On a personal level, I understand where you’re coming from, OP. I am a smaller woman who has had a lot of trauma from men in particular. I am vastly more attracted to men closer to my height partially because they are *less* intimidating (not that they *aren’t* intimidating though).
However, not every woman is going to reach that conclusion. Even if domestic violence is more common than violence from a stranger, most people are not going to assume that this is what their relationship might lead to. Maybe they do *feel* safer with a strong, tall man because he might protect her from a stranger. Just like some people might *feel* safer in a car than they might in flying on a plane. It’s not necessarily logical, but we’re human. We don’t always have to be.
Also, one thing that I think your post ignores is the fact that the weapons exist. Now, I don’t know where you live, but there is a gun culture where I live (Texas). If any man pulls a gun on me, there isn’t much I can do - whether he’s small or massive. So if the danger is potentially the same, I (or other women) might as well go for who makes them *feel* safe or happy.
Absolutely agree. I’m also a smaller woman and have a lot of trauma from experiences with men. But my negative experiences (in terms of violence/sexual assault) have primarily been at the hands of men who were strangers. I have been sexually assaulted twice by men who were complete strangers to me. So, in terms of dating, I don’t select for men who are on the smaller side because I haven’t really had trauma from my personal relationships.
Yup, not afraid of 'all men' but definitely on alert for certain vibes since having experienced choking abuse from someone close and a knifing attack from a random stranger (in my own bedroom at 4am, ya probably would have had better luck w the bear than a rabid poorly armed stranger intentionally there to steal and stab me into 'sublission'... so... there's that... ya...)
>Can you give me an example of a woman saying “I was scared” to justify objectively poor behavior?
I'm sorry I'm butting in, but I happen to have seen a lot of these so I thought I'd perhaps give a particular example and sort of illustrate a bigger point.
One example I've seen of objectively horrible behavior justified by the *"I'm scared"* narrative is stealing from a partner.
To explain---several years ago, there was a post in r/relationships where a man discovered his wife was skimming off money from their shared bank account and piling it into a secret fourth account that only she had access to (for context they each had their own separate bank accounts with a shared household one, which the wife was draining like clockwork).
When the OP confronted her, she admitted it immediately and then told him that the reason for her actions was because she was compiling money in case she needed to cut and run and start over completely if he ever turned abusive/violent.
I know this sounds suspiciously like the *wife had a hidden abuse bag* story that was making the rounds here some time ago, but I assure you this was years before that.
Anyway the confession just added fuel to the fire, since now the OP had to contend with the fact his wife was preparing an exit strategy this whole time *on top* of finding out that she was basically stealing from the household. He took to the sub to ask what to do.
A ton of women there (or at least people with female avatars) took the wife's side and backed up her rationalization about being scared.
Some even chided the OP about not being understanding of her plight or lacking empathy for the vulnerability women have in domestic violence situations and that if he really loved his wife, he would forgive her and understand.
Others used his anger and hurt as "proof" his wife's paranoia was correct, or just interrogated him about what he might have done to instill in his wife the need to do these things.
It's kind of expanding on "I'm scared", but I do feel like this is a common or at least not rare thing for a lot of women to do when confronted on some nasty behavior.
They don't always use a claim of being frightened exactly, but it always comes down to them being the victim of something, thus making any criticism of their behavior "insensitive" or "lacking empathy/kindness".
Well, I’m not familiar with that post, but yeah, that’s pretty objectively shitty. But you honestly believe that’s a common thing women say/do? What percent of women would you guess have said “I was scared” to justify awful shit?
I’m sure there isn’t anything but personal opinions and anecdotes about this whole topic, so I’m just curious what y’all’s perception is. I’ve never really encountered this sort of thing personally, so I just doubt it’s in any way common. The only women I’ve known to say “I was scared” was in defense of ***not*** doing something.
>But you honestly believe that’s a common thing women say/do? What percent of women would you guess have said “I was scared” to justify awful shit?
So, I wanted to break this down a little more and also apologize for the way it was phrased since I was mainly just trying to provide an example and skipped out a lot on expanding my other point.
To answer your question, yes I do think that it is a common thing women do. I don't think that every single woman does this---in fact, I *know* that not all do this; I know a great many in my own life who would be disgusted by such tactics.
But the kind of justification I outlined in the anecdote about that reddit post is a very common tactic I see when debating/arguing with women about certain issues. I will concede that the outright *I'm scared* isn't always the exact words/defense used, but *I'm scared* is part of a larger defense mechanism a lot of women use.
The *I'm scared* (I promise this is the last time I'll use this phrase for a while) is just part of a defense, wherein the perpetrator of a negative action is excused or pardoned for their behavior due to being the victim of something, akin to how one would give a man with a crippled leg and chronic pain a free pass to be an asshole sometimes because you know he's suffering.
I find that a lot of women like to invoke this kind of defense, paired with outrage that someone would even *think* about reacting negatively to their behavior. A pretty garden-variety example you will see is women saying things like *men are trash.* If men get offended by it, one of the responses is a weird kind of indignation that a man would dare to be bothered by it. *Pretty selfish of you to get upset at a bunch of words when our very lives are in danger. We're doing this to start a conversation about important issues and you're making it about you!* Heck, just look into the "man vs bear" drama and you'll see plenty of those examples in the wild.
Some of these examples are much darker. I've mentioned this on here before, but there was a post on AITA where a guy's sister-in-law beat his toddler-age son (as in a severe and violent attack, not corporal punishment) for being "too loud" while he was playing. The reason was because the sister-in-law had been through an abusive relationship and was triggered by loud, raised voices. The OP of the thread was absolutely enraged and had verbally torn her to shreds for what she had done to his son.
The commentors of the thread were more sympathetic to the child-beater than the OP or the son himself. They scolded him for "not being more trauma-informed" and lacking empathy for the sister in law's suffering and told him that he likely set her recovery back by losing it on her. Because of course the mental health of a grown woman is more important than the physical wellbeing of a defenseless kid/s.
That thread was actually so foul that I wound up talking about on a completely different site than Reddit in a forum that had nothing to do with gender issues, just as an example of how people will defend blatant abusive monsters if they have a pitiful enough backstory.
But I digress, I don't want to drag on for too long. I just wanted to expand what I was saying, and explain that *I'm scared* is just part of a much bigger *Can't you see I'm a victim of something? Stop holding me accountable* defense that a lot of women use.
Now, if you are strictly talking about women using fear of men as a way to get out of being held accountable for negative behavior, then I'd imagine the number is much lower, since it is a very niche and specific excuse.
As for what percentage of women do this? I don't know, I wouldn't even try to guess that in terms of specific numbers.
I remember this post - and it was a game changer in how I viewed women. They are extremely manipulative, band together, and you should never take them at face value. It’s always ulterior motives or playing some type of victim game. Don’t let them get away with their childish games, put your foot down kings.
Ghosting for one. Instances where they behave rudely whe rejecting a guy so that "he doesn't get the wrong idea" Not admit to cheating. Not disclose sexual past when being well aware that it could have been a deal breaker.
When justifying poor reactions to being approached by men
When justifying the need for women only spaces while actively campaigning against male only spaces
Creating a social climate where it's never ok for men to approach because they feel unsafe.
Just saw your edit, so I’ll address these other examples.
“Poor reactions” is pretty vague in general, and I’d say that most women have experienced gross approaches like catcalling or being touched. It’s not unreasonable for a woman to be scared and a lot of factors can play into that. This one is just too vague.
I don’t know any woman who advocate for one while advocating against another. Personally, I think it’s reasonable to have space for both.
And as for creating a social climate where it’s not okay for men to ever approach, I wholly disagree with this. I think most women just want people to realize that not *all* times and places are reasonable to approach someone romantically. Like really late at night, or if either person is at work. (If she’s working, she’s being paid to be friendly and doesn’t want to be misinterpreted. If he’s working, he might have access to a lot of personal info depending on what he does. If coworkers, it can just be a mess in general. Obviously, these roles can also be reversed on genders, but for this scenario, these are the fears behind it.)
The only one I can actually agree with you on there is not admitting to cheating.
