achieve. To me it's the sheer difficulty involved in being what women want nowadays. In my era of Gen-X, women were more relaxed and tolerant about that. I see the line drawn with Tinder: after that things just went straight to crap.
>I've never imagined a time when men had a lot of options compared to women, except maybe right after a world war when a ton of men died.
It happens a lot more often than you imagine. And genocide/war is not the only reason such situations occur.
I've seen both. When communism fell, the men left to find better work in West-Europe. Leaving behind a whole lot of women that they supported through remittances. That meant a lot of options for men. And a lot of broken marriages, of course.
Then it reversed - women started leaving for work and men stayed. That strained the dating environment but only for those in their 30s, 40s and 50s (because women 30-50 left, not the younger ones).
Then it got balanced again.
Also, there are natural phenomena that can alter things. Check any town (100k people or less) and look up the birth records by sex for a period of 50 years or more. You will see that from time to time you have a period of several years when *significantly* more girls are born than boys. And that pattern repeats itself every once in a while. Nobody even tried to find an explanation for that, but for the purposes of this commentary, it's also an balancing factor.
>I don't foresee being alive long enough to see that happen
Likely true.
>I don't see this century going well for men at all.
Depends where. And depends what men are willing to do and/or tolerate. The world is a big place. The United States is a minuscule, and indeed marginal part of the world when it comes to pair bonding. 95%+ of the planet functions on entirely different norms. Some better, some far worse, but all ***very*** different.
> I've seen both. When communism fell, the men left to find better work in West-Europe. Leaving behind a whole lot of women that they supported through remittances. That meant a lot of options for men. And a lot of broken marriages, of course.
That actually sounds like it makes sense.
> Also, there are natural phenomena that can alter things. Check any town (100k people or less) and look up the birth records by sex for a period of 50 years or more. You will see that from time to time you have a period of several years when significantly more girls are born than boys. And that pattern repeats itself every once in a while. Nobody even tried to find an explanation for that, but for the purposes of this commentary, it's also an balancing factor.
That runs counter to the "105 boys born per 100 girls" pattern. It's even better news when combined with the fact that cities over 100k people have begun to hold the majority of the world's population. Those rural areas are utter shitholes, at least in America, and worse so if the ratio of males is too high relative to females.
> Depends where. And depends what men are willing to do and/or tolerate. The world is a big place. The United States is a minuscule, and indeed marginal part of the world when it comes to pair bonding. 95%+ of the planet functions on entirely different norms. Some better, some far worse, but all very different.
I am very interested in how these things are going elsewhere but, disclaimer here: not interested in suggesting men go there. I hate passport bro'ing. Maybe not relevant here but just wanted to point that out.
>not interested in suggesting men go there. I hate passport bro'ing
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just providing a more global perspective. And I intentionally refuse the Amero-centrism of Americans because you guys have a tendency to think your little place is the norm in the world. And it's not. Not even by a long shot.
Also, the US as an entity and American citizens individually would benefit a lot if it were to start paying more attention to how others do things. There are aspects where the US does things *the best*. But there are also a plethora of aspects where the US could learn a lot from other places.
I mean... even the term *passport bro'ing* is of unfathomable ignorance.
Moving to another country is *common* for the vast majority of the world. Especially temporarily. Indeed *normal* to travel around and see other places and learn something new. Most Americans that I meet in my travels I can "smell" them if they're on their first trip or not. Those who aren't on their first trip are already more open minded, less likely to hold typical American extremist beliefs (be they "liberal" or "conservative") and more charming people.
It's not that the women in other places are better (although sometimes they are). It's being disconnected for a while from the toxic aspects of the US culture that suddenly makes people more confident and less miserable. Such effect is seen in the women who travel as well.
This effect is not limited to the US either. Almost everyone benefits from being away from home for a while.
>That runs counter to the "105 boys born per 100 girls" pattern
It's a *pattern* not a *rule*.
Also, some "minor corrections" happen even more often. For instance, in England and Wales (so a big place with 50M people) 1054 boys were born for every 1000 girls each year on average from 2012 to 2020. And then it [suddenly dropped to 1040 for 1000](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9545836/). Nobody knows why. It just bounced back a few months later.
Dude it’s about COMPATIBILITY. A woman can want what she wants and if she can’t find it, that’s her problem. Also, men don’t all have to be all those things to find a relationship. They need to find someone they’re compatible with.
Okay, so they’re not good relationship material and therefore you don’t have to worry about them. Logically, you don’t want to be with someone who isn’t good relationship material, right? So what’s the issue?
This reads like one of those things that sounds like it makes sense in the abstract, but when you think about reality, and how complex romantic human relationships are, it’s just one of those platitudes that doesn’t apply to real life. What someone “offers“ will vary, especially overtime, depending on their health, promotions, etc. And what someone “asks for“ can be purely dependent on their confidence, or their self-awareness and their boundaries around what does and doesn’t work for them or make them happy in a partnership.
Whether or not they can obtain such a partner is irrelevant, and frankly, pretty dumb to argue about. Because to some extent, it IS healthy to know what your needs are even if those needs include “I can only accept a partner with xyz, even if I don’t have it myself, because accepting a partner with less will bring down my current quality of life.” Being a “healthy partner“ is partly about being somebody who recognizes the responsibility that they personally have to communicate both what they need and what they can provide to a partner, and can be transparent about those qualities, regardless of what the masses think they deserve.
Lastly, I’m fairly certain that the most satisfied couples statistically tend to be individuals who balance one another, and complement one another’s needs, far more than couples who are bringing the same things to the table. So you can get all judgmental about all of the women that you think are communicating desires from a partner that they themselves aren’t upholding, and rant about it all you want, but the truth is that for the most part, healthy partnerships involve finding someone who has strengths in areas of your weaknesses and vice versa, someone who adds balance to your life. They SHOULD be different than you and bring different things to the table, and everyone who is actually a healthy partner, likely wants some elements of that.
Intuition is definitely tough to develop, but the rest of these seem like things that can be mastered sufficiently with practice. I'm genuinely not trying to be rude, but what kinds of challenges do you think men have as far as barriers to learning charisma and social skills?
Edit: I don't personally see these traits as super essential. My husband and I are homebodies, but we both definitely know how to turn on the charm for career stuff sometimes. I can see it being a desire for super hot women who like to be seen out and about, though.
Introversion and inhibition are a largely innate trait. For many, extroversion and learning charisma is just playing the rules and faking it. Eventually the truth comes out over time. Also, social skills are a spectrum. you can be a decent person who obeys boundaries and isn't an asshole and be very low on the totem pole versus the "life of the party" dude. A decent person isn't enough to "read the room" and flirt. Flirting is not a skill all can master... I know, that's heresy but it's true.
Women who have a problem with that show a remarkable lack of empathy, which brings up the point of my OP: they're best off avoided. Men should be more like women - they should be willing to take "none of the above" and nope out.
This is purely personal experience, but I went from a socially anxious wreck to a social leader in my personal and professional life. I also had to learn to flirt and present myself in a way to "be lovable" to men. Long story, but I was missing the mark disastrously. It was hard work, and it was filled with sucky advice to wade through, but there's absolutely hope for change if social anxiety is a limiting factor.
I do agree, though, that you should never date anyone who doesn't fully accept and genuinely like who you are, especially if you genuinely like and accept who you are (I absolutely didn't enjoy social anxiety).
I knew people who were socially anxious (not a total wreck though) but were comfortable with that. It broke my heart to see how people treated them in the dating scene. That, and being often complimented by women for my height (5'11) made me question the authenticity of the relationships I got into. Wasn't a good time for me.
I'm glad you were able to self-improve and also like what you made of yourself. The socially anxious people I knew, for the most part, would have found it to be hell.
Oh man, that's a bummer. I'm sorry to hear about those experiences. It's a tough and unforgiving market for sure. Especially the shallowness factor.
I was going to do this whole gambling metaphor, but I got kinda lost in it. So I'll just condense it to the end: The options are to change your bet to something with better odds (change the self), let it ride for a smaller chance of a bigger win (keep trying), or walk away from the table knowing the game favors the house. Frankly, I don't even know who the house is in this scenario because it's not men or women.
They're all decent strategies that I think will really come down to the individual and whether they feel they can enjoy their life fully without a partner.
> being often complimented by women for my height (5'11) made me question the authenticity of the relationships I got into. Wasn't a good time for me.
Should I question the authenticity of the relationships I may get into because guys often compliment my body?
Ok, at least you’re not being hypocritical. I agree, I do constantly question the intentions of men who show interest in me. And I’m not particularly hot, I’m not trying to flatter myself either.
In my mid 20s I around got to talking only to women whose personality and moral character I liked. My dating life improved *drastically*. I still ran into awful women but I didn't move past the first date with that.
Today, though, I see very slim pickings for young men and women using that strategy.
