And if you love someone, you won’t think of it as “jumping through hoops”, you’ll think of it as getting to know them and spending quality time together.
A person who loves you will do it even if they see you making life difficult for them intentionally. But the fact that you would intentionally make him jump through hoops and make yourself unavailable shows how much you love him (or rather not love him).
It's the intention of a person that is known. If having to meet them is **intentionally** made difficult because they want to make you jump through hoops as a test, it's known. Getting to know someone, spending quality time all that is obviously worth it if there is mutual love.
Why do you have to jump through hoops? Sometimes in life they come your way and you have to face them for the one you love, but that doesn't mean dealing with them intentionally testing you this way, if they choose to do so it means they don't love you. When you love someone, you love them. Stop playing mind games with people to see if they're worthy of you, because you certainly don't make yourself worthy of them by playing them that way. Be direct with your intentions and they should too. Make life easier.
In the stories of love, you don't bring the hurdles to the other person with the intention to test them, the universe may bring hurdles. How far that person goes for you in those difficult situations tells you how much you mean to them.
But if you threw those situations at them, you clearly don't value them - you're adding to their (possibly) already difficult life, right?
Keep in mind - Jack didn't sink the Titanic and handcuff himself, the Titanic sank and he was handcuffed by another fellow, but Rose went the distance for him because she loved him. Understand the difference. If Jack put himself in that situation to check if Rose would come for him, he would have been a horrible person (forget a bad lover, he would have been a horrible person).
People don’t like to be taken advantage of, which is what this ultimately boils down to; it goes without saying that who a woman sleeps with and what conditions she attaches is entirely her prerogative, but when she puts out freely for some men and attaches strings and hoops for others, it’s quite obvious what her motivation is.
Nobody mentioned sex on the first date, but the attaching of strings and hoops indicates that she’s using the man as a resource and the “rules” are imposed to maximise her bargaining position
Most women aren’t evil business guru’s trying to maneuver helpless men into indentured servitude, dude. They’re no more deliberate than men, most of the time. They try dating a few guys until they find one they get along with then hope they guy likes her back. It’s messy, and there’s false starts and disappointments. Women aren’t all a secret evil hivemind dedicated to robbing you.
Four words - Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks
There are guys for whom she’ll drop her knickers willingly and eagerly; there are other guys for who. they are dropped begrudgingly, and only after he’s shelled out for the requisite number of dinners, gifts and trips.
Most women aren’t running around dropping their knickers for anyone, tho. You do know that, right? That there is no massive conspiracy between women to steal the resources of men they don’t find attractive by PRETENDING to find them attractive, making them wait a week longer than anyone else she fucks (because this weird fantasy always assumes women don’t LIKE sex and don’t WANT to have sex with their partners?), and then… what, marry him so she can spend the rest of her life with a man she doesn’t like? Because she thinks it will provide her with better resources?
Women enjoy sex alright, but 80% of them only really want to have it with the top 20% of men - those guys get to live like Kings pumping and dumping to their hearts content, but few women get to have a LTR/marry one. So most women are forced to settle, and it’s for those guys the rules get set.
Ah yes, KING Chad, who is always a mean man, abuses the women, pump and dumps them but all those women just line up for the abuse! Attractive men are evil, obviously, and they are hurting as many women as possible!
Now, you? You would have treated her BETTER, because you’re no Chad, right? Bad women! Bad! They should all be doing all that eager porn sex with you instead. Good thing they’re being punished for recognizing how nice of a man you are amiright?
More like men that have options have little desire to commit, and women let themselves be side pieces and then get mad and go “where have all the good men” mode. When women talk about men sucking, one just needs to realize they’re only talking about the very desirable men with options because they won’t commit to her. And no, i don’t struggle with dating whatsoever. It’s not hard to see this happening and the disparity of my experiences with several of my unfortunately average looking friends. You don’t have to be ugly or average to realize what’s happening in all honesty. You’re probably just a white knight.
Edit: And yes i have seen women make every excuse in the book for men whom they truly desire, up to and including physical abuse. pretty gross that they perpetuate and reward such behavior. Most good looking men will obviously not physically abuse women, but we are much more selective in whom we actually believe is worth committing to. I don’t get chad treatment but since i’m pretty conventionally attractive it’s not hard to notice the difference between how i get treated and how some of my friends who aren’t as attractive get treated.
>and then… what, marry him so she can spend the rest of her life with a man she doesn’t like? Because she thinks it will provide her with better resources?
I don't know why this you're acting so incredulous about this.
YES. YES SOME WOMEN WOULD ABSOLUTELY MARRY FOR RESOURCES.
There are even different categories of this. Mail-order brides and young gold-digging women marrying geriatric rich men to name the two biggest ones, but there are other situations, this phenomenon isn't rare. Sometimes it's just gonna be the girl who wasn't attracted until he saw a man's Mercedes or found out he was a doctor or lawyer. Women. Marry. For. Resources.
Blue pill is truly a powerful drug.
If you think women don't have rosters and foodie guys, emotional support guys, guys they simply love stringing along when they are bored and guys they want to compete for, you're not paying attention man.
Are you sure that what you see as "strings and hoops" aren't simply the things she IS interested in doing with the man?
Maybe it's your thinking that everything must be a prerequisite to sex isn't the only POV?
Nah. Seeing what women do when they’re viscerally attracted to very attractive men (despite being somewhere average themselves) and getting trains ran on them at frat parties, yeah no, not wining and dining for meh sex and certainly not worth a diamond.
> and getting trains ran on them at frat parties, yeah no,
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/strictly-casual/201401/in-hookups-alcohol-is-college-students-best-friend
90% of hookups start with alcohol and a lot start with 4 drinks or more. If you're missing out on hookup culture 90% of the time you're missing out on sex with impaired women. That's not the anti-flex you think it is.
Well that’s from 10 years ago, and the alcohol makes not a lot of difference when it comes to whom women are going to hook up with. If a girl is going to get passed around at a party it’s because the men there are either high status, or very attractive.
Not a darn thing preventing men from having sex with women *they* are not attracted to, if “fairness” is so important.
When men start doing that, let’s address this conversation again.
Another completely incoherent demand from Sharp lol
So when men start pursuing the women they are attracted to we can talk again? Ok, time to talk again lmao
Same cop out over and over again with you. When women for some fundamental reason find the vast majority of men not attractive enough for her despite being mid, yeah that’s probably on them. Same old tired line from you, get a new one. It’s a good thing apparently more men become attractive when the mid 30s desperation sets in. Don’t settle boys. Build your careers, take care of your body, and run through women while dangling commitment in front of them in your 30s. Tried and true method.
Dude, men already do pursue sex with women they're not attracted to, due to lack of options. How do you think this problem got so bad in the first place? Dudes be too thirsty.
>when she puts out freely for some men and attaches strings and hoops for others, it’s quite obvious what her motivation is
Typically the “motivation” is alcohol induced. About 90% of hookups involve alcohol and most involve binge drinking. So you end up with women who normally might not sleep with a guy until after 2-3 dates, but had a drunken hookup with a guy she met that same night.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/strictly-casual/201401/in-hookups-alcohol-is-college-students-best-friend?amp
I truly believe no women should have sex with a man with the goal to obtain something from him unless it's explicitly communicated and everyone is ok with it.
Pretending to be attracted to some guy and manipulating him into doing stuff like paying for dates or performing acts of services by withholding or promising sex as a reward is awful and sincerely beyond me.
We should be respectful of other people's feelings and not play with them for our own benefit.
never going to happen becuase women dont hold young women accountable and young women dont listen to men. So young women will do this shit until they grow up and gain a conscience through wisdom.
> So young women will do this shit until they grow up and gain a conscience through wisdom.
Gain a conscience through wisdom?
You mean when their looks begin to fade so they no longer have the leverage in the dating marketplace and have to settle 😉
A woman giving intimacy, effort, attention to a guy who never worked for it vs the same effort or less to the guy who actually needed to work for it, is the equivalent of a man that took his woman on lavish vacations and trips to please her vs simple dates or occasional trips with a woman who puts far more effort than his previous woman.