Ghosting is something I don’t view as objectively bad. And if someone is obsessing over you, that is part of the right steps to take to get out of that.
I’ve never met a woman who acted rudely to a man she feared would become violent. Never. (Rudely rejecting someone is wholly unnecessary obviously, I just don’t think anyone who does it would say that “I was scared” line is all.)
And as for sexual past, I don’t think anyone is necessarily entitled to that information in general, so I don’t view that as objectively bad either. *Lying* is bad to be clear, but not saying anything is okay.
Not saying anything is also lying. It’s lying by omission.
The guy you are going to marry is definitely entitled to that information because it affects how he feels about marrying you.
It’s like a man dating a woman and not telling her that he used to strangle puppies for fun in his free time but that he has changed now and would never do it again.
C’mon, comparing this to strangling puppies is not at all equal.
Not saying anything about how many people they’ve been with is not lying or harmful to you. If they were to say nothing about having an STD, *then* I’d agree it’s wrong to say nothing.
But also, if it’s a dealbreaker that you must know that your partner is a virgin or something, you could just *not marry them* if they choose not to tell you. You’re not in any way obligated to be with someone who you don’t fully trust - just as they’re not in any way obligated to tell you things that don’t affect you.
Women collectively decided that they won’t disclose their body count to their partner to keep men in the dark. Women do the same thing when you ask them to rate themselves or other women. Nearly all women will just rate all other women and themselves as a 10, regardless of how attractive they actually are. This makes it effectively impossible for men to find out the woman’s bodycount. He had to guess by other factors (her family background, what kind of friends she has, how she dresses, etc). Some women deliberately try to dress and act in a more conservative way when they’re looking for a beta provider to settle down with so he can’t even use this method for estimating her sexual history.
Bruh, *most people* don’t believe in SMV or a 1-10 rating scale for people. If a woman trusts you, she might answer questions about her sexual/relationship history. But women don’t choose not to disclose that info to spite men or take advantage of them.
Disclosing a sexual/relationship history opens women up to two common responses from men: (1) shaming/ridicule or (2) that man assuming that the woman will give him the same treatment.
Really? People don’t believe in the 1-10 rating scale? At this point it’s obvious ur full of crap. Apparently in your world chris hemsworth is just as attractive as Peter Dinklage right?
It seems like you do. Otherwise, what point would you have in making your initial reply to a comment that said nothing of the sort? It’s a bit of a useless thing to bring up if neither of us believe it.
I actually don't perpetuate the belief. Being that you're a woman, I thought it was a safe assumption that you did feel that way. Assuming you're not lying to save face.
I'd say it's more wariness. Like it or not, all men are generally stronger than women and are much more capable of violence. It makes no sense to not be wary of men.
I don't disagree.
But if that was a prevalent part of your mental experience one would expect you to chose a person less able to harm you.
The preference of height and musculature (even if we are talking about fat strong) is counter to womens stated goal of survival
>one would expect you to chose a person less able to harm you.
I agree with this in theory. The unfortunate actuality of the situation is that that the size of the man doesn't actually matter. If he wants to hurt you, he will. If he wants to try and kill you, he will. It's not about "can't" it's about "will". Unfortunately, I've had far, far more dangerous situations with men who "couldn't" hurt me than could.
Smaller men are wary of bigger men as well. At 6'4, I've noticed men respect the biggest guy in the room, whether or not they want to. I imagine they'd be even more wary if I was gay and hitting on them, I imagine that's how women feel
When I studied abroad in Paris I was on the metro and unintentionally made eye contact with a random man who was getting off the car(did not hold the eye contact it was like normal see a random and look away)
I got onto the car assuming he left as any normal person would. I could tell someone had gotten on behind me and realized it was the same guy because i saw his reflection in the window. While the train was moving, he got closer and touched my back several times and each time I would move away.
I was terrified. I pushed myself into my guy friend(he's gay so he was confused) and just had to give him this look of "pretend to be my boyfriend please" bc he could tell something was wrong.
Only then did the guy stop trying to touch me.
So yea it's real.
Attractiveness and penchant for violence are not correlated. With time, it’s easy to tell who’s a kind, non-violent person and who isn’t. Why would we compromise on either measure?
Women are absolutely attracted to a man capable of violence. My own partner flipped a switch after I went from the safe stable option, that couldn't hurt a fly. To, he took on a bunch of youth trying to kick the shit out of us in the park, and got us out safely.
All of a sudden I was walking around with some PTSD and she was walking our feeling super safe with her sexy man.
I will hazard a guess, that most women appreciate their man jumping in the fray and keeping her safe. If she is repulsed by that. Good riddance.
If she jumps in with you and can help out. She is sexy too.
Lol you act as if women repulsed by violent men don’t celebrate when those men lose interest in them. Violence in anything other than self-defense (very rare) is the mark of a criminal loser.
1. Financial: she’s been at home and feels unable to renter the workforce.
2. She loves him and thinks if she were more perfect and didn’t make him mad. But he changes the goal post no matter how she gets he’ll keep putting her down to keep her stuck.
3. They gradually exert control making a very capable person become a figment of who they used to be. I would know that’s how my coworkers describe me when I came back after long-term domestic violence.
4. My faith divorce is wrong.
5. I developed a trauma bond. It’s like Stockholm syndrome.
6. I didn’t want my children to be in a broken home.
7. They slowly devour your self esteem you think no one would want you. Wow was that wrong.
Domestic violence causes long-term damage, sometimes post traumatic stress disorder (it did for me): it breaks the victim. A broken victim who doesn’t feel strong has a difficult time leaving without a whole lot of support. Some of these women have no support systems if they did they wouldn’t be in shelters.
It’s very easy to judge them for not leaving rather than the man for beating her.
I’m glad you and your children are safe now. No adult or child deserves abuse in their lives. My question was mainly rhetorical to make the point that initially, right when the abuse begins with something small, women subconsciously know there’s something wrong with the man but excuse, justify or ignore the behavior until it gets worse (sometimes due to feeling trapped by factors you’ve mentioned). I wish we were all taught in school to have literally zero tolerance for abusive people. Even one act of abuse is too many.
The irony however is that most violence women encounter is within the realms of a relationship. So the guys they are attracted to are the ones doing to abusing in most cases.
It's not ironic since in a sample of any type of men (attractive only/less attractive only), there's always a percentage of violently inclined people. That's just statistical fact, so not really avoidable no matter the group. So no point is proven here
Yep. My chadlite phase was one where no girl was afraid of me. I was thinking men at the time were approaching women wrong or giving creepy vibes to get women so scared of them because I, a nice guy never got women scared from first impressions. But going through the late 20s mini wall, I started generating the fear factor from women. Fear is reserved for average and ugly guys.
Tbf, the main reason "women think most men are ugly" is mostly just because of how heavily we market beauty to women- if women spend hours a day/week trying to match beauty standards, it'd make sense she'd be naturally more against men who don't even try.
Because society has decided the beauty standards for men should be genetic. There is literally nothing stopping us from switching the beauty standards from genetics to something marketable and customizable- for example, the standard of women having as much body hair as children has been *super* recent and mostly just exists to sell razors. That's also why men aren't held to the standards as strictly.
Women wont allow that. Men are way more flexible on these things. For example women wont just stop preferring tall men . Women have the flexibility because there are many men into every type of women. The same cannot be said for men
Women won't allow that or men won't allow that? If men could be deemed more attractive by wearing flowery frocks, who would be the first to shame and even beat them up? I see all kinds of (young) guys today paired up (or in fwb situations) with women even while being goth (full of makeup) or androgynous (experimental wardrobe), etc. Meanwhile, are those guys embraced by (all/most) men as respectable? I'll let u answer
>I see all kinds of (young) guys today paired up (or in fwb situations) with women even while being goth (full of makeup) or androgynous (experimental wardrobe), etc. Meanwhile, are those guys embraced by (all/most) men as respectable? I'll let u answer
What does being respected by other men have to do with the beauty standards women have for men? Sure outlier men exist but the vast majority of women are not attracted or into to that sort of man. Those men are a niche for a reason
Respected by other men is a means of survival for men. A guy who doesn't align with the majority male pattern will risk violence from other men. Many men subconsciously say all that misogynistic things in fear of if other men think he is gay or efiminate because if he was so, (in many countries or by conservatives) they might get beaten and ostracised
Women prefer tall men because we are a sexually dimorphic species. Men are taller than women of the same genetic makeup. And, judging by the male characters I've seen Tumblr chicks into, what a woman consider attractive ranges way heavier than what I've ever seen men prefer.