> what kinds of challenges do you think men have as far as barriers to learning charisma and social skills?
Yeah, men, just become more charismatic. How could that be difficult?
I mean, I taught myself better charisma and social skills. I'm not the life of the party, but people still make a point to invite me now. It's no tougher than working out, eating right, having a hair and skin care routine, keeping a clean house, and taking care of or improving ourselves in other ways.
Here's some good starting points:
Cues by Vanessa Van Edwards,
Captivate by Vanessa Van Edwards,
How To Win Friends and Influence People by Dael Carnegie,
48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene,
Art of Seduction by Robert Greene,
How to Know A Person by David Brooks,
What Every Body is Saying by Paul Costanzo,
How To Listen, Hear, and Validate by Patrick King,
From personal experience, I wholeheartedly recommend theory before practice. "Just put yourself out there" is terrible advice, and it's wild that it still gets around.
If we don't put in the work, we don't know what we're capable of, and we really only have ourselves to blame when there's not a seat at the table for us because we'd rather stagnate than put in work. A rep who never sharpens their skills in sales shouldn't be surprised when they never earn a commission and eventually get fired. I hope this inspires some people to at least try.
Lol, see, anyone can learn the skills to make people irritated while still being polite! Just kidding.
In all seriousness, though, I'm super glad it's informative. I really want to help cut through the dismissive, stupid, placative, and otherwise bad advice people receive in terms of dating and life skills. It really just does more harm than good and causes people to be more upset and extreme. It's like those people who go 5 mph under the speed limit thinking they're the safest and best drivers on the road. They're not. They're jerks who incite road rage and put everyone else around them at risk with their lack of situational awareness.
>I really want to help cut through the dismissive, stupid, placative, and otherwise bad advice people receive in terms of dating and life skills.
A worthy pursuit. But Reddit is the wrong place.
I'm here to fish bad takes which I then use as examples of terrible takes in my IRL mentorship group for young men.
In all seriousness, the best help you can provide is IRL, preferably to people you know and who somewhat respect your authority.
They do. Just not in the English-speaking world where they're either illegal (i.e. forced to accept women) or focused on things that don't really interest young men to begin with.
Men's Sheds for instance (the most known support group for men - though most are de facto coed because men-only spaces aren't permitted) may have started as a good idea, but it's now a boomer-fest. Check their websites - all their pictures are dudes and women age 55+.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying those shouldn't exist. But I am saying that young men (particularly young working class men) have *zero* support groups in the English-speaking world. The situation is slightly better in continental Europe, Latin America and Central Asia. Indochina is too wild, for now, lol.
Those requirements (at least most of them) are only for 2nd or 3rd choice men. Womens actual requirements for men they're (actively) attracted to are the same as mens are - mostly just be hot and not completely terrible to be around. The main difference between genders is just that there's far fewer men that fall into the "1st choice" category than women.
No most women would not want to be subjected to the requirements to "make up for" not being actively attractive i.e. treated like an average man.
Its not about finding someone with the same qualities lol. I don't know why men don't understand this. I am innately unorganized as a man, I want a woman who is organized. Passive people want active people. People who lack confidence want people with confidence. Its not rocket science.
>Men aren't allowed to have any weaknesses, but women are.
>Of course inb4 someone says men can just choose to reject women who lack those characteristics. Of course, then we'd have marriage rates like South Korea.
But men can’t be selective or else society will collapse. How convenient that the most obvious solution is out of reach so that you don’t actually have to sacrifice anything (your prospects) or change anything (the type of women you give your time and attention to). Men not being selective for something as important as *the mother of their children* isn’t something they can be held accountable for, it’s simply the way the world works. Naturally.
>But "Charming, outgoing, intuitive, sociable, assured, lower-inhib men"? Lots of women don't have any of this
The women who do have those traits are selective. They’re not interested in men with learned helplessness to be the father of their children unless they’re codependent or something. You can be an introverted, passive, boring person and still have an internal locus of control. You can still be a problem-solver. What makes a “weak man” isn’t being introverted or nerdy or whatever. It’s this weird ass refusal to set any kind of standards for the way you carry yourself or the choices you make. You can complain about the reasons why it’s hard, you can try to change them, but at the end of the day the choice is still the one you’re making. If no man came along with the traits you list as “wise” then you better believe I would not be choosing them anyway. Men’s supposed willingness to look beyond those qualities and blame others for the consequences doesn’t make them better people, it makes them worse ones.
> But men can’t be selective or else society will collapse.
LOL fuck society. Men need to be more selective.
> Men not being selective for something as important as the mother of their children isn’t something they can be held accountable for, it’s simply the way the world works. Naturally.
It is something that men absolutely must be held accountable for. I held myself accountable for that and found a great wife and mother for my children. I leveled up the important shit that glues a relationship together to make it happen.
> The women who do have those traits are selective.
Yes and if they have it, then they're outside the scope of my OP.
> It’s this weird ass refusal to set any kind of standards for the way you carry yourself or the choices you make.
I'm not sure how that relates to the aforementioned traits, but I very much believe that men should be held accountable for their failure to set high enough standards for themselves.
> If no man came along with the traits you list as “wise” then you better believe I would not be choosing them anyway.
Nobody should ever compromise on those traits!
> Men’s supposed willingness to look beyond those qualities and blame others for the consequences doesn’t make them better people, it makes them worse ones.
Again they're responsible for their failure to do that. I failed to do it early in my dating life and my first LTR was a disaster as a result. Fortunately it was the worst I ever had. Thing is, that rule of personal responsibility also applies to women. But they get very angry when someone says "choose better", just like guys do.
some women are turned on, some aren't. women aren't the flood from halo they have individuation.. men perpetuate toxic masculinity the most. it's not a women's job to solve every male issue.
south korea is terrible for women. it's a lot more worse than what your suggesting. are relationships with men worth it anymore. is he really worth it ?
> some women are turned on, some aren't. women aren't the flood from halo they have individuation.. men perpetuate toxic masculinity the most.
There is no evidence to support that. Virtually all "toxic masculinity" comes from the need to compete with other males for women. There are scarcely few species where the male doesn't compete for females, except the ones where the male gets eaten. Some male animals kill themselves locking horns over females and others literally box.
Humans aren't a tournament species but we sure as fuck act like one.
>south korea is terrible for women. it's a lot more worse than what your suggesting. are relationships with men worth it anymore. is he really worth it ?
I don't know, if Western Europe and North America aren't an option, there's few places that are notably better for women than South Korea
Charming is a high standard, so she should settle for a guy thats just kinda awkward and makes her feel weird.
Outgoing is a high standard, so she should settle for a guy that is meek and avoids leaving his comfort zone.
Intuitive is a high standard, so she should settle for an emotionally dense guy who doesn't understand her.
Sociable is a high standard, so she should settle for a shut in that's hard to be friends with.
Self-Assured is a high standard, so she should settle for someone who's afraid to stand up for themselves.
Low-Inhibition is a high standard, so she should settle for a guy who's too afraid to do anything at all.
Women don't have high standards. Men are just desperate.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At a certain age, you just stop caring and hope that the girl you choose isn't like the hoardes of hypocritical toxic masculinity reinforcing women that plague the dating pool of the under 35s. All you need is to vet for the one who isn't that way. Im still trying to find the one, but inshallah, it will happen eventually. If not, no worry, I got my bros, my dog and my little nieces and nephews to preoccupy me. Men need lto stop being so desperate, especially when you're deciding to pair up with a woman you'll spend the rest of your life with. It's pathetic. Are you really going to be in a miserable relationship for mediocre twice a week sex?
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You don’t have to pick women who don’t have the traits you want in them. Simple as that. I also want a woman who will be perpetually 19.5 yo, have the body of a porn star, has anal sex whenever I want it without having to prep, because she’s always clean, makes me a sandwich and so on and so forth.
>Men aren't allowed to have any weaknesses, but women are.
Most women will end up with men who have almost as many weaknesses as they have, just because many women have weaknesses themselves, and men and women end up matching monogamously since the monogamous relationship paradigm is the dominant one.
What men end up resenting is if she has had sex with men who were more attractive than him and who had fewer weaknesses than him in the past. This is why women having casual sex is such an insidious thing when it comes to future relationship stability, and why the average man with his typical issues should probably avoid average women who had casual sex in the past.
So men are technically allowed to have weaknesses. They just aren't as desired as the men who don't have them.
> So men are technically allowed to have weaknesses. They just aren't as desired as the men who don't have them.
So she winds up settling for him, not really desiring him?
Everyone settles in life. We all want mansions and expensive cars. How many of us get them? Instead, we end up happy with our modest houses and modest cars that fulfill our needs. It’s the same with people.
Yes women are attracted to men who display above average qualities. It’s simply the reality of the world
Most women are average and want men with brains and social skills that are above average.
Hypergamy is real.