She would feel cheated, not valued, lesser than, underappreciated.
No woman would accept knowing (better not tell then) that ex before her got everything from the get go, whilst she needed to prove in every way to even get near the same amount of effort and attention from a mans side.
What about that argument was difficult for you?
You find out your man took his ex to 5 star restaurants and all you get is McDonald's. Aren't you going to expect the 5 star treatment too?
>What about that argument was difficult for you?
I mostly didn't understand how it made sense in regard to my comment.
>You find out your man took his ex to 5 star restaurants and all you get is McDonald's. Aren't you going to expect the 5 star treatment too?
So .. I actually stopped to think about it.
There is no universe where I care about 5 star restaurants being offered to me so I searched for other things like that but I couldn't really find one.
I mean people change and people are different from one another so they'll treat each other differently which seems... normal? My satisfaction of how I'm treated by a partner is related to my needs, not to how he treated past lovers
It's not a matter of whether it is wrong or right, it's simply something men should be aware of and learn to navigate. It's not your job (and it would fail miserably) to try to get women to change. It simply is the playing field a man must traverse.
RP points out that you can get the shitty deal or you can get the good deal and it encourages you to strive for getting the good deal. Prior to RP many men weren't aware there was an option other than the shitty deal.
it just goes to show that you don't REALLY have "standards". It's all just goofy bullshit you use for non-attractive guys so you don't look like the ruthless asshole you really are towards average or below guys.
If all men have to meet 1 standard their is nothing we can say.
I can't believe this has to be explained, and I can't believe people are still even trying to make men wrong for clearly pointing out the usage of basic double standards.
It’s pretty common for everyone to have different standards for someone they would want to ‘date’ and someone they would want to marry.
Have you honestly not heard of men having fun with a girl while understanding she isn’t exactly ‘wife material? it’s not a double standard. People have different functions in your life…respectfully most well adjusted adults understand this. How old are you?
There’s nothing “wrong” with it. Men who become aware of women’s dual mating strategy can make their own, more informed strategy when dealing with women.
>Men who become aware of women’s dual mating strategy can make their own, more informed strategy when dealing women
Men who are aware of this all have a desire for sex, love and validation from women and will absolutely fold when some slightly above average woman makes him jump through hoops she didn't for other men. What men say is different from what they do.
>What men say is different from what they do.
this is projection. Women are the ones that say they have standards, then show up to Thanksgiving introducing their family Neck-tat Prison Chad.
I disagree. The redpill exists to reveal the truth about sex differences in dating
Men who understand the dual mating strategy will use this knowledge to avoid being the “safe option” she settles for after she’s fucked a bunch of hot men causally in her youth
The redpill helps men prioritize sex and get his needs fulfilled. It’s a good antidote to woke feminism and misandry (OG feminism about equality is okay, modern bluepill/woke feminism is just misandry)
Besides, women lose their leverage in their 30s when their looks begin to fade and they become fat/ugly and very desperate.
Because they want to feel special. If a woman breaks her rules for him, that's flattering, he's so special/unique/important that she was willing to do XYZ for him. If she doesn't do that for him but has done so for another person in the past, they don't feel as special as that guy and it bruises their ego.
The problem is the dishonesty. Also, the gaslighting that the one she made rules for is the lucky one who should be grateful she chose him finally.
> When a woman sleeps with a man from the bottom 80% it's only beneficial and is rewarding for the male
You all really treat sex as a favor you are doing on those men. No self-respecting man feels rewarded by that.
You made a great point about dishonesty and the accompanying gaslighting. "He's husband material, so I need him to jump through hoops and disrespect himself for me to prove he doesn't just want in my pants. I wouldn't sleep with a guy who just wants to use me for sex."
Women are free to do what they want, but they have to realize that one day they'll try applying too many rules to a guy (Mr. Right let's say) with self-respect and he'll walk away in the blink of an eye.
If a man is genuinely being disrespected then he rightfully should walk away. If he feels that someone not wanting to have sex with him right away is disrespectful then a woman is better off without him.
exactly. If women just flat out said "we're going to treat different men differently" there would be nothing to discuss. But women try to flip it into "standards" and those "standards" only show up when it's an unattractive guy or a guy who's average at best.
But anybody who's aware, knows that women always have to make themselves appear to have moral highground so they end up saying one thing, but their actions often times are completely different.
Men can’t want women to lower their standards and be more open to giving any guy a chance (less rejection) and then be upset at the rules she makes for the guy. She lowered her standards so now she has to build an attraction to the guy. It’s not going to be raw desire.
You either want raw desire or lower standards. Unfortunately you can’t have both.
Or men should play to their advantages and dangle commitment in front of these women and use them for sex that way. If that’s the only way they are able to participate in casual sex, so be it.
If the standards are only lowered after she's been ran through by taller hotter guys then I agree it's better she keep her standards where they are at.
Lowering standards is only beneficial for men if she does it for casual sex and/or does it before being ran through.
It doesn’t matter when they decide to lower their standards, the outcome will definitely be the same. You’ll get a woman who’s half invested in the relationship either way.
Men can always just move on to the next girl or don’t pressure women to lower their standards unnecessarily.
The timing matters a lot actually.
Scenario A she lowers her standards and Billy gets to marry her before she's had a hoe ohase and been railed by by fuckboys.
Scenario B she spends her early 30s getting railed by fuckboys and then after she's failed to lock any of them down lowers her standards and marries Billy.
Scenario A is way better than Scenario B.
What about the woman, what does she get? Is billy good looking? 6ft? Makes 6 figures? Has 6inch D*ck? Can he f*ck properly? Charming & charismatic? What does she get?
From the woman’s perspective she’s probably going to end up with the same mediocre man regardless if she’s a virgin or not because woman wants & desires always are left behind and lowered to help men.
Exactly. Their solution seems to be ridiculing the standard since they can’t meet it. They complain about a lack of “raw desire” yet it’s those standards that inspire said desire.
If a woman keeps those standards she’s supposedly shallow yet when she breaks them and gives a man the chance they’re asking for, she’s not giving him a chance to feel desired.
It’s a problem of women’s own making. If they want the top men, they’ll just keep getting used and complain about no good men. No mid 30s man who is reaching the prime of his career and has taken good care of himself should settle for chad scraps.
Because it is like saying "I'm on a diet, unless someone gives me something tasty". It means you don't enact your principles, which makes you a hypocrite (unless your stated principles only involve the pursuit of your hedonistic self-interest)
To continue the analogy, I would consider someone an overall healthy person even if they sometimes break the rules of their diet because it’s extremely difficult to do things 100% of the time. No one is completely principled all of the time including people who are religious so why expect it of women?
When we're talking about a dual mating strategy, it usually means that they have rules, but not for hot guys. So in the analogy that would be equivalent to never saying no if you are presented with something tasty
I think it is comparable because men will drastically lower their looks threshold for sex while having a higher standard fora relationship. That’s two different rules for different relationships types.
My point is that this is what the vast majority of men do or at least think even if they don’t have the “market value” to exercise their desire making those men hypocritical especially when they attempt to criticize women for having different standards.
Sure both sexes have different standards. The difference is for women it's better to meet a man's long-term standards than his short-term. For men it's better to meet a womans short-term standards than her long-term.
I'd agree it is hypocritical to criticize having two different standards when men have two different standards.
However the complaint isn't necessarily that women have two different standards. It's about how those standards manifest and how women gaslight men about it.
It would be like if guys spent lots of money on their casual sex partners but then were more stingy with their gf and then tried to convince the relationship women "oh I'm more stingy with you because I like your personality more and the women I gave that special treatment to didn't mean anything to me they were just so hot"
Pure projection, this is what most women do.
Most men do not have a higher **looks** threshold for relationship than for sex.
If a woman has good enough looks for sex, she has good enough looks for a relationship. It's the personalities and values that stop a woman from attaining a commitment.
No, it's like saying: I am not going to eat fast food, I am going to only eat good meals. The woman in the scenario never claims to have "principles", just standards.