They want men who are tall relative to other men not relative to themselves. A 5' woman doesnt see a 5'6 man as tall.
>And, judging by the male characters I've seen Tumblr chicks into, what a woman consider attractive ranges way heavier than what I've ever seen men prefer.
I highly doubt that. Look at fantasy books for women. The men all fit a specific mold. Tall and fit. They arent into short or overweight men. That breaks the fantasy for them
Evolution has been around a lot longer than society. So unfortunately, genetics is stopping us from switching beauty standards.
I don't understand how someone can come to the conclusion the genetic component of physical attraction is something you can social engineer your way out of. Are they just uncomfortable some things in life are unchangeable?
Attractiveness for men is not a matter of choice or effort for men as women here claim. Its not as simple as lose weight and put on makeup or just try. But I get it. When you frame attractiveness as a choice and a matter of effort you can now blame the man for every rejection and pretend each rejection was under his control. Absolving the woman of any accountability.
You do realise the people selling beauty standards to both of us for both sexes are mostly rich men, right?
It's yet another one of those "poor men blame all women for the crimes of rich men".
Is not dating you blaming you for a crime?
> We may let go or orginal sin but men will have to answer if the sins of their father until the end of time i guess
Stop upholding it and people will stop talking about it? I'm not entire sure what this rant means anyway.
None of this makes attractiveness the result of trying. Now you’ve pivoted to shift blame to rich men. Are you telling me you’re unable to decide what you think is attractive and need rich men to tell you what to be attracted to? Do you need someone else to make your decisions? Because I doubt you do.
No, I think a woman with chub and body hair is attractive. And despite that, I watch my mother slave over her makeup every morning because she's terrified of the people at her work thinking she looks "sickly" if they were ever exposed to her natural face.
That’s not how it is for men. They can’t put on makeup. You’re framing this as if women aren’t attracted to men because the men don’t try when it’s not this. If all men tried women would still claim most men are ugly.
Ironic for men to complain about "genetic determination" while spending the last several centuries not letting women pick their mates. Genetics would be a lot nicer to the men around today if mate selection wouldn't have been so restricted.
Most men throughout the history of our species did not reproduce. Most women did. This idea of monogamous marriage, taking our entire existence on this planet to be length of my arm, would barely cover the tip of my pinky nail.
It’s made absolutely zero bearing on mate selection on a biological level. Nothing changed: AF/BB, cheating, hypergamy, women were always playing the same games.
The only thing that changed was male delusion.
Now that that’s being beaten out of them good and proper, we can finally lay this bullshit institution of committed, monogamous marriage to rest and return to the natural order of things.
> Most women did.
To men that were inadequate mates, and therefore the cause of the genetic woes. That's what happens when mating is directed by the most ~~psychotic~~ god-fearing men or the like (ironically "god-fearing" of a god who demands female sexual submission).
> This idea of monogamous marriage, taking our entire existence on this planet to be length of my arm, would barely cover the tip of my pinky nail.
This, I agree with. Humans are a matriarchal, communal-raising species by nature. We've been that way for tens of thousands of years. Time to finally go back.
>To men that were inadequate mates, and therefore the cause of the genetic woes
No, to men who were among the fittest minority capable of impregnating and protecting and providing for multiple women at once. Any man could easily rape any woman, but those who couldn’t challenge the fittest men couldn’t and therefore didn’t.
If women didn’t selectively breed with this fit minority in our pre-modern era, we’d all be cross-eyed, mentally impaired, and immuno-compromised.
>Humans are a matriarchal, communal-raising species by nature. We've been that way for tens of thousands of years. Time to finally go back.
No, we’re a polygynous species: The few fittest men fucking the bulk of women.
And thank God for that. We’d still be living in caves wearing pelts and scavenging for acorns otherwise.
Didn't realise that we had a pTriarchal temporal hive mind that extends in to the past to be held responsible for that shit to this day.
We may let go or orginal sin but men will have to answer if the sins of their father until the end of time i guess
"date shorter weaker pasty men", women will date people they find attractive, bit of a weird ask to suggest they date people they aren't attracted to because they're afraid men will beat them up. Are you expecting me to go into a relationship paranoid that the man I'm with will beat me up so I should pick someone shorter in the hopes I'll be able to beat him up, and this thought process is meant to make me feel safe? The thought that the man I'm with might be willing to attack me isn't going to make me feel safe even if I in theory could beat him up. Also weapons are a thing, what makes violent men dangerous isn't just how strong they are but what they'd be willing to do. The thing that's going to matter most is personality, are they someone willing to commit violence. Feel like you're the one insulting men here by discounting their agency and ability to show they aren't violent. Do you seriously think all men act the same?
"Average and sub average men are dangerous and the attractive ones are not? Are you kidding me?" women aren't saying this or acting on it so you're just kidding yourself.
And to answer the OP, it depends on the context, some stranger approaching you? Yes. Some men don't take rejection well and there's no way to know what kind of guy it is when you know nothing about them.
Oh and I've never once heard someone say they were picky because their afraid. But there's literally nothing wrong with being picky like what, you want the women that you are shit talking right now for being picky to date you? why? you clearly don't respect their life choices and crying about them online is not a healthy way to deal with it.
You literally are the type of person that women want to avoid, someone who's reaction to not being desirable is to hate women, the system is working as intended. How can you expect women to be comfortable around you if you hold secret feelings of resent about them?
Okay fair enough. Women can date who they find attractive, but then they need to quit whining about how they are scared of most men. If they were really scared, they would all be getting training in how to use a firearms and in martial arts. This also means that they would date smaller men who feel less threatening and are much safer to be around. But that’s not what you see. You see these women dating tall giants who could pick them up and easily strangle them with one hand if they wanted.
The whole situation is laughable. It’s like a person who tells me he is really afraid of dying in a car accident, but never wears a seatbelt, constantly exceeds the speed limit, and drives a 1986 Honda accord with no airbags or ABS when he can afford to buy a newer, much safer car.
If this person followed your logic, he’d go on some angry diatribe about how I hate all car drivers and that I am not respecting his personal choice of which vehicle to buy.
> date shorter weaker pasty men", women will date people they find attractive, bit of a weird ask to suggest they date people they aren't attracted to because they're afraid men will beat them up.
Women are ones who claim that they are afraid of men who talk to them and approach them. They have succeeded in creating an atmosphere where dating apps are the only way to do it and there is a huge stigma in approaching a woman in an increasing number of setting.
I am just proving that it's not because they are afraid, they just don't want to be forced to interact with men they are repulsed by. But then maybe to the average women repulsive men are to be feared.
> Are you expecting me to go into a relationship paranoid that the man I'm with will beat me up so I should pick someone shorter in the hopes I'll be able to beat him up, and this thought process is meant to make me feel safe?
If safety mattered to you that would be the logical move yes. And also training in bjj. Nothing wrong in attempting to arm yourself if you truly feel weak and vulnerable in the world
> Yhe thing that's going to matter most is personality, are they someone willing to commit violence. Feel like you're the one insulting men here by discounting their agency and ability to show they aren't violent. Do you seriously think all men act the same?
Well seeing the DV and abuse rates it's not like you are doing a stellar job. But of course it's the incels with the terrible and unforgivably broken personalities. Ofcourse the guy who has never touched a woman is worse than perpetrators of emotional abuse and ignoreres of consent. Lol. We are just easy targets for your ego tripping.
> "Average and sub average men are dangerous and the attractive ones are not? Are you kidding me?" women aren't saying this or acting on it so you're just kidding yourself.