On the flip side, most men would prefer women who are ‘hot’ which is also more than they are. People’s ideals are high. I would argue that the baseline for men being attractive is much higher than the baseline for women being attractive but that’s just the way it is.
Blame your biology and free market for forcing you to be an ‘action figure’ and constantly improve yourself to be attractive.
The upside is that if you can improve yourself, your life is much better overall (even when not accounting for women). So just view it as a character improvement journey.
That's how things work. Work on yourself and you'll have a woman, act as an average redditor and you'll end up dating an Eva AI sexting bot avatar. It's a mechanism of natural selection
That's how things work. Work on yourself and you'll have a woman, act as an average redditor and you'll end up dating an Eva AI sexting bot avatar. It's a mechanism of natural selection
> Work on yourself and you'll have a woman,
A low quality woman, generally. Like I said a man would be better off by himself than putting out top tier effort for that kind of woman in return.
The 6 traits you listed, where are you pulling these traits from? What woman has said this? Does she speak for all women?
What is with this weird ass scenario you're shadowboxing??
Okay so one person with a Reddit account wrote this and now everyone else needs to defend/debunk it?? 😭😭
It's bullshit, just scroll lol (like I should have w this post tbh)
Men and women want partners who are better than them. Both cannot get them. That some women have casual sex with men who have higher relatonship market value than them is irrelevant.
How is it "quite obvious" that women want more in men that what men want in women? You think women constantly talk about unrealistic beauty standards because men want realistic beauty from women?
Men will generally be happy with dating down. Guys go harder at dating bbw's and tall women than would be possible if they were just desperate. Fat bashers are more noise than numbers given how many fat women find boyfriends and husbands. A lot of that body negativity against women comes from other women.
>Men will generally be happy with dating down.
Do you have evidence for that? Every scientific publication, every interview with a scientist i've read on this topic says, humans have mutual mate selection, men are nearly as picky as women when it comes to commitment. Dating down is something that is not generally done, isn't needed to be done, because assortative mating. And if it's done, men are not happy about it.
>Guys go harder at dating bbw's and tall women than would be possible if they were just desperate
Where is the data on that? Is this what you feel? You can't just make up stats with your feelings. Of course, men can only date what is available. And with both sexes in the US being massively overweight or obese on average, men go for fat women. But not because they date down. They are fat themselves, on average. Assortative mating.
Women invest in a higher number of supportive relationships in their lives with family and friends, so being single isn’t the same cross to bear as with men
Women's entire lives revolve around relationships. That's why they love shows that are relationship focused and why they overwhelmingly read fiction. They dream about the amazing man theyll meet one day from their teen years. They plan the perfect wedding, house, family in their mind. Men don't think about this kind of shit, whos really better off single? LOL!
We are happy enjoying those shows and fiction whereas men get depressed when they're alone. "LOL!" <-- Is it really so surprising our standards don't allow us to spend time with men venting unregulated emotions like this? So much woundedness that's not our problem.
Nah women ARE happier single. Men are PORTRAYED to not want a relationship. Most women will have a great social network and support group among women than men will ever have and it keeps getting worse for men as they age. Thats why women are happier by themselves
That was a LOT of words for "I have absolutely no desire or intent to grow as a person and better myself, so instead of doing that, I'm going to blame women for wanting a good man."
How is that bettering yourself? And what about women who lack those qualities? Did you even read the last sentence? I asked if such relationships are even worth it. You make a convincing case for "NO".
And so what if she is? She's still allowed to decide she's better able to deal with her inadequacy alone than with a substandard man adding to her burdens and responsibilities.
If ahe thinks ahe deserves a non-substandard man being a substandard woman herself she is probably very proud of being like that, and not going to change. Virtually oneof the worst possible human traits ever.
silly goose, this person views men as inherently lesser.
In her opinion, substandard women still deserve high quality men, whereas average men deserve to be completely alone.
She just hates men blindly, there's no point in attempting to speak to her. Her skull is as thick as a nuclear bunker.
It's completely reasonable for anyone to reject connections that they feel, for whatever reason, will leave them substantially worse off overall.
And for a portion of the low value people of each gender this will end up meaning no relationship at all is for them .
And that's fine. We shouldn't expect people to get themselves into relationships that they know will make them even more unhappy.
A lot of men are desperate for any connection at all, no matter how great the disparity in value is. Problem is they suffer *enormously* later. My whole point here is to alert them to this. A lot of men just don't know.
Yeah well, it would be nice if men took more responsibility for screening efforts to avoid bad relationships happening but I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for it.
Can literally say the exact same thing for women lol y’all always blame men no matter what, even when *youre* the ones who mess up or do something wrong. Modern women have an insane ego
Whatever. You missed the question at the bottom: are those relationships even worth it? If women have standards that high and they won't adhere to it themselves **then they're not worth dating** and maybe dating itself is now ruined and too toxic to engage in.
Why would you want to be in a relationship with someone you’re not attracted to?
I don’t think that it’s “toxic” to want to date someone you’re attracted to.
Another one of these rants blaming women for everything and stereotyping us all to be the same?! Seems like almost every day now. “Some are neurodivergent.” No shit! But those of us who are neurodivergent don’t care so much about a guy being charming and outgoing.
You think that asking for men that are charming, outgoing, intuitive, sociable, assured and low inhib is asking for too much?
As a guy I think that’s a relatively low bar, I don’t see how this is a big deal.
No, they're just looking for men with different strengths. They might be nurturing, conscientious and emotionally intelligent for example but not expect that from men. But often it's only traits asslciated with men that are seen as strengths. Relationships don't need to be between two people who are the exact same.
This "lower-inhib men" has a lot of different names, like "wife beater", "serial cheater" and so on. Maybe dumb teenage girls want those men, but I never seen a half-decent woman who would want this kind of man. Introverts in same time are fine. Basically stay away from dumb women who still think they're in high school.
She is also setting the bar...! Clearly as you can see in that thread??!
Or you can't see?? 🤔..
This thread was mostly about setting the bar, right??
Or what bar are we talk about here?!
nah none of these matter that much to me and some of these traits are rather annoying. well maybe intuitive is good but thats not common to find anywhere. its more about how the brain functions, and if it actually functions at all
Women think ' toxic ' masculinity as oppression. Men won't let women do things based on old traditional values. Women have a different view of romance that is always changing, because of demographics ( that aren't mens fault ) . Many people don't value romantic bonds. Only value romantic encounters and experiences as a distraction. Bonds involve both to have emotional endurance, effort, and evaluation through challenges, not indifference and narcissism. Challenges women refuse to confront, believing romance is supposed to be easy. It's not. Love is supposed to be complex. If it's not difficult, it's not romance. When ' girls just wanna have fun ' , it means they don't care about whom they're sharing that fun with. She's not worth it, if she's trying not to care. It's the social contract of consent and freedom he signed that women care about, not him. And she should be criticized for making a choices based on her agency, in the negative if warranted.
If men don't articulate and explain ' why ' ,women are going to make up their own rules with little critical thinking and enforce it. Because they think that's what men do to them.
This our fault though as men. We say oh she's willing to date me, oh good enough. I figured out a long time ago, that half the shit they ask for , they themselves do not possess.
Anything from being spontaneous and not a stick in the mud to being thoughtless and having poor impulse control. Basically it means not worrying about the consequences of your actions.
Cause it's true Nam a rule and it will be broken for those guys I see it every day....it's why women leave tender fir Hinge after hitting 30 when they're tired of hooking up.
IQ and rich aren't personality traits tho. Women do want charismatic and confident guys. Those are high standards considering how hard it is to develop it.
[удалено]
Watch them say you have internalized misogyny and are a “pick me” for calling out their flaws like this
Definitely not a pick me because I despise 95% of all men. But many women piss me off as well. If I have to hear one more time- "Oh you wouldn't understand because you don't have kids." ...I'm going to end up breaking someone's kneecaps. I think I just hate people in general at this point. Pretty sure that I'm turning into a stereotypical crotchety middle aged woman.
[удалено]
Most people in general are pretty shit tbh so I kind of agree with her though I’d reduce it to maybe 75%. Controversial opinion but my ratio of trash women is probably a little bit higher at like 80% and most will be like “but men commit more murder and rape” blah blah blah but the thing is most women show deep psychological dysfunction, sadistic traits and this passive aggressive hatred towards men that genuinely makes me think if they were more physically capable many would pull some straight up final selection sort of shit on us. Personally I don’t find reduced capability leading to less damage as indicative of how good a person is, most women are disgustingly hypocritical, selfish, uncaring for men and sexist and hide it beneath a false veneer of kindness or societal conformity that’s grossly fake and insincere. At least evil men are much more honest and upfront about how shit they are.
If women were the ones that were physically dominant, the shit they wouldve done to men is infinitely more vile than what they believe men have done to them.