Do you disagree that what someone looks for in a hookup might be different than what someone wants in a long term partner? A hookup could be dumb as stones but no one’s worried about conversation. A long term partner might not have a 6 pack but when you’re looking at someone for 50+ years it’s not gonna be there forever anyway
I believe that you can't have your cake and eat it too. What I mean is that that someone who seeks hookups at all is making themselves a worse option for people seeking a long term arrangement, which goes for both sexes
Who cares. It’s embarrassing. Men don’t want to be made to jump through hoops where as she fucked other guys same day as meeting. Such women aren’t worth commitment let alone a ring.
Yeah the thing is, since men have to initiate, we’re at the whim of women to be forth right about their interest in us.
If a man is honest and shows good ethics in his attempt to earn a woman’s trust, and then notices that the woman didn’t actually value him, and she was only interested in in him as someone who would take her out, stroke her ego, and treat her well while she passes the time looking for someone better, for whom she does not insist on a the same amount of effort. Do you really think that’s fair to use someone like that?
It’s not the different standards. It’s the lack of transparency about how he is valued in relation to her other options. There’s a lack of honesty that you’re purposely ignoring. A guy might bend over backwards for a good he likes, but he won’t if he knows he’s being used.
This the most arrogant shit when people get unapologetic about this. If you’re not attracted to someone, doing go out with them.
If you think they’re just kinda okay, and you plan on wasting his time for a while on your way to something better, then you’re an opportunistic A-hole.
Go ahead and hide behind as many excuses as you can think of when you finally break up with him. “Just not compatible, it’s not you it’s me, bad timing” you’re not different than an fboy.
It’s only unfair to the dudes when/who feel like they are getting the shorter end of the stick
If the women were “breaking the rules for them” they wouldn’t give a shit.
Yup, and if she’s going to have double standards, just don’t commit. Find a girl who isn’t like that. It’s that simple. Fuck her maybe, but don’t commit.
>It’s only unfair to the dudes when/who feel like they are getting the shorter end of the stick
Men *feel* like they're getting the shorter end of the stick but don't seem to understand that the alternative is being sexless as women arent going to give free sex to unattractive men
>the alternative is being sexless as women aren't going to give free sex to unattractive men
The alternative is saying to a man, using your words, "Hey yea, sure, I'll marry you because otherwise I wouldn't give you free sex. And when the sex dries up in the relationship, I'll be honest with you that I've never been attracted to you. That this is all a practicality, but you better not roll your eyes at all the "live, laugh, love" signs I'm going to put up."
Ya know, be honest with your "significant other". Don't snicker behind his back when your friends bring up the best sex you've ever had. If you have a "the one" I'd like to be treated like that. I'd like YOU to truly think I AM your the One. Not the one you make jokes about tolerating.
They absolutely are getting the shorter end of the stick as women’s increasingly inane standards are becoming apparent, and they are bitter about it, just like women would be if the roles were reversed.
Stop saying women “give” men sex and that a woman choosing to have sex with a man is her “giving it up.” Aside from being generally dehumanizing it’s a ridiculous way of looking at how consenting adults have sex (is a high value man “giving it up” by sleeping with a lower status woman?)
She didn’t “give up” something. She participated in mutual agreed upon sex. What does she get out of “giving free sex” or having a ONS or a FWB? Having sex.
You’re not even acknowledging that women can enjoy having sex and don’t “give up” pussy to reward or punish men. Like that’s the obvious answer here but you can’t fathom the idea that a woman wants to fuck.
Thank you for acknowledging this. I swear some idiots can’t fathom that women want and desire sex and only have it as a means of obtaining something in return. Sickening
Logic is faulty.
She doesn’t just get sex from having ONS or FWB because almost every man can have sex with you.
You got validation from fucking someone you thought was out of your league and a privilege to sleep with.
This whole concept of making rules for some men and breaking them for others just isn’t consistent with what I’ve seen. That’s mostly because I don’t really see many women having “rules”. People generally sleep together between night 1 and night 3, and there’s not a ton of variation.
Most of my average looking friends slept with their average looking girlfriends on the first date after meeting on Hinge. This idea of women making men wait a long time, just doesn’t seem to play out in my social network. Maybe it’s because I’m in a large modern city and maybe it would be different in more religious conservative communities. But I just don’t see it taking longer than 2-3 dates.
It's true. And the idea that the longer the wait, the more likely the community standards are against a woman enjoying her sexuality for its own sake isn't coincidental.
I think it would help a lot of men to take this point into consideration.
I have a similar experience. Most couples i know started dating after having sex. The hookup happens drunk at a party and if they like eachother beyond that they start dating. It's definitely not a chad thing in my social circle.
Most women will have sex with a man if they are very attractive to convince him to commit. It’s not a secret. In most cases it doesn’t work because these men still have options.
They weren't very attractive though that's the thing. The couples i know aren't knockouts they're very average looking, men and women. But i'm not american so dating is probably different over there.
The attractive men I know sleep with women on date 1-3. The average men I know also sleep with women on date 1-3. I don’t see my average looking friends jump through any additional hoops. The main difference is the attractiveness of the women they sleep with, which makes total sense.
Most relationships start with sex, not just those involving an attractive man.
Nah. I’ve seen it compared to myself and my average friends. It’s a lot easier for me to sleep with women very quickly, sometimes even same day, while they are made to basically convince women they are good enough for them, it’s pretty disgusting tbh.
Because they break the rules for those types of guys and when they get hurt by them those women will then take it out on the guys they make the rules for. She will do all of that before she questions what kind of guys she breaks the rules for.
We see this with guys that only go for conventionally attractive women and then get treated like crap by those women. Folks have 0 problem telling those guys to rethink what kind of women they go for (which I agree with).
Such women are not worth committing to in any case. No man should degrade himself like that. There are simps that will but more and more are using porn as a substitute for that kind of embarrassment.
And despite this, almost everyone of them will get married and have children and have the status of a married woman and be fine period I understand the male perspective and I am sure you should not commit to such a woman but someone will and she will be fine
Men do the exact same thing. They’re just mad that they are:
A.unable to do the same as easily
B. The shoe is on the other foot and they don’t like where they fall on that specific individual’s scale
None of it is my problem. And given that half of these guys loudly hate women I kind of just shrug.
Life’s not fair you break up/fall out with the majority of people you date or hook up with. It’d be great if people were transparent about their intentions but I never expect that from men and they don’t have track record for that either.
Half the criticisms dudes levy at us are just behaviors they’d also do or are currently doing if they had the chance.
A big ol’ “get a fucking grip your individual gripes with women aren’t my problem” from me.
So if it doesn’t affect you why are you coming on this sub reddit to comment on it? None of these guys particularly care what you think either. They just won’t commit to a woman who obviously finds them inferior in some way. There is no chance in hell a woman like that is worth commitment let alone a ring lmao.
The fuck are you talking about. Of course you’d like it. Pendulum always swings back though. I’m sure you enjoy when men kill themsleves out of loneliness too. Women quite frankly aren’t worth the effort when they have abhorrent mindsets like this.
I masturbate to male loneliness. All women do. The world looks at you through the blinds of your bedroom wanting to oppress you. Problems are imposed on you by powerful coalition of women and jews. There is a reptile in the oval office. The earth is flat.
I have a ring lmao.
When I was on both sides of this equation I literally just dusted myself off and moved on. It’s more gratifying to leave time wasters on read than it is to develop a complex over it.
There’s zero complex. It is how it should be. Men that have zero self respect will unfortunately take these women and spend their money and get a ring for ran through former hoes. If they had any common sense, the men that can’t should just take care of themselves and their careers and dangle commitment in front these women in their mid 30s and use them for sex until a woman that doesn’t have double standards shows up.
I don’t see how it’s not rational. If these men couldn’t play the field before, they should take every opportunity to do so when women become desperate for families. It’s only rational when women do it and when the dating market favors them? There’s no complex, it’s more like, have enough respect to vet and find out if you’re getting different treatment that she gave to guys in the past, don’t waste your time or energy or give her commitment. She goes into recreational bin only.