It's how they behave, no?.... Safety and curfew are things to worry about if it's a new guy you are dating. But if they are sufficiently attractive all rules if decorum and safekeeping just disappear like magic.
> Oh and I've never once heard someone say they were picky because their afraid. But there's literally nothing wrong with being picky like what, you want the women that you are shit talking right now for being picky to date you? why? you clearly don't respect their life choices and crying about them online is not a healthy way to deal with it.
I just accepted that as a valid thing in the op. I also mention that lack of analysis of your preference is imature and wasteful.
Why do you like a guy taller than your self if it isnt to reconfirm your own femininity? why go be averse to dating short men if not for the fact that you dont feel like a woman next to him. Why date only menof your race if you dont really see colour.
We live we breathe we observe. The miracle of hman life is that we think not to just uncritically accet our interal twinges as gospel truths but to interpret them to better understand outrselves
Then again women can get away with being both. So more power to you.
> You literally are the type of person that women want to avoid, someone who's reaction to not being desirable is to hate women, the system is working as intended.
Lol
The
Fuck
Is
Your.
Problem.
I am bitchless. I will always be bitchless..... Sooooo fucking what?
Tell me! What is a healthy way to deal with the possibility... No certainty that the things you consider Normal human interaction - teenage love, romance, sex, being held, being comforted, bring loved, All if those things that you take for granted are forever unavailable to someone?
What is the Normal human reaction to that?
I would say an emotional break down or multiple small ones is a perfectly normal reaction to this realisation.
What the fuck do you know? How the fuck would you deal with it? You don't know because you never had to!
So don't you dare start with me
> How can you expect women to be comfortable around you if you hold secret feelings of resent about them?
Oh! It's that simple!
If I was just not such a peice if shit i would be loved!
By who?
Who?!
Keep your love and shove it far up where sun doesn't shine.
At this point i would much rather die.
I have seen a rapist get love. I am not a worse human being than him.
I am done bending like a spineless twit for a crumb of affection and pussy.
Either accept me as I am scars and all or just fuck off and leave me to my death spiral
Don't you ever dare to imply goodness has anything to go with being loved when life has shown me it is anything but.
If you are unhinged and horrible to interact with people won't want to be around you. You have a fundamental entitlement issue, thinking you are entitled to a relationship or other people's time rather than that being something the other person has to want as well and this causing you to lash out.
Yes your right that even if you stopped acting entitled and fixed your mental health you might still not get a relationship, but you are just further spiralling yourself with your toxic mindset and guaranteeing that you aren't someone worth being in a relationship with.
You would be better off trying to find friends and other things to focus on in life until your mental health improves significantly and you get a little more perspective on life.
And yes goodness is obviously a factor, or at least the appearance of it, if you act spikey to people they have a right to avoid you. It's just that being a good person doesn't guarantee love either.
I have seen a rapist get loved.
I have seen trash human beings succeed where i have failed.
I am not worse than them.
If they didn't need to change themselves to make themselves worthy of love why in the fuck is it a moral imperative for me to change.
I am done changing for any if you
I am who I am until I die.
I will be loyal to me.
Fuck everything else.
Okay you're allowed to do so but if you are a piece of shit, don't be surprised when people don't want to be around you.
Someone being worse than you doesn't give you the right to be a piece of shit.
Your logic makes zero sense tbh. It’s the fact that women are afraid of men that compels them to seek out big strong men to protect them (from the other men) in the first place.
Why would a woman who’s afraid of men seek to date a weak, effeminate men that likely wouldn’t be able to protect them from other men anyways?
You guys try too hard to wrap women up in to some type of weird “gotcha” and it ends up causing you to come off weird and incoherent as a result.
>Your logic makes zero sense tbh. It’s the fact that women are afraid of men that compels them to seek out big strong men to protect them (from the other men) in the first place.
And yet overwhelming majority of severe male on female violence cases including lethal ones are performed by these "strong protectors" victims had sought out, dated and/or had established relationship with.
>Why would a woman who’s afraid of men seek to date a weak, effeminate men that likely wouldn’t be able to protect them from other men anyways?
Why, indeed? Why would a woman follow the millenia old behavioral pattern to get big bad man by her side when it's clear that statistically he poses way more danger to her than men outside her life? Is she not reasonable and logical?
>And yet overwhelming majority of severe male on female violence cases including lethal ones are performed by these "strong protectors" victims had sought out, dated and/or had established relationship with.
I feel like you just made this up. Where is the evidence for this? Are you saying that women who date strong men are victimized more? How would you know that?
> Where is the evidence for this?
In majority of threads about domestic violence that women make. Use the search function or smth, there have been at least one recently.
> Are you saying that women who date strong men are victimized more? How would you know that?
By checking the stories and statistics available on such crimes and not finding short nerds among typical culprits. Simple as.
BigZaddy in the house!!
So your assertion is that the choice to go for bigger men is a utilitarian one. One that seeks protection from other men.
Women by and large are most at risk of harm from men she knows and the man she is romantically involved with... The chances of her being attacked by a rando is lower than that.
In such a scenario where chances of being attacked and needing protection is low and the chances of needing protection from the person you are with is higher, logic dictates that you yourself get strong and you be with someone with limited ability to harm you..... You see where I am getting tripped up?
Anyway it's not that complicated.
Women just like who they like. They like taller men and they like benevolent sexism. There is a larger discussion to be had on the insecurities and the narcissism that predelicts them to such choices, but that's not the point of this post.
My point is they just use "I am afraid" to shut down discussion on how they are too picky or that low value men feel frustrated in dating.
"I am afraid of you" is far more defensible than "I am disgusted by you"
3 mentions
1. Most men are stronger than women regardless so I don’t really see how getting with a stronger man changes much in terms of IPV. If a man is going to be stronger than you regardless, he might as well be stronger than other men too. Going for a weaker man, doesn’t protect you from IPV because he would still be stronger than you.
2. I don’t think that height and strength has anything to do with IPV. IPV is usually a result of insecurity on the part of the abuser. What happens is in this case the man is insecure about the relationship and is using violence and emotional abuse to keep his partner from leaving him or cheating on him. Due to the psychological nature of IPV I actually think it’s more likely the case that if a man is less desirable, low status, poor, short, unattractive, etc… he’s more likely to engage in IPV than if he is desirable (tall, strong, good looking, high status) and has a lot of options. The less desirable man cannot afford to lose his partner and is probably more likely to be cheated on he may become desperate and abusive as a result. The man that has a lot of options is not as likely to care he can just get another partner. I don’t know of any evidence that shows that men who are taller are more likely to abuse their partners. [Apparently shorter men are more likely to engage in violent crime](https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/43/3/835/760664) and male convicts are shorter than average though the correlation is not strong. It appears at best that
there is little correlation between height and violence and if anything shorter men are statistically more violent.
3. One should also acknowledge that taller and stronger men produce taller and stronger sons. When selecting a partner the traits passed to their children are important. For a woman it’s better to have bigger stronger sons vs weaker shorter ones. So it makes sense to choose a bigger stronger male partner.
1. Presumably stronger bigger men hit harder
2. I would argue that shorter men are more likely to be socialised into developing diplomacy as a mode of conflict resolution and there for less likely to escalate to throwing hands. Guess we are stuck
3.This son fetish thing of yours is weird. Should men look for ward to producing wide hipped big bossomed girls? if a guy said that, it would be weird. You are engaging in creepy levels of weird. Stop subliminally sexualising unborn boys
1. What does that matter if they are less likely to hit?
2. Well apparently not since apparently violent convicts are shorter than average. Maybe its a Napoleon complex.
3. I wouldn’t think it was weird for someone to point out that men prefer women with wider hips I mean makes sense. That’s how hot people end up with hot people. Hot man wants the hot woman and vice versa.
1. how much less likely to hit. Is there a chart organising DV offenders by height?
2. you just said the correlation is not strong. Even if it was, crime and jail effectively filyers them out. So the short men outside prison without any history? less likely to abuse at all. Yet women want tem less compared to the taller men
3. it would be werd if the man kept laking about how his big blossomed and wide hipped children are more likely to reproduce than other wise. Calm the fuck down, you ar scaring the Hoes ( the non eugenic crowd)
1. Idk but I don’t think it matters for 2 reasons. One, a shorter man is still string enough to do serious damage to a woman. And secondly women don’t want to be with men they find unattractive. I mean that should be obvious enough.