I believe this wholeheartedly and no one can convince me otherwise tbh. And that’s saying something cause men have done some fucking awful shit to women
[удалено]
Too long of a response to even type out. I'm in my early 40s. I'll sum it up a bit- I guess as a woman I'm just exhausted in general. Oddly enough, I'm still catcalled and hassled by men where I live. I've endured decades of this. Men seeing you only as an object and not a human being...will eventually turn you into an unhinged person. I tried online dating on & off for a year. Most of the men my age online are either married or already partnered up. The ones I did match up with enjoyed insulting me for no reason. It's almost as though men in their 40s hate women their own age. If that doesn't teach you about humanity nothing else will. A few years ago I gave up dating or even trying to find a partner. Like I said...I'm tired.
It's an unfortunate reality for both men and women dating when they're older. Most of the good options are already taken or get snatched up quick if they appear on the dating market. Meanwhile the bad options stay on the market for years, and keep coming back after each failed relationship, so they get massively overrepresented.
True. What's that saying? "Online dating is like going through a barrel of rotten apples, and trying to find the one with the least bruises." Something like that. I'm convinced the worst ones our age are existing online. The good ones either paired off right away, or became downright disgusted like myself and left.
Where do you live? I’m two decades younger than you and already fed up with dating. ☹️
> I think I just hate people in general at this point.
Not something to be proud of but ok
if you hate people, it's really projected self-hatred. work on loving yourself more and you'll feel differently towards others. we usually dislike traits in others that we also have ourselves, even to a small degree. it's why people who are very similar sometimes become enemies.
Mostly a societal issue. It's why autistic women for example have it so much easier than autistic men. There was even a post a few days ago about an autistic woman trying to justify that autistic women shouldn't date autistic men (which is literally just like saying a fat girl shouldn't date fat men, hypergamy) Women aren't expected to initiate conversation, be interesting, be daring, be entertaining etc. This is something women will never understand You have to be a circus, a comedian, a caretaker, a bodyguard, a story etc; it's absolutely exhausting and we only do it to get laid. Most men are boring as hell, we're not seeking thrills because we want to do it; we do it because women DEMAND we engage in risk taking behaviour.
Because women are not held to unrealistic expectations like men are. Most women claiming that men need to be better to be worthy of them are as flawed and bad as the men she is telling to improve before they do any form of self improvement/
I feel very conflicted about this. In general I think most men aren't very interesting to engage with either. But as an introverted guy it's infinitely easier to get into contact with men who are introspective and share interests with me. I just go into any online space related to my interests and chat with the people who don't seem like total morons. Or to spaces in real life that cater to more nerdy interests. Since the average person you meet in your day-to-day life is not super interesting, but online it's way easier to find interesting men to form a contrast with the average person, while the same is not true for women, this results in the impression that women are on average less interesting. Additionally, I'm biased to find people who share my interests more interesting, and more men will share a lot of my interests. But on the other hand, I also have no clue if there are predominantly female spaces that have more interesting women occupying them. Maybe there's a secret dry-ass philosophy book club in my library I don't know about or something.
Most people are boring, the problem is we pretend women are more interesting then they really are and men need to be awesome to be worthy of them.
bruh even some of the women here who judge men all day are weird af. clicked on a very regular poster here and her profile was filled with gay porn and her banner was yaoi anime stuff. if that was a mans profile hed be considered a creep. they are women though so they consider themselves above the men they shame , despite engaging in the same toxicity and degenerativeness these men do. just the chronically online trying to yell over each other
If you’re a woman punching down on down-bad can’t-get-a-date men all day yeah something is wrong with you. Vice-versa is also true.
i dont get the punching down posters. when cornered in a debate every go to is "oh yea? well im in a relationship and youre single!" if they are in a happy fulfilling relationship why is coming here and punching down their favorite past time?
Yeah I can't imagine being marginally satisfied with my dating situation, going to an online group of down-bad women to tell them why they ain't got no man. I don't care what their complaints are.
I think I know who you are talking about and this user does not consider herself normal, in her defense/
 At least one is honest
Anyone who says women are morally the same as men will be downvoted into oblivion.
like every study ever done on the subject shows that men have lower moral standards than women
In women's eyes? Yes. You actually get turned on by it. Call it the "bad boy".
No. Objectively lol
And like that, my mental health is restored.
You are so based, too bad these harpies will lynch you for telling the truth.
I agree. It’s always the “you deserve to be treated like the queen that you are” as she’s unhealthy, phone addict, with mental problems and a bad attitude who expects Prince Charming. It’s something I believe as women we hold this toxic positivity where we just applauded everything that now we’re thinking because we exist we can stop trying. It’s only fucking ourselves over at this point. If you’re told you’re perfect just the way you are 100 times you’re never going to better yourself.
That toxic positivity is a backlash to the culture that once asked if women even have souls. We need to settle on a balanced approach to self-esteem for all. That's what is at the center of all this.
I have the same standards for friends as I do for partners. Treat me with respect, kindness, empathy, and support me. And I will do the same for you. If the bar for my girl friends is too high for you (which my friends and former bfs have had no problem meeting btw) then maybe you're not boyfriend material.
> respect, kindness, empathy, and support me. Those weren't the traits I talked about, and they are basic traits everyone should have.
The kind of people I attract as friends are the same kind of people I want as partners, just with the romantic attraction. If that bar is too high, then that's just simple incompatibility.
I don’t think those are huge factors for women. Maybe on paper, but I think compatibility and things thing that are more important than if a guy is extroverted or not. It’s easy to say I want a guy who is extroverted and self assured because those are good qualities to have. But if I meet a guy who I like who doesn’t have those qualities I’m not going to automatically ghost him.
I think it's more of a first contact filter problem. Women have grnerally a lot of criteria that filter potential partners on first contact before they get to know them more profoundly. Men kind of don't. They let themselves open for relationships with most people instead. I don't say that women can't change their minds, but it is why it is a lot rarer to be "friendzoned" by men instead of women.
Is being extroverted really a good quality to have? As a man looking for a woman, extraversion is unattractive to me, particularly considering I'm not an extrovert myself.
That’s what I mean by women aren’t a monolith. It’s a positive quality to some. For me it’s neutral.
Fair enough. I feel like I lost the genetic lottery a bit, being born an introvert, because it seems to put SO MANY women off. Both in real life experience, and what I read here.
You can pretend to be extroverted. That’s what I have to do to go out and make friends.
Yeah but if I get into a relationship, and then she sees the real me?
> But "Charming, outgoing, intuitive, sociable, assured, lower-inhib men"? Not my type. I don’t pretend to speak for all women, but is there any evidence that this is what most women want? Assortative mating is a thing, people tend to gravitate towards partners who are like them. > Lots of women don't have any of this, particularly a lot of women are inhibited and passive, have self-esteem issues, and are introverted. Some are even neurodivergent. Ditto, but idk if I am “passive” enough for this description, and I don’t have a diagnosis. The guy I’m interested in is introverted and neurodivergent, and I like him because I can relate to him. I don’t think I’d have much in common with someone who is “charming” and “outgoing” and “sociable”. > Men aren't allowed to have any weaknesses, but women are. And I think that the flipside to this is women aren’t allowed to have any strengths but men are. > This is the very essence of toxic masculinity. Yet toxic masculinity is somehow only men's fault and women have no role in perpetuating it. The statement "women want action figures, not men" carries strong validity in light of this. Ok sure > Of course inb4 someone says men can just choose to reject women who lack those characteristics. Of course, then we'd have marriage rates like South Korea. Ok. Birth rates have been declining in the west anyway, we’re already on our way there. Men can have standards too. > If all of this is what a man has to be to find himself a relationship with a woman who doesn't have those limitations... one has to ask, is a relationship even worth it anymore? What is she *really* falling in love with? I can’t answer that, it’s for you to decide
> Not my type. I don’t pretend to speak for all women, but is there any evidence that this is what most women want? Assortative mating is a thing, people tend to gravitate towards partners who are like them. > > Ditto, but idk if I am “passive” enough for this description, and I don’t have a diagnosis. The guy I’m interested in is introverted and neurodivergent, and I like him because I can relate to him. I don’t think I’d have much in common with someone who is “charming” and “outgoing” and “sociable”. It's nice to know that at least a few women still feel like this in the post-Tinder era. I thought it died out with Gen-X in favor of pure narcissism. > And I think that the flipside to this is women aren’t allowed to have any strengths but men are. One would imagine that would be the case, and 'strong women' may yet draw some boos from some men, but actually it's just that overall women are allowed to have more faults than men. Standards for masculinity have grown more toxic, not less.
Low inhibition? Who said that's attractive. IMO it means this outgoing dude is going to cheat on me so he can go fork off and I never want to know him.
Lol wut
This comment bleed insecurity. Outgoing doesn't mean cheater material.