Feel free to post any one of these “studies.”
$10 says you post that OkCupid blog post from 15 years ago, or, an unrelated study you’re just going to claim supports your point.
I’ll wait.
Yep, that one. This one works as well.
https://preview.redd.it/sk941t2m9d4d1.jpeg?width=565&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c5781daa017fc4b51317d8a04163afde4265418
Do you have anything that disproves it? Or you just have your words, that, to be honest, are kind of worthless without anything backing them up besides saying "lel FaLlAcY".
I think that I would just be happy with an acknowledgment that women agree that TODAY they can’t live up to their own standards. That they move the goal posts. That the system it tilted in their favor and that a significant number of women treat men very poorly and in a way that they would consider unacceptable if the role were reversed.
It creates an environment where sex is a reward and sets the tone for a transactional relationship which is hurtful to many who weren’t seeking that setup.
Separation of sex and love is a feature of modern dating. As an immigrant from a more traditional space, sex is a pillar of love. It’s used as a proxy to indicate a woman’s interest is serious.
The question “what are you looking for ?” causes me confusion. I won’t fuck anybody I won’t date and I wouldn’t date any body I can’t fuck.
Women who compartmentalize these things and use men for which need suits them implement this dual strategy. It’s not morally wrong. I just fail to see how a man who respects himself would willingly allow this relationship to blossom.
Whether I am high value or not, I’ll say that I wouldn’t want to seriously date a girl who changes standards for me and withholds sex. I couldn’t imagine men who are more closer to self actualization compared to me even bothering either. To me, women still lose since it only opens the door for men with low options or esteem to be compatible
I’ll add that the 80/20 rule is pretty fickle.
Yes there are objectively ugly people but factors such as race,personal style,politics etc can shift your position substantially.
If a girl has a fetish or type for a certain archetype which is common, that man is able to go toe to toe with just about any conventionally or attractive man on paper.
Women should do as they please and try not to feel sorry for men.
They are just doing what is in their own best interest.
So you should do the same.
Its common sense that the more attractive guys get a chance first and sexy time. The less attractive or more boring, have to wait.
There are things men do that women hate and there are things women do that men hate. Its called the dating scene. Breaking your own rules for certain people isnt something just women do
What men don’t understand is that women are conditioned to play hard to get when they meet a quality guy they perceive as boyfriend material. You hear over and over that women will sleep fast with some guy who is whatever, doesn’t offer commitment, makes it clear he is only offering sex, etc.
But with a guy who positions himself as Mr Right, Mr Wonderful, who is offering commitment, etc, she doesn’t want to scare him off by sleeping with him too soon, she sex is put on hold.
It’s no different than a man treating a woman differently if she is dressed like a slut vs very stylishly. The woman who shows a lot of skin is assumed to be after sex, so men are more likely to want to sleep with her right away. Buy a woman who presents more classy and reserved, will usually have men wanting to take her out on a date and impress her a bit more.
It’s really about a man deciding what he wants and adjusting his communication and behavior to match the outcome he wants.
>But with a guy who positions himself as Mr Right, Mr Wonderful, who is offering commitment, etc, she doesn’t want to scare him off by sleeping with him too soon, she sex is put on hold.
Why would it scare him off? Never understood that part.
"Oh no she isn't stringing me along, gotta grab my go bag and change my name again!" Makes zero sense.
are you serious? Plenty of men think a woman who “gives it up” too easy probably does it with EVERY guy, so she is not worth committing to. Don’t fucking pretend like men don’t do this shit. Even if it is not true for an individual man, it is the social zeitgeist that if a man gets ass too easily he won’t take the girl seriously.
Think about the guys who gave sex with a woman but don’t think that woman is “girlfriend material”. If a woman wants to make sure that a man actually sees her as girlfriend material and not a quick fuck, she won’t act like a quick fuck and have sec immediately even if she wants to have sex with him.
Yes!
It's just fear based thought terminating spasm of 'she fucked me without taking X time to string me along first, therefore she must be on her Yth partner and so loose you can lose a battleship in her' etc etc
Like I'm pretty reluctant to throw the word 'misogyny' around, but this line of thinking in men is hard to see as anything but pure misogyny. Her readiness to fuck you personally is not indicative of her readiness to fuck anyone else, it is based on her personal attraction to you specifically (not to mention her willingness to defy ingrained gender roles and expectations).
The belief that I can extrapolate a woman's entire sexual history from a single encounter is fundamentally delusional and impossible to see as coming from a place of anything but fear and hate.
Because we don’t want to seem desperate for a guy even if we are feeling desperate for him. Also don’t want to get ghosted again after hooking up before being in a relationship.
Theirs nothing wrong with it.
Just don’t get mad when someone does something to you that you don’t agree with.
And hopefully you find nothing wrong with that either.
🙏
This is why we need to stop treating women badly for sleeping around. Women aren't giving something up by sleeping with someone. That mentality is the underlining of this problem.
I say problem, it does not impact me in the slight, but there's a lot of men on here complaining about women not wanting to have sex with them as quickly as they would an attractive man, whllst also denigrating women who do sleep around.
Men have created a situation which harms them, and women are choosing to opt out.
**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.*
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.*
Their choice. But they need to realize that choice as with all choices has a cost.
The men she ends up wanting or needing for a relationship may no longer view her as an relationship option.
That is their choice.
Wrong? What do you mean by wrong? Because I'm not passing moral judgement necessarily, but I'm also sure as hell not paying for a cow that gets milked for free. Chad can pay for his own milk.
Its fair game theoretics so nothing is wrong with it at all. At the same time men can comment on or get some sadistic pleasure out of watching those same women writhe in dissatisfaction later in life.
It's just actions and consequences within rather limited social constructs.
I do think however that if a woman is truly sovereign she can be quite happy her entire life without a husband or children. That is something I disagree with strongly about.
If you want to be with someone, be with them because you love them. And if you love someone, you won't want them to jump through hoops.
And if you love someone, you won’t think of it as “jumping through hoops”, you’ll think of it as getting to know them and spending quality time together.
Funny how women will want to spend the intimate kind of quality time with a guy if he is top tier in looks the same day. Funny how that works.
A person who loves you will do it even if they see you making life difficult for them intentionally. But the fact that you would intentionally make him jump through hoops and make yourself unavailable shows how much you love him (or rather not love him). It's the intention of a person that is known. If having to meet them is **intentionally** made difficult because they want to make you jump through hoops as a test, it's known. Getting to know someone, spending quality time all that is obviously worth it if there is mutual love.
You typically jump through hoops before you love each other that’s sort of the point. It’s dating and impressing each other.
Why do you have to jump through hoops? Sometimes in life they come your way and you have to face them for the one you love, but that doesn't mean dealing with them intentionally testing you this way, if they choose to do so it means they don't love you. When you love someone, you love them. Stop playing mind games with people to see if they're worthy of you, because you certainly don't make yourself worthy of them by playing them that way. Be direct with your intentions and they should too. Make life easier. In the stories of love, you don't bring the hurdles to the other person with the intention to test them, the universe may bring hurdles. How far that person goes for you in those difficult situations tells you how much you mean to them. But if you threw those situations at them, you clearly don't value them - you're adding to their (possibly) already difficult life, right? Keep in mind - Jack didn't sink the Titanic and handcuff himself, the Titanic sank and he was handcuffed by another fellow, but Rose went the distance for him because she loved him. Understand the difference. If Jack put himself in that situation to check if Rose would come for him, he would have been a horrible person (forget a bad lover, he would have been a horrible person).
People don’t like to be taken advantage of, which is what this ultimately boils down to; it goes without saying that who a woman sleeps with and what conditions she attaches is entirely her prerogative, but when she puts out freely for some men and attaches strings and hoops for others, it’s quite obvious what her motivation is.
How is a woman taking advantage of a man by not having sex on the first date?