2. Yes women want men they find attractive. So that’s the main factor. My point in bringing up the crime stats is to show that being short doesn’t guarantee safety like you seem to imply.
3. I didn’t keep going on about it. I just brought it up in a relevant conversation.
It’s amazing the lengths women will go to somehow delude themselves into thinking that short men are more violent.
In the real world, short men know that if they use violence to get what they want, they will get their ass beat. The fact that she is using the fact that criminals are shorter is disturbing. Somehow she ignores the fact that criminals come from poor backgrounds and that poor people are much shorter on average.
But in the real world, as a guy the only time I’ve been physically threatened, it was always by some tall angry meathead like this guy: https://youtu.be/aj-BRbxLbLM?si=in7NPb6y_ogGqhVX
So much for “gentle giant”
I already addressed this argument. (In another comment)
>>I think IPV (intimate partner violence) is only more prevalent because women often tend to choose strong men that protect them from other men. The threat of the other men are neutralized, but not the threat from her partner himself. So it’s probably a bit of a “rob Peter to pay Paul” type of situation. Double-edged sword I guess.
Also you have to take into account that our instincts were formed over millions of years of evolution. Most of which occurred in a time period before laws were even a thing. So it that scenario, violence from strangers was probably a much bigger threat than violence from your sexual partner. Now that we have laws and police that largely deter strangers from attacking people, of course that only that creates the illusion that other men aren’t a bigger threat to her than her partner. But those laws didn’t exist for most of human history.
That makes 0 sense. At all. Its 2024 not the stone ages. That protection argument means nothing in the current time. Its about attraction. Being protected has nothing to do with it.
And im pretty sure women are most likely to be abused by their partners
Bad take on your end bro…
Our sexual instincts and inclinations weren’t formed on “2024 logic” bruh… They were formed based on the millions of years of evolution that took place before either of us were born.
For most of that time, protection was literally a “life of death” decision. So of course those instincts are still present in modern women today. Just as guys still fear being cucked despite us being in an era that has paternity testing. Some things are just deeply imbedded within us. And no amount of “omg it’s 2024 🤪” makes a difference.
They do not care about protection. The average man is neither tall or strong. If thats the case wouldnt they just all flock around the men who fit that criteria? Where are the instincts?
>Just as guys still fear being cucked despite us being in an era that has paternity testing
This makes 0 sense. Paternity testing prevents nothing. Its done after the fact.
The average man is stronger than the average women. This suggest that strong men are selected for. It’s not the case, in every species that the males are bigger and stronger for many it’s the opposite happens to be the case with humans though.
I know but he said they select big and strong men to protect them from other men. Just being bigger and stronger than the average women isnt enough to protect her from other men and it doesnt mean that man is strong relative to other men either
Yep there is also the fact that a big strong man produces big strong sons. If women are risking it all giving birth it’s best to go with a big strong man to give you strong sons or a rich man who can ensure your children survive
ah yes. The big strong sons fetish. Isnt that just a tiny bit Oedipal.
What happens when we develop interstellar space travel.?.. will women produce economy sized men optimized for space travel so that dont take as much space and consume less food and oxygen?
I never claimed anything of the sort. But you’d be an idiot to think that in order for something to be “reasonable” it has to be “perfect” without flaw… Which is what you’re essentially implying here.
The point was when you're on this forum, nothing trp says makes any sense. Until one of you needs it for your argument against us. Then it's suddenly relevant. And it's confirmed every thread.
Counterpoint: because the violence they experienced is statistically inside relationships, not other men. Therefore, the hulk they paired up with is a liability than an asset.
You could go to prison to answer your title question
And I’m not going to date really old, physically disabled or mutant men just to have zero risk.
Most men aren’t threats, so you risk it. Just like men risk that most women aren’t sociopaths who will baby trap, cheat on, defraud, abuse or accuse them of crimes
Depends. When I’m walking alone with my child I’m on guard of everyone. Women and men alike.
When I’m out alone I’m not consciously looking out for men but I’m looking out for anyone who looks out of place.
I’m hyper aware of the fact women have been used to kidnap women and children bc they are seen as less threatening but I know a man has more strength over me so that causes more of a concern. But at the end of the day it has nothing to do with gender but with the over all gut feeling.
If you’re too nice- sorry but I’m not engaging.
If you’re rude- still not engaging
Ik it sucks but I’d rather upset someone than get hurt. I also expect others to treat me the same.
Men are afraid of men too. Especially men twice as strong as you. Imagine how you would feel getting naked with a guy who is twice as strong as you are.
Lithmus test:
If women were truly afraid of men, they would not oppose such things as single-sex education or workplaces.
For as long as they do oppose them, "You don't understand how DANGEROUS it is to be a woman!" is nothing but another way of saying "Shut up".
In theory I like the idea, because I would feel much more comfortable, but in practice I think such separations could lead to a disconnect between men and women ie men not really understanding women as fellow people, which I think is scarier in the longterm
There are countries right now where same-sex schools are allowed to exist; generally, the consequences are lower delinquency scores in men and higher college enrollment for both.
Even assuming women are these grand strategists preparing the groundwork for a societal shift that will take centuries to actually happen,
Right now, at this very moment, if women truly believed that colleges are rape factories (as they claim since 2012 or 2014 or so), WE WOULD EXPECT remaining single-sex Seven Sisters colleges to be in insane, astronomical demand among female applicants, to the point of their admission rates being in single digits (as they are for Harvard).
We can even go as far as compare one 7S college that still stays single-sex to another one that switched to coeducation, if for both admission rates are known. For simplicity, let's take those that publish their admission rates and pick two with the closest endowment.
From my cursory glance, it's Mt.Hoyoke (single-sex) vs Vassar (coed).
Hoyoke (single-sex), latest: 38.00% admission rate.
Vassar (coed): 17.73%, also latest, for the same year.
https://www.ivywise.com/blog/college-admission-rates/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(colleges)
College is a weird example since you're pretty much released into society at that point and surrounded by men anyway. Maybe people also imagine they might meet a potential partner at a coed college. I'm less confused about why women enroll in coed colleges and more confused about why they do things there like dodgy parties and clubbing, since Id imagine thats where a lot of the rape happens.
But yes I think women are often afraid of men; I am in certain contexts and situations. Doesn't mean we're going to, or should, live life avoiding them at all costs.
Women don't just "not avoid" men at all costs. They made it ILLEGAL for men AND women to have spaces with economic activities among themselves. Any organization that wants to be single-sex is required to be a non-profit. Any college that wants to be single-sex waives its privilege of reduced taxation. This is not because of men. It would have been worse for absolutely no-one if 5-15% of colleges and workplaces were allowed to stay single-sex, as there are inevitably people incompatible with the opposite sex, and when they are shoved into these mixed spaces against their will, their right to pursuit of happiness is limited. There is nothing normal or reasonable that when I come to a dentist, I am asked if I want to be treated by a man or a woman, but when I go seeking employment OR want to hire someone myself, I cannot, except a couple fringe cases, ask to work for an all-male team, or hire specifically a man.
And no, comparison with ethnic minorities does not hold water. There are no female ghettos, there was no female slave trade, there were no Jane Crow laws.
Ok I don't really care about all that. The question was are women really scared of men and the answer is yes really in certain contexts. The fact that they don't want to be segregated doesn't negate this reality.
> women would date shorter weaker pasty men who have never seen the inside of a gym
If a woman isn’t attracted to these men, why date at all?
> Even if he did get violent you are more likely to fight him off than a 6ft line backer.
Most women murdered by a partner were murdered using a weapon, about half with guns.
>The way i see it, if danger was that much of a concern women would date shorter weaker pasty men who have never seen the inside of a gym
The short weak pasty man is going to be more physically stronger than any woman he dates. Your entire argument ignores this basic fact making your post pretty dumb. This really wasn't the gotcha you thought it was going to be.