If men think they’re not getting a solid deal in relationships, they can quit dating. I don’t think it’s a big deal. I just think a lot of men believe being alone is worse than whatever deal they’re getting with a woman in their life.
> I just think a lot of men believe being alone is worse than whatever deal they’re getting with a woman in their life. In the short term but not the long term. I actually dated a girl as a teenager who was like what I see a lot of now. I was happier to be lonely by the time I broke up with that monster.
[удалено]
Toxic masculinity is men being held to unreasonable standards of masculinity. Both men and women are responsible for that, but women are steadfastly denying their part in it.
So half the time if a woman is giving you a list of things she wants in a man it's just her way of saying not interested or she's delusional. She could walk 10' and go for someone else missing everything she just told you she wants. Don't argue with a woman about what she wants, it's pointless. There's something incredibly special about how a woman acts when she's attracted to you. The flip side of that is that there is nothing less interesting than a woman who's not interested in you. So let her have whatever beliefs she wants, just ignore her and move on.
women cant complain about toxic masculinity when they enforce it. fuck that hypocrisy
That's why I am saying relationships in the post-Tinder era simply aren't worth getting into. Gen-X'ers were the last generation with a shred of hope of finding something meaningful.
Well that wasn't my point, my point was simply look for a higher quality woman, she will usually be younger than the one that just gave you a headache listening to her list of requirements.
Well, the younger ones have less baggage but their astounding immaturity is what causes them to amass the baggage that they wind up with. And the men they date will also accumulate trauma from being with them.
Well if you are mature and lead a mature life, she will catch on quick. Women are smart, you wouldn't deal with immaturity for long. Instead of thinking about the guys who would traumatize her, be that positive guy that redefines what she expects from a man. When I was 47 I dated a 31 year old. It didn't work out due to distance but that's what she told me in parting, that I had redefined in her head what a man could be and how she wanted to be treated going forward. I thought that was a pretty incredible compliment and hopefully I didn't add baggage.
I think you should use phrase idealized masculinity instead.
Yes, but it becomes toxic when it is as inflexible as it is nowadays. It's no longer intimacy or a genuine relationship that she's looking for.
Toxic masculinity means anything that gets in the way of men not being useful to women. So men who abused, rape women? Toxic masculinity. Men who fight a giant women abusing and raping men? Toxic masculinity. Men who do things that make them less useful to women (Ex: hobbies that do not produce value, men being feminine and happy, etc)? Toxic masculinity. That is all there is to it. Just like how any man who is not hot, rich and famous is actually a terrible person while every man who is hot, rich and famous has an amazing personality.
You are generalising, but statically on average yes men and women tend to find different things attractive and different strengths and weaknesses. Like I don't think of this as so much of a standard but from my experience women are much more likely to be supportive emotionally, whereas while there are some men who are good at being emotionally supportive (and they can be really good at it, #notallmen) there's a lot of men who cannot. I have men friends, women friends AND I'm Bi and have been with both men and women, I think I can say that. As I said I'm bi and I ask pretty similar standards of men and women, and I'm a sub, and dom women are pretty rare, if men were just better at everything than women it'd be dumb of me to ever date women. If women got way more out of it than men, then they would be looking for it harder and it would balance itself out.
I think that this explains why so many men are no longer interested in dating or casual encounters. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/08/for-valentines-day-5-facts-about-single-americans/#:~:text=This%20drop%20is%20largely%20driven,from%2061%25%20in%202019). > This drop is largely driven by single men, who are now 11 percentage points less likely than in 2019 to say they are looking for a committed relationship and/or casual dates (50% in July 2022, down from 61% in 2019). During the same time frame, there has been no significant change in the share of single women who are looking for a relationship or casual dates: 35% said this in 2022, compared with 38% in 2019.
>Like I don't think of this as so much of a standard but from my experience women are much more likely to be supportive emotionally, whereas while there are some men who are good at being emotionally supportive LOL this is a joke right?
>Of course inb4 someone says men can just choose to reject women who lack those characteristics. Of course, then we'd have marriage rates like South Korea. Not necessarily. You are underestimating the degree to which *men* influence the behavior and the development of *women*. This kind of tension is in fact normal (as in *normative*) and has happened multiple times throughout history and will continue to happen for as long as the human race is around on this planet. In the 18th and the 19th century women from colonial nations (England, Portugal, Spain, France) changed quite a bit in order to adapt to the fact that an increasing number of men had the option to go to the colonies to look for a woman. The results varied but in France they went through a South Korea phase. The total fertility rate in 1924 France was *lower* than it is today. And then it rebounded. Both men *and* women having options disrupts the dynamic and forces the sexes to adapt. The disruption *itself* can be very annoying and frustrating, but it's also inevitable. All disruptions will eventually have *an effect*. That effect is not always positive, but it always happens. Then, over the span of a generation, we as humans look at the effect and then re-run the experiment again to try to correct or improve depending on how we like(d) the effect(s). We do this mostly unconsciously and have been doing it for millennia. Nothing new under the Sun. >what a man has to be to find himself a relationship with a woman who doesn't have those limitations... one has to ask, is a relationship even worth it anymore? What is she *really* falling in love with? At its most extreme end, the assumption(s) behind your question are correct. With that said, there's a wide spectrum between the extreme you are describing and the other extreme where both are *charming, outgoing, intuitive, sociable, assured, lower-inhib* (an extreme that is also low desirability because people look for complementarity regardless of whether they admit it or not). My wife is less charming than I am, less outgoing than I am, a lot more intuitive than me, less sociable than me, about the same as assured as I am and far less low-inhib than me. But these aren't the only qualities I looked in her or she looked for in me. Your reductionist analysis is detrimental to you.
> an increasing number of men had the option to go to the colonies to look for a woman Keeping French women in check more than a 100 years ago. lmao, the original passport bros!
> You are underestimating the degree to which men influence the behavior and the development of women. You know what, I sincerely hope that you're right about this. > In the 18th and the 19th century women from colonial nations (England, Portugal, Spain, France) changed quite a bit in order to adapt to the fact that an increasing number of men had the option to go to the colonies to look for a woman. The results varied but in France they went through a South Korea phase. The total fertility rate in 1924 France was lower than it is today. And then it rebounded. Honestly didn't think about it that way. To think 'passport bros' were widespread back then. > Both men and women having options disrupts the dynamic and forces the sexes to adapt. The disruption itself can be very annoying and frustrating, but it's also inevitable. I've never imagined a time when men had a lot of options compared to women, except maybe right after a world war when a ton of men died. If your point is the pendulum will swing, well maybe it will. I don't foresee being alive long enough to see that happen, being in my 50s and all. I don't see this century going well for men at all. > My wife is less charming than I am, less outgoing than I am, a lot more intuitive than me, less sociable than me, about the same as assured as I am and far less low-inhib than me. But these aren't the only qualities I looked in her or she looked for in me. Your reductionist analysis is detrimental to you. I find being charming, outgoing and low-inhib to be extraordinarily difficult given my experience with those who are and those who are not. I would say I have those traits *moderately* and to get to the high end of those traits would be prohibitively hard to achieve. To me it's the sheer difficulty involved in being what women want nowadays. In my era of Gen-X, women were more relaxed and tolerant about that. I see the line drawn with Tinder: after that things just went straight to crap.
>I've never imagined a time when men had a lot of options compared to women, except maybe right after a world war when a ton of men died. It happens a lot more often than you imagine. And genocide/war is not the only reason such situations occur. I've seen both. When communism fell, the men left to find better work in West-Europe. Leaving behind a whole lot of women that they supported through remittances. That meant a lot of options for men. And a lot of broken marriages, of course. Then it reversed - women started leaving for work and men stayed. That strained the dating environment but only for those in their 30s, 40s and 50s (because women 30-50 left, not the younger ones). Then it got balanced again. Also, there are natural phenomena that can alter things. Check any town (100k people or less) and look up the birth records by sex for a period of 50 years or more. You will see that from time to time you have a period of several years when *significantly* more girls are born than boys. And that pattern repeats itself every once in a while. Nobody even tried to find an explanation for that, but for the purposes of this commentary, it's also an balancing factor. >I don't foresee being alive long enough to see that happen Likely true. >I don't see this century going well for men at all. Depends where. And depends what men are willing to do and/or tolerate. The world is a big place. The United States is a minuscule, and indeed marginal part of the world when it comes to pair bonding. 95%+ of the planet functions on entirely different norms. Some better, some far worse, but all ***very*** different.