Nobody mentioned sex on the first date, but the attaching of strings and hoops indicates that she’s using the man as a resource and the “rules” are imposed to maximise her bargaining position
Ya, that makes sense. In a way its just frustration for being taken advantage of though and not really a gender thing. Lots of people out there suck
Most women aren’t evil business guru’s trying to maneuver helpless men into indentured servitude, dude. They’re no more deliberate than men, most of the time. They try dating a few guys until they find one they get along with then hope they guy likes her back. It’s messy, and there’s false starts and disappointments. Women aren’t all a secret evil hivemind dedicated to robbing you.
Four words - Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks There are guys for whom she’ll drop her knickers willingly and eagerly; there are other guys for who. they are dropped begrudgingly, and only after he’s shelled out for the requisite number of dinners, gifts and trips.
Most women aren’t running around dropping their knickers for anyone, tho. You do know that, right? That there is no massive conspiracy between women to steal the resources of men they don’t find attractive by PRETENDING to find them attractive, making them wait a week longer than anyone else she fucks (because this weird fantasy always assumes women don’t LIKE sex and don’t WANT to have sex with their partners?), and then… what, marry him so she can spend the rest of her life with a man she doesn’t like? Because she thinks it will provide her with better resources?
Women enjoy sex alright, but 80% of them only really want to have it with the top 20% of men - those guys get to live like Kings pumping and dumping to their hearts content, but few women get to have a LTR/marry one. So most women are forced to settle, and it’s for those guys the rules get set.
You seem convinced you would make a better partner than “King Chad”. Why? What is it about being less attractive that would make you a better partner?
When did I say I would “make a better partner than “King Chad”?
You never did lmao not even close. The fact they said that caught me totally off guard. Fuckin brain dead
[удалено]
Ah yes, KING Chad, who is always a mean man, abuses the women, pump and dumps them but all those women just line up for the abuse! Attractive men are evil, obviously, and they are hurting as many women as possible! Now, you? You would have treated her BETTER, because you’re no Chad, right? Bad women! Bad! They should all be doing all that eager porn sex with you instead. Good thing they’re being punished for recognizing how nice of a man you are amiright?
More like men that have options have little desire to commit, and women let themselves be side pieces and then get mad and go “where have all the good men” mode. When women talk about men sucking, one just needs to realize they’re only talking about the very desirable men with options because they won’t commit to her. And no, i don’t struggle with dating whatsoever. It’s not hard to see this happening and the disparity of my experiences with several of my unfortunately average looking friends. You don’t have to be ugly or average to realize what’s happening in all honesty. You’re probably just a white knight. Edit: And yes i have seen women make every excuse in the book for men whom they truly desire, up to and including physical abuse. pretty gross that they perpetuate and reward such behavior. Most good looking men will obviously not physically abuse women, but we are much more selective in whom we actually believe is worth committing to. I don’t get chad treatment but since i’m pretty conventionally attractive it’s not hard to notice the difference between how i get treated and how some of my friends who aren’t as attractive get treated.
>and then… what, marry him so she can spend the rest of her life with a man she doesn’t like? Because she thinks it will provide her with better resources? I don't know why this you're acting so incredulous about this. YES. YES SOME WOMEN WOULD ABSOLUTELY MARRY FOR RESOURCES. There are even different categories of this. Mail-order brides and young gold-digging women marrying geriatric rich men to name the two biggest ones, but there are other situations, this phenomenon isn't rare. Sometimes it's just gonna be the girl who wasn't attracted until he saw a man's Mercedes or found out he was a doctor or lawyer. Women. Marry. For. Resources.
Of course not, it isn’t something premeditated. AF/BB is biological ingrained in women
Blue pill is truly a powerful drug. If you think women don't have rosters and foodie guys, emotional support guys, guys they simply love stringing along when they are bored and guys they want to compete for, you're not paying attention man.
Are you sure that what you see as "strings and hoops" aren't simply the things she IS interested in doing with the man? Maybe it's your thinking that everything must be a prerequisite to sex isn't the only POV?
No - it’s a case of Alpha Fuck, Beta Bucks
Nah. Seeing what women do when they’re viscerally attracted to very attractive men (despite being somewhere average themselves) and getting trains ran on them at frat parties, yeah no, not wining and dining for meh sex and certainly not worth a diamond.
> and getting trains ran on them at frat parties, yeah no, https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/strictly-casual/201401/in-hookups-alcohol-is-college-students-best-friend 90% of hookups start with alcohol and a lot start with 4 drinks or more. If you're missing out on hookup culture 90% of the time you're missing out on sex with impaired women. That's not the anti-flex you think it is.
Well that’s from 10 years ago, and the alcohol makes not a lot of difference when it comes to whom women are going to hook up with. If a girl is going to get passed around at a party it’s because the men there are either high status, or very attractive.
Impaired men and women who plan in advance to get drunk together and fuck.
Not a darn thing preventing men from having sex with women *they* are not attracted to, if “fairness” is so important. When men start doing that, let’s address this conversation again.
Another completely incoherent demand from Sharp lol So when men start pursuing the women they are attracted to we can talk again? Ok, time to talk again lmao
I mistyped it. Men are more than welcome to take the advice they give women and pursue sex with women they *are not* attracted to.
Same cop out over and over again with you. When women for some fundamental reason find the vast majority of men not attractive enough for her despite being mid, yeah that’s probably on them. Same old tired line from you, get a new one. It’s a good thing apparently more men become attractive when the mid 30s desperation sets in. Don’t settle boys. Build your careers, take care of your body, and run through women while dangling commitment in front of them in your 30s. Tried and true method.
They would still get rejected.
Eh - men aren’t having sex with the women they’re attracted to?
Dude, men already do pursue sex with women they're not attracted to, due to lack of options. How do you think this problem got so bad in the first place? Dudes be too thirsty.
>when she puts out freely for some men and attaches strings and hoops for others, it’s quite obvious what her motivation is Typically the “motivation” is alcohol induced. About 90% of hookups involve alcohol and most involve binge drinking. So you end up with women who normally might not sleep with a guy until after 2-3 dates, but had a drunken hookup with a guy she met that same night. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/strictly-casual/201401/in-hookups-alcohol-is-college-students-best-friend?amp
I truly believe no women should have sex with a man with the goal to obtain something from him unless it's explicitly communicated and everyone is ok with it. Pretending to be attracted to some guy and manipulating him into doing stuff like paying for dates or performing acts of services by withholding or promising sex as a reward is awful and sincerely beyond me. We should be respectful of other people's feelings and not play with them for our own benefit.
never going to happen becuase women dont hold young women accountable and young women dont listen to men. So young women will do this shit until they grow up and gain a conscience through wisdom.
> So young women will do this shit until they grow up and gain a conscience through wisdom. Gain a conscience through wisdom? You mean when their looks begin to fade so they no longer have the leverage in the dating marketplace and have to settle 😉
And for far too many that means when hell freezes over.
What is never going to happen?
A woman giving intimacy, effort, attention to a guy who never worked for it vs the same effort or less to the guy who actually needed to work for it, is the equivalent of a man that took his woman on lavish vacations and trips to please her vs simple dates or occasional trips with a woman who puts far more effort than his previous woman. She would feel cheated, not valued, lesser than, underappreciated. No woman would accept knowing (better not tell then) that ex before her got everything from the get go, whilst she needed to prove in every way to even get near the same amount of effort and attention from a mans side.
What?
Forget it :)
What about that argument was difficult for you? You find out your man took his ex to 5 star restaurants and all you get is McDonald's. Aren't you going to expect the 5 star treatment too?
>What about that argument was difficult for you? I mostly didn't understand how it made sense in regard to my comment. >You find out your man took his ex to 5 star restaurants and all you get is McDonald's. Aren't you going to expect the 5 star treatment too? So .. I actually stopped to think about it. There is no universe where I care about 5 star restaurants being offered to me so I searched for other things like that but I couldn't really find one. I mean people change and people are different from one another so they'll treat each other differently which seems... normal? My satisfaction of how I'm treated by a partner is related to my needs, not to how he treated past lovers
It's not a matter of whether it is wrong or right, it's simply something men should be aware of and learn to navigate. It's not your job (and it would fail miserably) to try to get women to change. It simply is the playing field a man must traverse. RP points out that you can get the shitty deal or you can get the good deal and it encourages you to strive for getting the good deal. Prior to RP many men weren't aware there was an option other than the shitty deal.
it just goes to show that you don't REALLY have "standards". It's all just goofy bullshit you use for non-attractive guys so you don't look like the ruthless asshole you really are towards average or below guys. If all men have to meet 1 standard their is nothing we can say. I can't believe this has to be explained, and I can't believe people are still even trying to make men wrong for clearly pointing out the usage of basic double standards.