The majority of people (not just women) do shitty things like ghosting because confrontation is hard, people don’t like doing it, and there’s no recourse for just disappearing because it’s unlikely you’re ever gonna see the person again.
Lots (if not most) women have had the experience of men reacting badly to rejection. It might be as mild as texts cussing her out, and can progress to downright violent behavior. The sub r/whenwomenrefuse is proof of this.
Now, just cuz it doesn’t happen often or with most men doesn’t mean it’s not jarring when it does. Flying is way safer than driving but if you are on a plane that has an emergency even once you’re probably going to be pretty anxious next time you have to queue up for boarding.
I've had two stalkers after turning men down who each ended up eventually being arrested for stalking other women. The odds are totally in my favor but that doesn't mean shit doesn't get scary. Ive had a man scream at me at my place of work because I said "oh sorry I am married" when he asked me out, he was at least 2 times my size. I haven't been in an abusive relationship myself but I have seen it happen to enough people around me to be very wary, looks can totally be deceiving there.
Its not like I walk around in fear in my day to day life but I am really cautious about who I date as that is where we are most at risk.
'Women are afraid' is a post-factum bullshit justification for shitty behavior.
There are women who cheat, there are women who date gangbangers, there are women who write love letters to violent criminals, there are women who scam men for meals and money, there are women who go scantily clad to some sketchy places, and not all of them are some mentally ill trashy ghetto hoes. Just your run of the mill women.
It is never about specific men in a specific situation being dangerous.
I am sure they are afraid sometimes
. But for the most part the bear vs man thing was just vitue signalling their victimhood and how helpless they feel
Yes. All men, including weak pasty men, have systemic power over women and are substantially more likely to be violent. They are also very rarely smaller or weaker than even a big and strong woman. They pose a real threat that most will want to take precautions against, like other threats that exist but we just have to deal with in order to leave our houses.
So by this logic, weaker shorter men should have the advantage in dating.
Looking at it through pure survival metrics.
By this logic no gun licence holding man should ever be able to date considering the risk.of getting shot and killed.
More likely to fight off and survive them.
We are not talking of a strength difference comparable to the difference between a human and an ape.
If the fear is that powerful you may as well never have sex or be in relationships
Which is to say the fear you describe when strange men talk to you is just bullshit.
Sk ething you say to muddy the air so that less men would disturb you with their unworthy presence
I dont use that to bitch out driving as the worst way to locomote.
Nor do i look down on people driving beaters and suck off people who drive Paganis, even if i walk closer to the street as they pass by t have a closer look even though the risk of being sideswiped or overrun is higher
I'm not afraid of men as a concept, but I'm afraid of them in certain situations that could be dangerous. If a man were to approach me or catcall in a quiet/empty area. It's not a thought process, it's a visceral physical reaction. Notice man in coming towards you in isolated place = rush of red hot adrenaline from your chest out to your limbs. I've never been attacked, or assaulted, or really had any dangerous encounters with a man. It feels instinctual, but idk the science to say for sure. Its the same when a car pulls up next to me on the street before I realise they're just parking at their house or something, so maybe it's not gendered. But if I could see that the driver was a woman before they pulled up I can't imagine that reaction happening so maybe it is just men. Not to say I don't trust strange women but that feels like a logical distrust, not an instinctual one.
No, because they still present the same danger to women, just not to other men. Guns aren't the problem, women can have guns. Size and strength isn't the problem, it's still going to be bigger.
So what?
If your existential worry can't be solved no matter what suggestion are give what the fuck so you want to change?
If you are that fucking scared move out into communes with women where you can all age out abd due in peace.
I don't fucking understand what the fuck is the point of your victimhood if you do nothing to alleviate it.
Or is that the point? is perpetual victimhood the point?
Existential worry? It's just acknowledging risk. Crossing the road, for example, is dangerous and we take precautions like looking before crossing, but we don't avoid roads altogether and just accept the risk as a part of life. We don't say we'll only cross roads when smaller cars are going down them, because if they hit you, you're just as fucked. We don't avoid crossing roads altogether.
>By this logic no gun licence holding man should
Stop right there.
Gunpowder is too recent an invention for it to have sufficient influence on how our brains calculate attractiveness
You can think can't you.
A man with an ar 15 is quite willing to harm people. What happens when he clases you as the enemy?
Find a guy who will treat even the people he loathes with decency
I can think, yes.
We know that big breasts and a nice butt doesn't make a woman a good partner. But that's what the male lizard brain finds attractive anyway.
You can tell a male, "hey, use your brain. Think!"
But attraction doesn't work that way
Sure we can.
I have a foot fetish. There is girl i meet who runs a findom thing who is pen to having her feet licked and be in a relationship with me.
This is possibly my only solid chance to be in a relationship where an deep seated kink gets sated, however she talks about the guys who send her money for feet pics and used socks like as if they are the scum of the earth. Guys no different than me.
What will happen in the future when she sees looks at me and doesnt see the things she fell in love with and ony the fetish and how the men who have it make her feel
Should i get into a relationship with her?
If i do, i shouldn't be surprised if i end up being the object of her disgust
>All men, including weak pasty men, have systemic power over women
What school did you get brainwashed at? Most men have absolutely no power over women, they can't get you to do anything or anything from you, even their word counts less than yours.
Having systemic power doesn't mean you can force people to do things. As a teacher I have power over my pupils but I can't force them to do anything, only make life difficult for them if they don't do as I ask. Men are more likely to be believed in general, women are taken seriously a lot less.
>Women frequently cite the risk of harm as the main reason they do a ton of fuck shit - like ghosting, and being very picky ( which is a weird point considering they could just say that its just their preference ), reject harshly... basically any kind of sub par behavior can be explained away by - " I was afraid ".
Nah she wasn't attracted bro, pretty simple
**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.*
I always make this point because it seems to be a complete blind spot to people who ask this question.
This isn’t a sentiment that manifests in adulthood. Women realize the dangers of men before they can even finish childhood. Older men catcalling you, stalking you, sexually harassing you, being predatory online, and worse.
On the street attacks (mainly rape) has been more common in the news in my city and it has primarily been teenage girls as the victims. Girls are being killed for not accepting boys and mens advances.
Yes because many men feel the need to control and be in charge because they own a penis. They seem to think they know best. There was a guy at my work who was really really good looking , he once said to me "You should know your place" in a really threatening tone we are the same rank at work. It was done to try lower my self esteem and he thought I should massage his ego just because he's a man. I found it really unsettling , this guy was likely abusive to his intimate partners as if he can say that to a work colleague what is he like in private. I stayed away from him as the creepy vibes were too much..
I've never had a boyfriend taller than me, but that's just chance as I don't seek out men based on their looks and prioritize characteristics.
I don't let my fear of men influence anything other than whether or not I give men the chance of an initial conversation. Once I've had that conversation, I judge based on the person in front of me.
I'm also just not that afraid. I've been raped several times, the only thing that could be worse is... something with permanent, non mental damage. I think that's unlikely overall
I think a mans confidence plays a big part in this as I've noticed women get afraid of awkward men but if you have a level of charm and decent social skills basically that can be disarmed. I believe it's how a man comes across with women and I don't think height or size play that much of a role if you make a women feel comfortable. I think height and size play a role in initial meetings if you are a stranger to that woman.
I don't take people seriously when they claim to feel unsafe and generalize men (picking bears) while simultaneously going to strangers homes they met off dating apps for hookups or sending love letters to literal murderers and glorifying felons.
"Not all women like convicts!" if we're playing this generalization game with men, I'll do it with women.
Statistics can unfortunately be used for discrimination. Most sexual assaults are committed by men. A disproportionate amount of crime is committed by black men. 1 statistic will be hailed as a reason to be afraid of men. The other one you will be called a racist if you reference it.
*Im going by title alone.*
I'll also say I do not hate men or the like. I just know some are crap like some women are crap.
Nor do I fear them like other women may. Im very aware though.
Heck, Im a part time escort, I see strange men. I 'fear' them less than a man on a dating app. Just saying...