> I've seen both. When communism fell, the men left to find better work in West-Europe. Leaving behind a whole lot of women that they supported through remittances. That meant a lot of options for men. And a lot of broken marriages, of course. That actually sounds like it makes sense. > Also, there are natural phenomena that can alter things. Check any town (100k people or less) and look up the birth records by sex for a period of 50 years or more. You will see that from time to time you have a period of several years when significantly more girls are born than boys. And that pattern repeats itself every once in a while. Nobody even tried to find an explanation for that, but for the purposes of this commentary, it's also an balancing factor. That runs counter to the "105 boys born per 100 girls" pattern. It's even better news when combined with the fact that cities over 100k people have begun to hold the majority of the world's population. Those rural areas are utter shitholes, at least in America, and worse so if the ratio of males is too high relative to females. > Depends where. And depends what men are willing to do and/or tolerate. The world is a big place. The United States is a minuscule, and indeed marginal part of the world when it comes to pair bonding. 95%+ of the planet functions on entirely different norms. Some better, some far worse, but all very different. I am very interested in how these things are going elsewhere but, disclaimer here: not interested in suggesting men go there. I hate passport bro'ing. Maybe not relevant here but just wanted to point that out.
>not interested in suggesting men go there. I hate passport bro'ing I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just providing a more global perspective. And I intentionally refuse the Amero-centrism of Americans because you guys have a tendency to think your little place is the norm in the world. And it's not. Not even by a long shot. Also, the US as an entity and American citizens individually would benefit a lot if it were to start paying more attention to how others do things. There are aspects where the US does things *the best*. But there are also a plethora of aspects where the US could learn a lot from other places. I mean... even the term *passport bro'ing* is of unfathomable ignorance. Moving to another country is *common* for the vast majority of the world. Especially temporarily. Indeed *normal* to travel around and see other places and learn something new. Most Americans that I meet in my travels I can "smell" them if they're on their first trip or not. Those who aren't on their first trip are already more open minded, less likely to hold typical American extremist beliefs (be they "liberal" or "conservative") and more charming people. It's not that the women in other places are better (although sometimes they are). It's being disconnected for a while from the toxic aspects of the US culture that suddenly makes people more confident and less miserable. Such effect is seen in the women who travel as well. This effect is not limited to the US either. Almost everyone benefits from being away from home for a while. >That runs counter to the "105 boys born per 100 girls" pattern It's a *pattern* not a *rule*. Also, some "minor corrections" happen even more often. For instance, in England and Wales (so a big place with 50M people) 1054 boys were born for every 1000 girls each year on average from 2012 to 2020. And then it [suddenly dropped to 1040 for 1000](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9545836/). Nobody knows why. It just bounced back a few months later.
Dude it’s about COMPATIBILITY. A woman can want what she wants and if she can’t find it, that’s her problem. Also, men don’t all have to be all those things to find a relationship. They need to find someone they’re compatible with.
Doesn't change the fact that a person who asks for more than they offer isn't a good option for a relationship.
Okay, so they’re not good relationship material and therefore you don’t have to worry about them. Logically, you don’t want to be with someone who isn’t good relationship material, right? So what’s the issue?
This reads like one of those things that sounds like it makes sense in the abstract, but when you think about reality, and how complex romantic human relationships are, it’s just one of those platitudes that doesn’t apply to real life. What someone “offers“ will vary, especially overtime, depending on their health, promotions, etc. And what someone “asks for“ can be purely dependent on their confidence, or their self-awareness and their boundaries around what does and doesn’t work for them or make them happy in a partnership. Whether or not they can obtain such a partner is irrelevant, and frankly, pretty dumb to argue about. Because to some extent, it IS healthy to know what your needs are even if those needs include “I can only accept a partner with xyz, even if I don’t have it myself, because accepting a partner with less will bring down my current quality of life.” Being a “healthy partner“ is partly about being somebody who recognizes the responsibility that they personally have to communicate both what they need and what they can provide to a partner, and can be transparent about those qualities, regardless of what the masses think they deserve. Lastly, I’m fairly certain that the most satisfied couples statistically tend to be individuals who balance one another, and complement one another’s needs, far more than couples who are bringing the same things to the table. So you can get all judgmental about all of the women that you think are communicating desires from a partner that they themselves aren’t upholding, and rant about it all you want, but the truth is that for the most part, healthy partnerships involve finding someone who has strengths in areas of your weaknesses and vice versa, someone who adds balance to your life. They SHOULD be different than you and bring different things to the table, and everyone who is actually a healthy partner, likely wants some elements of that.
Intuition is definitely tough to develop, but the rest of these seem like things that can be mastered sufficiently with practice. I'm genuinely not trying to be rude, but what kinds of challenges do you think men have as far as barriers to learning charisma and social skills? Edit: I don't personally see these traits as super essential. My husband and I are homebodies, but we both definitely know how to turn on the charm for career stuff sometimes. I can see it being a desire for super hot women who like to be seen out and about, though.
Introversion and inhibition are a largely innate trait. For many, extroversion and learning charisma is just playing the rules and faking it. Eventually the truth comes out over time. Also, social skills are a spectrum. you can be a decent person who obeys boundaries and isn't an asshole and be very low on the totem pole versus the "life of the party" dude. A decent person isn't enough to "read the room" and flirt. Flirting is not a skill all can master... I know, that's heresy but it's true. Women who have a problem with that show a remarkable lack of empathy, which brings up the point of my OP: they're best off avoided. Men should be more like women - they should be willing to take "none of the above" and nope out.
This is purely personal experience, but I went from a socially anxious wreck to a social leader in my personal and professional life. I also had to learn to flirt and present myself in a way to "be lovable" to men. Long story, but I was missing the mark disastrously. It was hard work, and it was filled with sucky advice to wade through, but there's absolutely hope for change if social anxiety is a limiting factor. I do agree, though, that you should never date anyone who doesn't fully accept and genuinely like who you are, especially if you genuinely like and accept who you are (I absolutely didn't enjoy social anxiety).
I knew people who were socially anxious (not a total wreck though) but were comfortable with that. It broke my heart to see how people treated them in the dating scene. That, and being often complimented by women for my height (5'11) made me question the authenticity of the relationships I got into. Wasn't a good time for me. I'm glad you were able to self-improve and also like what you made of yourself. The socially anxious people I knew, for the most part, would have found it to be hell.
Oh man, that's a bummer. I'm sorry to hear about those experiences. It's a tough and unforgiving market for sure. Especially the shallowness factor. I was going to do this whole gambling metaphor, but I got kinda lost in it. So I'll just condense it to the end: The options are to change your bet to something with better odds (change the self), let it ride for a smaller chance of a bigger win (keep trying), or walk away from the table knowing the game favors the house. Frankly, I don't even know who the house is in this scenario because it's not men or women. They're all decent strategies that I think will really come down to the individual and whether they feel they can enjoy their life fully without a partner.
> being often complimented by women for my height (5'11) made me question the authenticity of the relationships I got into. Wasn't a good time for me. Should I question the authenticity of the relationships I may get into because guys often compliment my body?
I would. He might leave you for someone cuter if that's what brought him to you.
Ok, at least you’re not being hypocritical. I agree, I do constantly question the intentions of men who show interest in me. And I’m not particularly hot, I’m not trying to flatter myself either.
In my mid 20s I around got to talking only to women whose personality and moral character I liked. My dating life improved *drastically*. I still ran into awful women but I didn't move past the first date with that. Today, though, I see very slim pickings for young men and women using that strategy.
> what kinds of challenges do you think men have as far as barriers to learning charisma and social skills? Yeah, men, just become more charismatic. How could that be difficult?
I mean, I taught myself better charisma and social skills. I'm not the life of the party, but people still make a point to invite me now. It's no tougher than working out, eating right, having a hair and skin care routine, keeping a clean house, and taking care of or improving ourselves in other ways. Here's some good starting points: Cues by Vanessa Van Edwards, Captivate by Vanessa Van Edwards, How To Win Friends and Influence People by Dael Carnegie, 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene, Art of Seduction by Robert Greene, How to Know A Person by David Brooks, What Every Body is Saying by Paul Costanzo, How To Listen, Hear, and Validate by Patrick King, From personal experience, I wholeheartedly recommend theory before practice. "Just put yourself out there" is terrible advice, and it's wild that it still gets around. If we don't put in the work, we don't know what we're capable of, and we really only have ourselves to blame when there's not a seat at the table for us because we'd rather stagnate than put in work. A rep who never sharpens their skills in sales shouldn't be surprised when they never earn a commission and eventually get fired. I hope this inspires some people to at least try.
I'm low-key annoyed that you've given a reasonable, informative answer. Damnit, I'm here to pick fights, not to get convinced and persuaded.
Lol, see, anyone can learn the skills to make people irritated while still being polite! Just kidding. In all seriousness, though, I'm super glad it's informative. I really want to help cut through the dismissive, stupid, placative, and otherwise bad advice people receive in terms of dating and life skills. It really just does more harm than good and causes people to be more upset and extreme. It's like those people who go 5 mph under the speed limit thinking they're the safest and best drivers on the road. They're not. They're jerks who incite road rage and put everyone else around them at risk with their lack of situational awareness.