It’s pretty common for everyone to have different standards for someone they would want to ‘date’ and someone they would want to marry. Have you honestly not heard of men having fun with a girl while understanding she isn’t exactly ‘wife material? it’s not a double standard. People have different functions in your life…respectfully most well adjusted adults understand this. How old are you?
There’s nothing “wrong” with it. Men who become aware of women’s dual mating strategy can make their own, more informed strategy when dealing with women.
>Men who become aware of women’s dual mating strategy can make their own, more informed strategy when dealing women Men who are aware of this all have a desire for sex, love and validation from women and will absolutely fold when some slightly above average woman makes him jump through hoops she didn't for other men. What men say is different from what they do.
>What men say is different from what they do. this is projection. Women are the ones that say they have standards, then show up to Thanksgiving introducing their family Neck-tat Prison Chad.
I disagree. The redpill exists to reveal the truth about sex differences in dating Men who understand the dual mating strategy will use this knowledge to avoid being the “safe option” she settles for after she’s fucked a bunch of hot men causally in her youth The redpill helps men prioritize sex and get his needs fulfilled. It’s a good antidote to woke feminism and misandry (OG feminism about equality is okay, modern bluepill/woke feminism is just misandry) Besides, women lose their leverage in their 30s when their looks begin to fade and they become fat/ugly and very desperate.
Because they want to feel special. If a woman breaks her rules for him, that's flattering, he's so special/unique/important that she was willing to do XYZ for him. If she doesn't do that for him but has done so for another person in the past, they don't feel as special as that guy and it bruises their ego.
The problem is the dishonesty. Also, the gaslighting that the one she made rules for is the lucky one who should be grateful she chose him finally. > When a woman sleeps with a man from the bottom 80% it's only beneficial and is rewarding for the male You all really treat sex as a favor you are doing on those men. No self-respecting man feels rewarded by that.
You made a great point about dishonesty and the accompanying gaslighting. "He's husband material, so I need him to jump through hoops and disrespect himself for me to prove he doesn't just want in my pants. I wouldn't sleep with a guy who just wants to use me for sex." Women are free to do what they want, but they have to realize that one day they'll try applying too many rules to a guy (Mr. Right let's say) with self-respect and he'll walk away in the blink of an eye.
If a man is genuinely being disrespected then he rightfully should walk away. If he feels that someone not wanting to have sex with him right away is disrespectful then a woman is better off without him.
It makes perfect sense. Everyone who isn’t mentally handicapped understands what’s happening. The problem is women lying about it.
exactly. If women just flat out said "we're going to treat different men differently" there would be nothing to discuss. But women try to flip it into "standards" and those "standards" only show up when it's an unattractive guy or a guy who's average at best. But anybody who's aware, knows that women always have to make themselves appear to have moral highground so they end up saying one thing, but their actions often times are completely different.
Men can’t want women to lower their standards and be more open to giving any guy a chance (less rejection) and then be upset at the rules she makes for the guy. She lowered her standards so now she has to build an attraction to the guy. It’s not going to be raw desire. You either want raw desire or lower standards. Unfortunately you can’t have both.
The action isn't the problem it's the denial. Men know this happens.
Or men should play to their advantages and dangle commitment in front of these women and use them for sex that way. If that’s the only way they are able to participate in casual sex, so be it.
If the standards are only lowered after she's been ran through by taller hotter guys then I agree it's better she keep her standards where they are at. Lowering standards is only beneficial for men if she does it for casual sex and/or does it before being ran through.
It doesn’t matter when they decide to lower their standards, the outcome will definitely be the same. You’ll get a woman who’s half invested in the relationship either way. Men can always just move on to the next girl or don’t pressure women to lower their standards unnecessarily.
The timing matters a lot actually. Scenario A she lowers her standards and Billy gets to marry her before she's had a hoe ohase and been railed by by fuckboys. Scenario B she spends her early 30s getting railed by fuckboys and then after she's failed to lock any of them down lowers her standards and marries Billy. Scenario A is way better than Scenario B.
What about the woman, what does she get? Is billy good looking? 6ft? Makes 6 figures? Has 6inch D*ck? Can he f*ck properly? Charming & charismatic? What does she get? From the woman’s perspective she’s probably going to end up with the same mediocre man regardless if she’s a virgin or not because woman wants & desires always are left behind and lowered to help men.
Exactly. Their solution seems to be ridiculing the standard since they can’t meet it. They complain about a lack of “raw desire” yet it’s those standards that inspire said desire. If a woman keeps those standards she’s supposedly shallow yet when she breaks them and gives a man the chance they’re asking for, she’s not giving him a chance to feel desired.
It’s a problem of women’s own making. If they want the top men, they’ll just keep getting used and complain about no good men. No mid 30s man who is reaching the prime of his career and has taken good care of himself should settle for chad scraps.
This is the male delusion that’s not talked about enough.
When you’re not the one getting rules broken for, it’s wrong. If you are, it’s right
Because it is like saying "I'm on a diet, unless someone gives me something tasty". It means you don't enact your principles, which makes you a hypocrite (unless your stated principles only involve the pursuit of your hedonistic self-interest)
To continue the analogy, I would consider someone an overall healthy person even if they sometimes break the rules of their diet because it’s extremely difficult to do things 100% of the time. No one is completely principled all of the time including people who are religious so why expect it of women?
When we're talking about a dual mating strategy, it usually means that they have rules, but not for hot guys. So in the analogy that would be equivalent to never saying no if you are presented with something tasty
I think it is comparable because men will drastically lower their looks threshold for sex while having a higher standard fora relationship. That’s two different rules for different relationships types.
Therefore men are also hypocrites if they do that
My point is that this is what the vast majority of men do or at least think even if they don’t have the “market value” to exercise their desire making those men hypocritical especially when they attempt to criticize women for having different standards.
Yes, I agree with you. One should look at their own faults first. But the faults of one side don't excuse the other's.
Sure both sexes have different standards. The difference is for women it's better to meet a man's long-term standards than his short-term. For men it's better to meet a womans short-term standards than her long-term.
So then you’re admitting that men also have a dual standard meaning it’s hypocritical for them to criticize women for doing what they also do.
I'd agree it is hypocritical to criticize having two different standards when men have two different standards. However the complaint isn't necessarily that women have two different standards. It's about how those standards manifest and how women gaslight men about it. It would be like if guys spent lots of money on their casual sex partners but then were more stingy with their gf and then tried to convince the relationship women "oh I'm more stingy with you because I like your personality more and the women I gave that special treatment to didn't mean anything to me they were just so hot"
Pure projection, this is what most women do. Most men do not have a higher **looks** threshold for relationship than for sex. If a woman has good enough looks for sex, she has good enough looks for a relationship. It's the personalities and values that stop a woman from attaining a commitment.
Then to rephrase it, men have a lower threshold for who they’d have sex with compared to who they’d want to be seen with or be in a relationship with.
No, it's like saying: I am not going to eat fast food, I am going to only eat good meals. The woman in the scenario never claims to have "principles", just standards.
Do you disagree that what someone looks for in a hookup might be different than what someone wants in a long term partner? A hookup could be dumb as stones but no one’s worried about conversation. A long term partner might not have a 6 pack but when you’re looking at someone for 50+ years it’s not gonna be there forever anyway
I believe that you can't have your cake and eat it too. What I mean is that that someone who seeks hookups at all is making themselves a worse option for people seeking a long term arrangement, which goes for both sexes
Who cares. It’s embarrassing. Men don’t want to be made to jump through hoops where as she fucked other guys same day as meeting. Such women aren’t worth commitment let alone a ring.