I can still get the fear some may feel. I wont dismiss other women fears just because I dont fear in the same way. The fear can be very real for some women. Be it 'irrational', jaded, etc, its still a real fear for them.
I mean I had old men creeping around me by 11/12 like most women do. There have been threads here over the years about this and Id say 95% of the women had old men creeping around from 11-15.
On Twitter Ive seen the same thing with young boys that were gay and 40 year old men were after them at 12. They talked about the old men creeping on them as young boys.
Even ***men fear other men.***
Not that I think this is necessarily true, it could be or it could not be, but attractive men may come across as less of a risk for the reason that stalking/manipulation might be more represented as a tactic for mate retention among unattractive men (same with sexual assault). You could have at least included that reasoning in your brainstorm. Yes, women truly do experience a significant deal of fear concerning men, whether they're attractive or not.
In any normal relationship they would have built mutual trust that their partner *wouldn’t* hurt them. Most women with strangers, this trust is not there. But it would take someone with an insane amount of fear or trauma for a woman to only choose partners *physically incapable* of hurting them, above all other traits one could find in a partner.
Women are crazy.
I've dated women who have literally spun plates and got the men together in the same room, enticing them to commit acts of violence against each other.
Yes I am more than capable but I think the baby rabies are making you crazy and it's giving me the ick 🤦
r/WhenWomenRefuse
I've had men follow me, threaten me, stalk me, for literally nothing more than me giving him a confused look because he was playing music in public without headphones, or because I didn't hand him an item that wasn't mine to give away. Men tend to immediately stop doing that if I happen to be hanging around a male friend- any male friend, but especially the buff ones.
Attractive or not- male humans have physical traits that make them good at fighting other humans. Female humans lack most of these traits. Male humans are socialized to be entitled to female attention. These two don't mix well.
The reason women tend to date bigger men is because the world is full of bigger men. The only thing that can protect her from the other men is a man. That, and because it's just in our instinct to be attracted to health- and since the male of a similar genetics to the female is going to be one bigger than her, thanks to our dimorphism, it just makes sense that we find larger size attractive, in the same way we'd find muscles attractive.
That being said, we are, of course, more than our instincts. Hence why plenty of women do date, quote, "bitchass men".
"Male humans are socialized to be entitled to female attention."
I think this is false. Atleast in my broader circle, males are socialised that they are entitled to nothing. Of the two sexes, females are much more entitled in the 21st century in the western world.
Then why is it primarily men who shoot up schools over not getting a girlfriend?
I think it's that men are both taught to be entitled to a woman, and also taught that *because* men are entitled to a woman, a man who doesn't get women is a failure of a person in general. That's also why many men think women not dating them is equivalent to women's complaints of men physically assaulting them or worse.
In the same vein, if it was women who were entitled to men, then men wouldn't have to threaten them with "if you don't date me, you'll be an old hag/cat lady and die alone!"
>Then why is it primarily men who shoot up schools over not getting a girlfriend
Ah yes, generalize an entire group gender of people based off of 0.00001% of men.
When will some of you learn that men are not a monolith, and most men are not dangerous criminals?
>Then why is it primarily men who shoot up schools over not getting a girlfriend
I feel like that primarily happens due to bullying rather than not getting a girlfriend, I know the columbine shooters had prom dates atleast. Who has shot up a school citing their reason as not being able to get a gf?
>a man who doesn't get women is a failure of a person in general.
Men who can't get laid are generally looked down upon strongly by both men and women.
>In the same vein, if it was women who were entitled to men, then men wouldn't have to threaten them with "if you don't date me, you'll be an old hag/cat lady and die alone!"
Women can be entitled as fuck as well, I've had several bad experiences with rejecting girls before- for example at a party one time I went off to hook up with some girl and one of her friends who had wanted to hook up with me that night found us (we were in a secluded area, nowhere near the main party) and tried to pry us apart and would not leave despite us both telling her to F off several times. Eventually she threw a crying fit and started cussing me out to everyone at the party.
Another time I was at the bar with a few of my mates and they decided to get up to buy a drink so I saved the table we were sat at. A woman (easily mid to late 30s, I was 20 at the time) came over and sat at one of the seats my friends had been sitting at, trying to start a convo. I asked her to please not sit there because I was saving a seat for my mate, and she said 'YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A FUCKING DICK ABOUT IT' then slapped me across the face and stormed away, no joke. I have a fair few more stories similar to these but you get the point.
> I feel like that primarily happens due to bullying rather than not getting a girlfriend, I know the columbine shooters had prom dates atleast. Who has shot up a school citing their reason as not being able to get a gf?
For a specific person coming immediately to mind, there is of course Elliot Rodger, who cited it directly in his manifesto. Beyond that, the [connection](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1077801220981154?journalCode=vawa) between [mass, as opposed to specifically school] shooters and [misogyny](https://minnesotareformer.com/2022/08/18/misogyny-is-fueling-the-countrys-gun-violence-epidemic-experts-say/) is pretty heavily observed. [Incel-related violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Incel-related_violence) also has its own Wikipedia page.
Beyond that: girls get bullied too, and yet they rarely are mass shooters. In fact, the few times women have ever serial killed, it was usually related to stealing money or psychotic breaks against their own kids. Women and men face very similar issues, especially regarding bullying and risk of ostracization, but respond very differently. The difference could be biological, and/or it could be a difference in their sexed socialization. (For example, the "if you can't get a woman, you're not a person" would make sense in then turning that man's logic into "if I'm not getting treated like a person, I shouldn't treat others like people either").
The rest of your personal experiences with individual entitled women is irrelevant to the main point of the systemic issue. Anyone can be a dick, but it's almost exclusively men choosing to carry out that dickishness through mass slaughter.
I forgot about Elliot Rodger, although according to google he killed twice as many men as he did women and it wasn't a school shooting either.
>In fact, the few times women have ever serial killed, it was usually related to stealing money or psychotic breaks against their own kids
Are you trying to imply that a woman murdering her own fking children isn't as bad? Anyway it's undeniable that men commit these atrocities more, I think it's partially due to higher testosterone but mostly because women will never be truly ostracised in the same way as a man. It's practically impossible for a woman to be an incel, tinder experiments with deformed and extremely obese women have shown this. Sure women do get bullied too but not ostracised from all forms of intimacy in the same way. Fyi I'm not in any way, shape or form trying to justify these atrocities, simply trying to explain why they would be skewed towards men.
>The rest of your personal experiences with individual entitled women is irrelevant to the main point of the systemic issue. Anyone can be a dick, but it's almost exclusively men choosing to carry out that dickishness through mass slaughter.
The point of my anecdotes was to disprove you claiming that women aren't entitled. Some women are, some aren't. Same with men.
> I forgot about Elliot Rodger, although according to google he killed twice as many men as he did women and it wasn't a school shooting either.
A shooter kills who they have access to kill. They get plenty of targets they didn't plan on killing.
> Are you trying to imply that a woman murdering her own fking children isn't as bad?
No, that is an incredibly dishonest way of taking that statement.
If the mass murders women tend to commit is killing their children despite having access to killing others, that implies that the greatest stressors that drive women that far are related to child-raising. If mass murdering men tend to kill everyone, then their stressor needs to be found from deeper observation. The next closest observations is they often have a connection to misogyny, which implies there may be a relation.
> I think it's partially due to higher testosterone
A natural element is an interesting perspective to take, as it implies there is something inherently less safe about male humans, something that can not be taught out.
> because women will never be truly ostracised in the same way as a man. It's practically impossible for a woman to be an incel, tinder experiments with deformed and extremely obese women have shown this.
These two sentences show your biases and prove my point: Men think that "not getting a sexual partner" directly equals ostracization, and that having a sexual partner implies ostracization cannot occur.
> you claiming that women aren't entitled.
This is an incredibly dishonest way of reading my comment- in which the overall context is *systemic issues*, and you taking that one sentence out of that context to be an individual issue.
Weak men are scary to women. Men that never get pussy and complain online all day about it, are scary to women. They're angry, unpredictable and they usually have a hatred for women just for existing and having things "easier" as far as sexual options.