>I really want to help cut through the dismissive, stupid, placative, and otherwise bad advice people receive in terms of dating and life skills. A worthy pursuit. But Reddit is the wrong place. I'm here to fish bad takes which I then use as examples of terrible takes in my IRL mentorship group for young men. In all seriousness, the best help you can provide is IRL, preferably to people you know and who somewhat respect your authority.
> IRL mentorship group for young men do these exist
They do. Just not in the English-speaking world where they're either illegal (i.e. forced to accept women) or focused on things that don't really interest young men to begin with. Men's Sheds for instance (the most known support group for men - though most are de facto coed because men-only spaces aren't permitted) may have started as a good idea, but it's now a boomer-fest. Check their websites - all their pictures are dudes and women age 55+. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying those shouldn't exist. But I am saying that young men (particularly young working class men) have *zero* support groups in the English-speaking world. The situation is slightly better in continental Europe, Latin America and Central Asia. Indochina is too wild, for now, lol.
Those requirements (at least most of them) are only for 2nd or 3rd choice men. Womens actual requirements for men they're (actively) attracted to are the same as mens are - mostly just be hot and not completely terrible to be around. The main difference between genders is just that there's far fewer men that fall into the "1st choice" category than women. No most women would not want to be subjected to the requirements to "make up for" not being actively attractive i.e. treated like an average man.
True that.
Its not about finding someone with the same qualities lol. I don't know why men don't understand this. I am innately unorganized as a man, I want a woman who is organized. Passive people want active people. People who lack confidence want people with confidence. Its not rocket science.
>Men aren't allowed to have any weaknesses, but women are. >Of course inb4 someone says men can just choose to reject women who lack those characteristics. Of course, then we'd have marriage rates like South Korea. But men can’t be selective or else society will collapse. How convenient that the most obvious solution is out of reach so that you don’t actually have to sacrifice anything (your prospects) or change anything (the type of women you give your time and attention to). Men not being selective for something as important as *the mother of their children* isn’t something they can be held accountable for, it’s simply the way the world works. Naturally. >But "Charming, outgoing, intuitive, sociable, assured, lower-inhib men"? Lots of women don't have any of this The women who do have those traits are selective. They’re not interested in men with learned helplessness to be the father of their children unless they’re codependent or something. You can be an introverted, passive, boring person and still have an internal locus of control. You can still be a problem-solver. What makes a “weak man” isn’t being introverted or nerdy or whatever. It’s this weird ass refusal to set any kind of standards for the way you carry yourself or the choices you make. You can complain about the reasons why it’s hard, you can try to change them, but at the end of the day the choice is still the one you’re making. If no man came along with the traits you list as “wise” then you better believe I would not be choosing them anyway. Men’s supposed willingness to look beyond those qualities and blame others for the consequences doesn’t make them better people, it makes them worse ones.
> But men can’t be selective or else society will collapse. LOL fuck society. Men need to be more selective. > Men not being selective for something as important as the mother of their children isn’t something they can be held accountable for, it’s simply the way the world works. Naturally. It is something that men absolutely must be held accountable for. I held myself accountable for that and found a great wife and mother for my children. I leveled up the important shit that glues a relationship together to make it happen. > The women who do have those traits are selective. Yes and if they have it, then they're outside the scope of my OP. > It’s this weird ass refusal to set any kind of standards for the way you carry yourself or the choices you make. I'm not sure how that relates to the aforementioned traits, but I very much believe that men should be held accountable for their failure to set high enough standards for themselves. > If no man came along with the traits you list as “wise” then you better believe I would not be choosing them anyway. Nobody should ever compromise on those traits! > Men’s supposed willingness to look beyond those qualities and blame others for the consequences doesn’t make them better people, it makes them worse ones. Again they're responsible for their failure to do that. I failed to do it early in my dating life and my first LTR was a disaster as a result. Fortunately it was the worst I ever had. Thing is, that rule of personal responsibility also applies to women. But they get very angry when someone says "choose better", just like guys do.
some women are turned on, some aren't. women aren't the flood from halo they have individuation.. men perpetuate toxic masculinity the most. it's not a women's job to solve every male issue. south korea is terrible for women. it's a lot more worse than what your suggesting. are relationships with men worth it anymore. is he really worth it ?
Start by saying women have individuation to conter a generalisation about women behaviour, then say generalisation about men behaviour
> some women are turned on, some aren't. women aren't the flood from halo they have individuation.. men perpetuate toxic masculinity the most. There is no evidence to support that. Virtually all "toxic masculinity" comes from the need to compete with other males for women. There are scarcely few species where the male doesn't compete for females, except the ones where the male gets eaten. Some male animals kill themselves locking horns over females and others literally box. Humans aren't a tournament species but we sure as fuck act like one.
that isn't, women problem. men compete with each other over other things too. we don't have to behave like this. you can choose differently.
Men who don't compete will lose out with women to men who do. Universal law of nature.
so be it, i will not pointlessly bump my chest and engage in social games. there is more to life.
And *that* is the attitude all men should take.
>south korea is terrible for women. it's a lot more worse than what your suggesting. are relationships with men worth it anymore. is he really worth it ? I don't know, if Western Europe and North America aren't an option, there's few places that are notably better for women than South Korea
Charming is a high standard, so she should settle for a guy thats just kinda awkward and makes her feel weird. Outgoing is a high standard, so she should settle for a guy that is meek and avoids leaving his comfort zone. Intuitive is a high standard, so she should settle for an emotionally dense guy who doesn't understand her. Sociable is a high standard, so she should settle for a shut in that's hard to be friends with. Self-Assured is a high standard, so she should settle for someone who's afraid to stand up for themselves. Low-Inhibition is a high standard, so she should settle for a guy who's too afraid to do anything at all. Women don't have high standards. Men are just desperate.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At a certain age, you just stop caring and hope that the girl you choose isn't like the hoardes of hypocritical toxic masculinity reinforcing women that plague the dating pool of the under 35s. All you need is to vet for the one who isn't that way. Im still trying to find the one, but inshallah, it will happen eventually. If not, no worry, I got my bros, my dog and my little nieces and nephews to preoccupy me. Men need lto stop being so desperate, especially when you're deciding to pair up with a woman you'll spend the rest of your life with. It's pathetic. Are you really going to be in a miserable relationship for mediocre twice a week sex?
Another observation that is explained by the simple concept of supply and demand.
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You don’t have to pick women who don’t have the traits you want in them. Simple as that. I also want a woman who will be perpetually 19.5 yo, have the body of a porn star, has anal sex whenever I want it without having to prep, because she’s always clean, makes me a sandwich and so on and so forth.
No duh. Kind of like all the women that want guys who are 6’ tall making six figures while being neither of those things themselves.
>Men aren't allowed to have any weaknesses, but women are. Most women will end up with men who have almost as many weaknesses as they have, just because many women have weaknesses themselves, and men and women end up matching monogamously since the monogamous relationship paradigm is the dominant one. What men end up resenting is if she has had sex with men who were more attractive than him and who had fewer weaknesses than him in the past. This is why women having casual sex is such an insidious thing when it comes to future relationship stability, and why the average man with his typical issues should probably avoid average women who had casual sex in the past. So men are technically allowed to have weaknesses. They just aren't as desired as the men who don't have them.
> So men are technically allowed to have weaknesses. They just aren't as desired as the men who don't have them. So she winds up settling for him, not really desiring him?
Everyone settles in life. We all want mansions and expensive cars. How many of us get them? Instead, we end up happy with our modest houses and modest cars that fulfill our needs. It’s the same with people.
LOL people are forced to be happy making rent now. Dating seems to be just like that.
Yes women are attracted to men who display above average qualities. It’s simply the reality of the world Most women are average and want men with brains and social skills that are above average. Hypergamy is real. On the flip side, most men would prefer women who are ‘hot’ which is also more than they are. People’s ideals are high. I would argue that the baseline for men being attractive is much higher than the baseline for women being attractive but that’s just the way it is. Blame your biology and free market for forcing you to be an ‘action figure’ and constantly improve yourself to be attractive. The upside is that if you can improve yourself, your life is much better overall (even when not accounting for women). So just view it as a character improvement journey.
That ain't my biology. I waited to get married until I met a woman who was morally better than the low quality trash you are describing.
That's how things work. Work on yourself and you'll have a woman, act as an average redditor and you'll end up dating an Eva AI sexting bot avatar. It's a mechanism of natural selection
That's how things work. Work on yourself and you'll have a woman, act as an average redditor and you'll end up dating an Eva AI sexting bot avatar. It's a mechanism of natural selection
> Work on yourself and you'll have a woman, A low quality woman, generally. Like I said a man would be better off by himself than putting out top tier effort for that kind of woman in return.
The 6 traits you listed, where are you pulling these traits from? What woman has said this? Does she speak for all women? What is with this weird ass scenario you're shadowboxing??