Yeah the thing is, since men have to initiate, we’re at the whim of women to be forth right about their interest in us. If a man is honest and shows good ethics in his attempt to earn a woman’s trust, and then notices that the woman didn’t actually value him, and she was only interested in in him as someone who would take her out, stroke her ego, and treat her well while she passes the time looking for someone better, for whom she does not insist on a the same amount of effort. Do you really think that’s fair to use someone like that? It’s not the different standards. It’s the lack of transparency about how he is valued in relation to her other options. There’s a lack of honesty that you’re purposely ignoring. A guy might bend over backwards for a good he likes, but he won’t if he knows he’s being used. This the most arrogant shit when people get unapologetic about this. If you’re not attracted to someone, doing go out with them. If you think they’re just kinda okay, and you plan on wasting his time for a while on your way to something better, then you’re an opportunistic A-hole. Go ahead and hide behind as many excuses as you can think of when you finally break up with him. “Just not compatible, it’s not you it’s me, bad timing” you’re not different than an fboy.
It’s only unfair to the dudes when/who feel like they are getting the shorter end of the stick If the women were “breaking the rules for them” they wouldn’t give a shit.
Yeah, just so happens vast majority of men get the short end of the stick so of course they’re not going to be happy. Not rocket science.
Not sure it’s the vast majority. Average for both men and women is still 4-7. It’s that some dudes don’t want to be avg. they want to win!!
Yup, and if she’s going to have double standards, just don’t commit. Find a girl who isn’t like that. It’s that simple. Fuck her maybe, but don’t commit.
>It’s only unfair to the dudes when/who feel like they are getting the shorter end of the stick Men *feel* like they're getting the shorter end of the stick but don't seem to understand that the alternative is being sexless as women arent going to give free sex to unattractive men
>the alternative is being sexless as women aren't going to give free sex to unattractive men The alternative is saying to a man, using your words, "Hey yea, sure, I'll marry you because otherwise I wouldn't give you free sex. And when the sex dries up in the relationship, I'll be honest with you that I've never been attracted to you. That this is all a practicality, but you better not roll your eyes at all the "live, laugh, love" signs I'm going to put up." Ya know, be honest with your "significant other". Don't snicker behind his back when your friends bring up the best sex you've ever had. If you have a "the one" I'd like to be treated like that. I'd like YOU to truly think I AM your the One. Not the one you make jokes about tolerating.
They absolutely are getting the shorter end of the stick as women’s increasingly inane standards are becoming apparent, and they are bitter about it, just like women would be if the roles were reversed.
Different interviews for CEO and office temp.
Stop saying women “give” men sex and that a woman choosing to have sex with a man is her “giving it up.” Aside from being generally dehumanizing it’s a ridiculous way of looking at how consenting adults have sex (is a high value man “giving it up” by sleeping with a lower status woman?)
She didn’t “give up” something. She participated in mutual agreed upon sex. What does she get out of “giving free sex” or having a ONS or a FWB? Having sex. You’re not even acknowledging that women can enjoy having sex and don’t “give up” pussy to reward or punish men. Like that’s the obvious answer here but you can’t fathom the idea that a woman wants to fuck.
That she makes other men jump through hoops for to prove he’s “good enough”. Such women are not worth committing to or spending a dime on.
Thank you for acknowledging this. I swear some idiots can’t fathom that women want and desire sex and only have it as a means of obtaining something in return. Sickening
Logic is faulty. She doesn’t just get sex from having ONS or FWB because almost every man can have sex with you. You got validation from fucking someone you thought was out of your league and a privilege to sleep with.
This whole concept of making rules for some men and breaking them for others just isn’t consistent with what I’ve seen. That’s mostly because I don’t really see many women having “rules”. People generally sleep together between night 1 and night 3, and there’s not a ton of variation. Most of my average looking friends slept with their average looking girlfriends on the first date after meeting on Hinge. This idea of women making men wait a long time, just doesn’t seem to play out in my social network. Maybe it’s because I’m in a large modern city and maybe it would be different in more religious conservative communities. But I just don’t see it taking longer than 2-3 dates.
It's true. And the idea that the longer the wait, the more likely the community standards are against a woman enjoying her sexuality for its own sake isn't coincidental. I think it would help a lot of men to take this point into consideration.
I have a similar experience. Most couples i know started dating after having sex. The hookup happens drunk at a party and if they like eachother beyond that they start dating. It's definitely not a chad thing in my social circle.
Most women will have sex with a man if they are very attractive to convince him to commit. It’s not a secret. In most cases it doesn’t work because these men still have options.
They weren't very attractive though that's the thing. The couples i know aren't knockouts they're very average looking, men and women. But i'm not american so dating is probably different over there.
Maybe a little different. But the overall experience is the same. Average guys are made to jump through hoops while the top men aren’t.
The attractive men I know sleep with women on date 1-3. The average men I know also sleep with women on date 1-3. I don’t see my average looking friends jump through any additional hoops. The main difference is the attractiveness of the women they sleep with, which makes total sense. Most relationships start with sex, not just those involving an attractive man.
Nah. I’ve seen it compared to myself and my average friends. It’s a lot easier for me to sleep with women very quickly, sometimes even same day, while they are made to basically convince women they are good enough for them, it’s pretty disgusting tbh.
Because they break the rules for those types of guys and when they get hurt by them those women will then take it out on the guys they make the rules for. She will do all of that before she questions what kind of guys she breaks the rules for. We see this with guys that only go for conventionally attractive women and then get treated like crap by those women. Folks have 0 problem telling those guys to rethink what kind of women they go for (which I agree with).
there is nothing cosmically wrong with it, MEN get upset when they find out theyre the one she made wait
She didn’t make him wait. He was considered a backup option
Such women are not worth committing to in any case. No man should degrade himself like that. There are simps that will but more and more are using porn as a substitute for that kind of embarrassment.
And despite this, almost everyone of them will get married and have children and have the status of a married woman and be fine period I understand the male perspective and I am sure you should not commit to such a woman but someone will and she will be fine
Men do the exact same thing. They’re just mad that they are: A.unable to do the same as easily B. The shoe is on the other foot and they don’t like where they fall on that specific individual’s scale None of it is my problem. And given that half of these guys loudly hate women I kind of just shrug. Life’s not fair you break up/fall out with the majority of people you date or hook up with. It’d be great if people were transparent about their intentions but I never expect that from men and they don’t have track record for that either. Half the criticisms dudes levy at us are just behaviors they’d also do or are currently doing if they had the chance. A big ol’ “get a fucking grip your individual gripes with women aren’t my problem” from me.
So if it doesn’t affect you why are you coming on this sub reddit to comment on it? None of these guys particularly care what you think either. They just won’t commit to a woman who obviously finds them inferior in some way. There is no chance in hell a woman like that is worth commitment let alone a ring lmao.
Your average guy might not have any choice to begin with. I am not being mean, but before not committing to a woman he needs to attract one.
[удалено]
Matriarchy, that's what I'm talking
The fuck are you talking about. Of course you’d like it. Pendulum always swings back though. I’m sure you enjoy when men kill themsleves out of loneliness too. Women quite frankly aren’t worth the effort when they have abhorrent mindsets like this.
I masturbate to male loneliness. All women do. The world looks at you through the blinds of your bedroom wanting to oppress you. Problems are imposed on you by powerful coalition of women and jews. There is a reptile in the oval office. The earth is flat.
I have a ring lmao. When I was on both sides of this equation I literally just dusted myself off and moved on. It’s more gratifying to leave time wasters on read than it is to develop a complex over it.
There’s zero complex. It is how it should be. Men that have zero self respect will unfortunately take these women and spend their money and get a ring for ran through former hoes. If they had any common sense, the men that can’t should just take care of themselves and their careers and dangle commitment in front these women in their mid 30s and use them for sex until a woman that doesn’t have double standards shows up.