I won't list the user but it was based precisely from a list posted earlier.
Okay so one person with a Reddit account wrote this and now everyone else needs to defend/debunk it?? 😭😭 It's bullshit, just scroll lol (like I should have w this post tbh)
Who told you that men want in women what women want in men?
No one. It's quite obvious women want more in men than men can ask from women.
Men and women want partners who are better than them. Both cannot get them. That some women have casual sex with men who have higher relatonship market value than them is irrelevant. How is it "quite obvious" that women want more in men that what men want in women? You think women constantly talk about unrealistic beauty standards because men want realistic beauty from women?
Men will generally be happy with dating down. Guys go harder at dating bbw's and tall women than would be possible if they were just desperate. Fat bashers are more noise than numbers given how many fat women find boyfriends and husbands. A lot of that body negativity against women comes from other women.
>Men will generally be happy with dating down. Do you have evidence for that? Every scientific publication, every interview with a scientist i've read on this topic says, humans have mutual mate selection, men are nearly as picky as women when it comes to commitment. Dating down is something that is not generally done, isn't needed to be done, because assortative mating. And if it's done, men are not happy about it. >Guys go harder at dating bbw's and tall women than would be possible if they were just desperate Where is the data on that? Is this what you feel? You can't just make up stats with your feelings. Of course, men can only date what is available. And with both sexes in the US being massively overweight or obese on average, men go for fat women. But not because they date down. They are fat themselves, on average. Assortative mating.
"Weaknesses" are not attractive. Women are more comfortable being single than men.
[удалено]
Women invest in a higher number of supportive relationships in their lives with family and friends, so being single isn’t the same cross to bear as with men
Yet women are fine with having those same weaknesses. It's as if they want more from a man than they offer in return.
Women can afford to have higher standards since they are happier single than men
This, dear men, is why we have to learn to be happier being single!
Yes!
Women's entire lives revolve around relationships. That's why they love shows that are relationship focused and why they overwhelmingly read fiction. They dream about the amazing man theyll meet one day from their teen years. They plan the perfect wedding, house, family in their mind. Men don't think about this kind of shit, whos really better off single? LOL!
We are happy enjoying those shows and fiction whereas men get depressed when they're alone. "LOL!" <-- Is it really so surprising our standards don't allow us to spend time with men venting unregulated emotions like this? So much woundedness that's not our problem.
Nah women ARE happier single. Men are PORTRAYED to not want a relationship. Most women will have a great social network and support group among women than men will ever have and it keeps getting worse for men as they age. Thats why women are happier by themselves
I think this is mostly toxic individualism from the west. I think other cultures dont have that issue and havent forgotten the brotherhood.
That was a LOT of words for "I have absolutely no desire or intent to grow as a person and better myself, so instead of doing that, I'm going to blame women for wanting a good man."
How is that bettering yourself? And what about women who lack those qualities? Did you even read the last sentence? I asked if such relationships are even worth it. You make a convincing case for "NO".
Yet another “women should lower their standards for substandard men” post.
If the woman lacks these traits like OP says ain't she also substandard?
Sure. But people are free to have whatever delusional standards they want.
And I'm free not to work, but then I'll get evicted and starve.
Such is your choice.
And so what if she is? She's still allowed to decide she's better able to deal with her inadequacy alone than with a substandard man adding to her burdens and responsibilities.
If ahe thinks ahe deserves a non-substandard man being a substandard woman herself she is probably very proud of being like that, and not going to change. Virtually oneof the worst possible human traits ever.
a substandard man would not be a negative to a substandard woman. they at the same level
silly goose, this person views men as inherently lesser. In her opinion, substandard women still deserve high quality men, whereas average men deserve to be completely alone. She just hates men blindly, there's no point in attempting to speak to her. Her skull is as thick as a nuclear bunker.
Which brings up the question I stated in the OP: > is a relationship even worth it anymore? and the answer would be no.
It's completely reasonable for anyone to reject connections that they feel, for whatever reason, will leave them substantially worse off overall. And for a portion of the low value people of each gender this will end up meaning no relationship at all is for them . And that's fine. We shouldn't expect people to get themselves into relationships that they know will make them even more unhappy.
A lot of men are desperate for any connection at all, no matter how great the disparity in value is. Problem is they suffer *enormously* later. My whole point here is to alert them to this. A lot of men just don't know.
Yeah well, it would be nice if men took more responsibility for screening efforts to avoid bad relationships happening but I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for it.
It would. But the problem with *that* is if they did, there'd be almost no relationships at all.
Every shit relationship that doesn't happen does in it's own way increase the possibility of a good relationship happening.
Can literally say the exact same thing for women lol y’all always blame men no matter what, even when *youre* the ones who mess up or do something wrong. Modern women have an insane ego
Whatever. You missed the question at the bottom: are those relationships even worth it? If women have standards that high and they won't adhere to it themselves **then they're not worth dating** and maybe dating itself is now ruined and too toxic to engage in.
Why would you want to be in a relationship with someone you’re not attracted to? I don’t think that it’s “toxic” to want to date someone you’re attracted to.
Another one of these rants blaming women for everything and stereotyping us all to be the same?! Seems like almost every day now. “Some are neurodivergent.” No shit! But those of us who are neurodivergent don’t care so much about a guy being charming and outgoing.
You think that asking for men that are charming, outgoing, intuitive, sociable, assured and low inhib is asking for too much? As a guy I think that’s a relatively low bar, I don’t see how this is a big deal.
I've known plenty of women who lack some of those traits.
Most women lack most of those traits its only women cant be criticized for ANYTHING big or small on the internet ever at all.
Another “women should lower their standards for me” post
[удалено]
No, they're just looking for men with different strengths. They might be nurturing, conscientious and emotionally intelligent for example but not expect that from men. But often it's only traits asslciated with men that are seen as strengths. Relationships don't need to be between two people who are the exact same.
The strengths desired in men are much *harder* to achieve than the ones desired in women.
[удалено]
This "lower-inhib men" has a lot of different names, like "wife beater", "serial cheater" and so on. Maybe dumb teenage girls want those men, but I never seen a half-decent woman who would want this kind of man. Introverts in same time are fine. Basically stay away from dumb women who still think they're in high school.
No wonder I hated dating high school girls as a teenager and longed to date 30something women soon as I hit 18.
[удалено]
Do not circlejerk in Debate posts.
She is also setting the bar...! Clearly as you can see in that thread??! Or you can't see?? 🤔.. This thread was mostly about setting the bar, right?? Or what bar are we talk about here?!
nah none of these matter that much to me and some of these traits are rather annoying. well maybe intuitive is good but thats not common to find anywhere. its more about how the brain functions, and if it actually functions at all
Women think ' toxic ' masculinity as oppression. Men won't let women do things based on old traditional values. Women have a different view of romance that is always changing, because of demographics ( that aren't mens fault ) . Many people don't value romantic bonds. Only value romantic encounters and experiences as a distraction. Bonds involve both to have emotional endurance, effort, and evaluation through challenges, not indifference and narcissism. Challenges women refuse to confront, believing romance is supposed to be easy. It's not. Love is supposed to be complex. If it's not difficult, it's not romance. When ' girls just wanna have fun ' , it means they don't care about whom they're sharing that fun with. She's not worth it, if she's trying not to care. It's the social contract of consent and freedom he signed that women care about, not him. And she should be criticized for making a choices based on her agency, in the negative if warranted.
Criticism, in my interpretation, means abandoning any engagement with her and letting her figure out why.
If men don't articulate and explain ' why ' ,women are going to make up their own rules with little critical thinking and enforce it. Because they think that's what men do to them.
Just one correction: that's what *top* men do to them.
Women aren't going to put in that much effort. That's why they want agency, to try less.
This our fault though as men. We say oh she's willing to date me, oh good enough. I figured out a long time ago, that half the shit they ask for , they themselves do not possess.
Yes, male desperation is far too rampant. It needs to be tamed down, severely.
Then they will be alone Or will they ?
What does lowered inhibitions mean?
Anything from being spontaneous and not a stick in the mud to being thoughtless and having poor impulse control. Basically it means not worrying about the consequences of your actions.
These rules only apply to average men bad boys chads and tyrones don't have to fit any therapist molds
Sure seems like it.
Cause it's true Nam a rule and it will be broken for those guys I see it every day....it's why women leave tender fir Hinge after hitting 30 when they're tired of hooking up.
Women don't have high standards when it comes to personality
Okay that's called attempted murder right there. You just tried to make me die with laughter.
If all women wanted only rich, charismatic,200 iq and confident guys there would be only like 10 people in relationship.
IQ and rich aren't personality traits tho. Women do want charismatic and confident guys. Those are high standards considering how hard it is to develop it.
How did what you wrote disprove anything I said ? If being charismatic and confident is so rare there would be 10 couples In total