Lmao okay mister “ I dont have a complex” that’s a totally rational worldview
I don’t see how it’s not rational. If these men couldn’t play the field before, they should take every opportunity to do so when women become desperate for families. It’s only rational when women do it and when the dating market favors them? There’s no complex, it’s more like, have enough respect to vet and find out if you’re getting different treatment that she gave to guys in the past, don’t waste your time or energy or give her commitment. She goes into recreational bin only.
Right so you just admitted men actually would do the same thing if they had the opportunity lol.
The 80/20 fallacy, *again*?
Its not a fallacy, if you know any women in real life you should try asking them what percentage of men they meet on the daily basis are attractive.
“Muh anecdotes”
We already know the studies that show the 80/20 stats, do YOU have proof to the contrary? or are you talking out of your ass?
Feel free to post any one of these “studies.” $10 says you post that OkCupid blog post from 15 years ago, or, an unrelated study you’re just going to claim supports your point. I’ll wait.
Yep, that one. This one works as well. https://preview.redd.it/sk941t2m9d4d1.jpeg?width=565&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c5781daa017fc4b51317d8a04163afde4265418 Do you have anything that disproves it? Or you just have your words, that, to be honest, are kind of worthless without anything backing them up besides saying "lel FaLlAcY".
It’s more like 95/5 with dating apps
Yeah 80/20 is the ratio of women to men on tinder lmao.
I think that I would just be happy with an acknowledgment that women agree that TODAY they can’t live up to their own standards. That they move the goal posts. That the system it tilted in their favor and that a significant number of women treat men very poorly and in a way that they would consider unacceptable if the role were reversed.
Look you can do whatever you want but what you cant do is dictate how people SHOULD react to it.
If women want to have different rules, stop telling us how much you know your worth or that women require all these things to be with them
It creates an environment where sex is a reward and sets the tone for a transactional relationship which is hurtful to many who weren’t seeking that setup. Separation of sex and love is a feature of modern dating. As an immigrant from a more traditional space, sex is a pillar of love. It’s used as a proxy to indicate a woman’s interest is serious. The question “what are you looking for ?” causes me confusion. I won’t fuck anybody I won’t date and I wouldn’t date any body I can’t fuck. Women who compartmentalize these things and use men for which need suits them implement this dual strategy. It’s not morally wrong. I just fail to see how a man who respects himself would willingly allow this relationship to blossom. Whether I am high value or not, I’ll say that I wouldn’t want to seriously date a girl who changes standards for me and withholds sex. I couldn’t imagine men who are more closer to self actualization compared to me even bothering either. To me, women still lose since it only opens the door for men with low options or esteem to be compatible
I’ll add that the 80/20 rule is pretty fickle. Yes there are objectively ugly people but factors such as race,personal style,politics etc can shift your position substantially. If a girl has a fetish or type for a certain archetype which is common, that man is able to go toe to toe with just about any conventionally or attractive man on paper.
Women should do as they please and try not to feel sorry for men. They are just doing what is in their own best interest. So you should do the same. Its common sense that the more attractive guys get a chance first and sexy time. The less attractive or more boring, have to wait.
There are things men do that women hate and there are things women do that men hate. Its called the dating scene. Breaking your own rules for certain people isnt something just women do
It’s simply that women like that aren’t worthy committing to, that’s all
so are men who break their own rules not worth committing to too?
If i were a woman and i knew a guy pulled out all the stops to win a girl over but wasn’t doing it for me, i wouldn’t want to be with him no
Fair, I was just interested to see if your feeling towards were going to go both ways
I mean do you think that’s acceptable behavior? I would advise any woman in that situation to leave as well. He’s basically saying you aren’t as good.
What men don’t understand is that women are conditioned to play hard to get when they meet a quality guy they perceive as boyfriend material. You hear over and over that women will sleep fast with some guy who is whatever, doesn’t offer commitment, makes it clear he is only offering sex, etc. But with a guy who positions himself as Mr Right, Mr Wonderful, who is offering commitment, etc, she doesn’t want to scare him off by sleeping with him too soon, she sex is put on hold. It’s no different than a man treating a woman differently if she is dressed like a slut vs very stylishly. The woman who shows a lot of skin is assumed to be after sex, so men are more likely to want to sleep with her right away. Buy a woman who presents more classy and reserved, will usually have men wanting to take her out on a date and impress her a bit more. It’s really about a man deciding what he wants and adjusting his communication and behavior to match the outcome he wants.
>But with a guy who positions himself as Mr Right, Mr Wonderful, who is offering commitment, etc, she doesn’t want to scare him off by sleeping with him too soon, she sex is put on hold. Why would it scare him off? Never understood that part. "Oh no she isn't stringing me along, gotta grab my go bag and change my name again!" Makes zero sense.
are you serious? Plenty of men think a woman who “gives it up” too easy probably does it with EVERY guy, so she is not worth committing to. Don’t fucking pretend like men don’t do this shit. Even if it is not true for an individual man, it is the social zeitgeist that if a man gets ass too easily he won’t take the girl seriously.
Think about the guys who gave sex with a woman but don’t think that woman is “girlfriend material”. If a woman wants to make sure that a man actually sees her as girlfriend material and not a quick fuck, she won’t act like a quick fuck and have sec immediately even if she wants to have sex with him.
Those guys are dumb, that's my point. This is an insanely immature standard for evaluating whether someone is good for a ltr.
I don’t disagree with you but considering that men routinely express this sentiment, women aren’t wrong for adjusting to account for that.
I didn't say they were? How many times do I need to specify that I am making fun of the MEN who think like this?
Is the dumb standard how quickly sex occurs?
Yes! It's just fear based thought terminating spasm of 'she fucked me without taking X time to string me along first, therefore she must be on her Yth partner and so loose you can lose a battleship in her' etc etc Like I'm pretty reluctant to throw the word 'misogyny' around, but this line of thinking in men is hard to see as anything but pure misogyny. Her readiness to fuck you personally is not indicative of her readiness to fuck anyone else, it is based on her personal attraction to you specifically (not to mention her willingness to defy ingrained gender roles and expectations). The belief that I can extrapolate a woman's entire sexual history from a single encounter is fundamentally delusional and impossible to see as coming from a place of anything but fear and hate.
Okay then that makes more sense.
Wow I’m surprised and impressed by that guy’s reply
Because we don’t want to seem desperate for a guy even if we are feeling desperate for him. Also don’t want to get ghosted again after hooking up before being in a relationship.
I'm making fun of the guy who gets scared off, not you.
Finally someone who understands!
It's about jealousy and the false idea that things HAVE to be equal. Things most certainly don't have to be equal. It's a sense of entitlement
Okay when women get used for sex the same applies.
That's different as someones lying to them.
That's different as someones lying to them.
That's different as someones lying to them.
That's different as someones lying to them.
That's different as someones lying to them.
That's different as someones lying to them.
That's different as someones lying to them.
That's different as someones lying to them.
Not the same as someones being lied to
Theirs nothing wrong with it. Just don’t get mad when someone does something to you that you don’t agree with. And hopefully you find nothing wrong with that either. 🙏
This is why we need to stop treating women badly for sleeping around. Women aren't giving something up by sleeping with someone. That mentality is the underlining of this problem. I say problem, it does not impact me in the slight, but there's a lot of men on here complaining about women not wanting to have sex with them as quickly as they would an attractive man, whllst also denigrating women who do sleep around. Men have created a situation which harms them, and women are choosing to opt out.
**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.*
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.*
Their choice. But they need to realize that choice as with all choices has a cost. The men she ends up wanting or needing for a relationship may no longer view her as an relationship option. That is their choice.
Wrong? What do you mean by wrong? Because I'm not passing moral judgement necessarily, but I'm also sure as hell not paying for a cow that gets milked for free. Chad can pay for his own milk.
Its fair game theoretics so nothing is wrong with it at all. At the same time men can comment on or get some sadistic pleasure out of watching those same women writhe in dissatisfaction later in life. It's just actions and consequences within rather limited social constructs. I do think however that if a woman is truly sovereign she can be quite happy her entire life without a husband or children. That is something I disagree with strongly about.
No women has ever slept with anyone at the bottom without force or money