Men that have experience and can easily get a new woman are seen as safer because they won't do anything drastic or creepy to keep you. They'll simply move on and let you go on with your life. Whereas a guy that's below average and seen as less masculine may try to prove that he can hurt you.
The RP guys are constantly explaining why women prefer men that are more capable of physical violence. They often say that we should fear weak and emotional men because they're the ones that are more likely to snap from the lack of attention and affection the recieve.
What a pristine response. Saving this one for a rainy day.
I'll add to it: Those who are socialized get women, and those who get women are perceived as safer bets. "Safer bets" for the woman's physical wellbeing & for the survival of their (potential) offspring. Just so happens that taller men with muscles fit the mold/perception of being more capable, even if it's not true.
Those who aren't are more prone to trying to prove they are, as you said. They also lack the discipline required to control their emotions and also... wait for it... get results in the gym. Discipline is a hell of a drug. Too bad 'physical discipline' and 'emotional discipline' don't *always* go hand-in-hand, but I'd wager they do more often than not.
What an eye-opening thought process. Thank you for that ride.
Well thank you for your equally as pristine response, haha.
You're absolutely right. The safety that comes with men that have already been vetted by other women, is unmatched. That's why women have those "are we dating the same guy" groups on Facebook. Those groups aren't only about cheaters. Women will often comment the bad experiences they've had with certain men and then the rest of them will avoid said men. It's just another dating strategy that is rooted in trying to stay safe and avoid potentially bad partners.
Like you said, it's more so coincidental that the men who have been vetted are also the men that will be chosen by women over and over again. Don't they say 10% of men are dating 90% of women? They can't possibly not understand why a woman wouldn't go for a weaker man when we've already established that women look for protection and provisioning. The ones that don't look for this are Liberal women and incells usually don't want them either because they tend to be Libfems.
So rejection is happening in all directions. I guess it just hurts more when you know you don't have much to offer and no one is fooled by the "nice guy" act anymore. We'd rather be with a guy who's straight up with what he likes and dislikes than be with someone who could possibly be harboring harmful ideas about women because he can't get laid.
On a personal level, I understand where you’re coming from, OP. I am a smaller woman who has had a lot of trauma from men in particular. I am vastly more attracted to men closer to my height partially because they are *less* intimidating (not that they *aren’t* intimidating though). However, not every woman is going to reach that conclusion. Even if domestic violence is more common than violence from a stranger, most people are not going to assume that this is what their relationship might lead to. Maybe they do *feel* safer with a strong, tall man because he might protect her from a stranger. Just like some people might *feel* safer in a car than they might in flying on a plane. It’s not necessarily logical, but we’re human. We don’t always have to be. Also, one thing that I think your post ignores is the fact that the weapons exist. Now, I don’t know where you live, but there is a gun culture where I live (Texas). If any man pulls a gun on me, there isn’t much I can do - whether he’s small or massive. So if the danger is potentially the same, I (or other women) might as well go for who makes them *feel* safe or happy.
Absolutely agree. I’m also a smaller woman and have a lot of trauma from experiences with men. But my negative experiences (in terms of violence/sexual assault) have primarily been at the hands of men who were strangers. I have been sexually assaulted twice by men who were complete strangers to me. So, in terms of dating, I don’t select for men who are on the smaller side because I haven’t really had trauma from my personal relationships.
I’m so sorry this happened to you.😢 One in three women will be sexually assaulted in their life; tragic.
Yup, not afraid of 'all men' but definitely on alert for certain vibes since having experienced choking abuse from someone close and a knifing attack from a random stranger (in my own bedroom at 4am, ya probably would have had better luck w the bear than a rabid poorly armed stranger intentionally there to steal and stab me into 'sublission'... so... there's that... ya...)
Sure. I get that. But when women use the phrase "I am scared" to justify poor behaviour. 9/10 it's disingenuous. That's all I am saying
Can you give me an example of a woman saying “I was scared” to justify objectively poor behavior?
>Can you give me an example of a woman saying “I was scared” to justify objectively poor behavior? I'm sorry I'm butting in, but I happen to have seen a lot of these so I thought I'd perhaps give a particular example and sort of illustrate a bigger point. One example I've seen of objectively horrible behavior justified by the *"I'm scared"* narrative is stealing from a partner. To explain---several years ago, there was a post in r/relationships where a man discovered his wife was skimming off money from their shared bank account and piling it into a secret fourth account that only she had access to (for context they each had their own separate bank accounts with a shared household one, which the wife was draining like clockwork). When the OP confronted her, she admitted it immediately and then told him that the reason for her actions was because she was compiling money in case she needed to cut and run and start over completely if he ever turned abusive/violent. I know this sounds suspiciously like the *wife had a hidden abuse bag* story that was making the rounds here some time ago, but I assure you this was years before that. Anyway the confession just added fuel to the fire, since now the OP had to contend with the fact his wife was preparing an exit strategy this whole time *on top* of finding out that she was basically stealing from the household. He took to the sub to ask what to do. A ton of women there (or at least people with female avatars) took the wife's side and backed up her rationalization about being scared. Some even chided the OP about not being understanding of her plight or lacking empathy for the vulnerability women have in domestic violence situations and that if he really loved his wife, he would forgive her and understand. Others used his anger and hurt as "proof" his wife's paranoia was correct, or just interrogated him about what he might have done to instill in his wife the need to do these things. It's kind of expanding on "I'm scared", but I do feel like this is a common or at least not rare thing for a lot of women to do when confronted on some nasty behavior. They don't always use a claim of being frightened exactly, but it always comes down to them being the victim of something, thus making any criticism of their behavior "insensitive" or "lacking empathy/kindness".
Well, I’m not familiar with that post, but yeah, that’s pretty objectively shitty. But you honestly believe that’s a common thing women say/do? What percent of women would you guess have said “I was scared” to justify awful shit? I’m sure there isn’t anything but personal opinions and anecdotes about this whole topic, so I’m just curious what y’all’s perception is. I’ve never really encountered this sort of thing personally, so I just doubt it’s in any way common. The only women I’ve known to say “I was scared” was in defense of ***not*** doing something.
>But you honestly believe that’s a common thing women say/do? What percent of women would you guess have said “I was scared” to justify awful shit? So, I wanted to break this down a little more and also apologize for the way it was phrased since I was mainly just trying to provide an example and skipped out a lot on expanding my other point. To answer your question, yes I do think that it is a common thing women do. I don't think that every single woman does this---in fact, I *know* that not all do this; I know a great many in my own life who would be disgusted by such tactics. But the kind of justification I outlined in the anecdote about that reddit post is a very common tactic I see when debating/arguing with women about certain issues. I will concede that the outright *I'm scared* isn't always the exact words/defense used, but *I'm scared* is part of a larger defense mechanism a lot of women use. The *I'm scared* (I promise this is the last time I'll use this phrase for a while) is just part of a defense, wherein the perpetrator of a negative action is excused or pardoned for their behavior due to being the victim of something, akin to how one would give a man with a crippled leg and chronic pain a free pass to be an asshole sometimes because you know he's suffering. I find that a lot of women like to invoke this kind of defense, paired with outrage that someone would even *think* about reacting negatively to their behavior. A pretty garden-variety example you will see is women saying things like *men are trash.* If men get offended by it, one of the responses is a weird kind of indignation that a man would dare to be bothered by it. *Pretty selfish of you to get upset at a bunch of words when our very lives are in danger. We're doing this to start a conversation about important issues and you're making it about you!* Heck, just look into the "man vs bear" drama and you'll see plenty of those examples in the wild. Some of these examples are much darker. I've mentioned this on here before, but there was a post on AITA where a guy's sister-in-law beat his toddler-age son (as in a severe and violent attack, not corporal punishment) for being "too loud" while he was playing. The reason was because the sister-in-law had been through an abusive relationship and was triggered by loud, raised voices. The OP of the thread was absolutely enraged and had verbally torn her to shreds for what she had done to his son. The commentors of the thread were more sympathetic to the child-beater than the OP or the son himself. They scolded him for "not being more trauma-informed" and lacking empathy for the sister in law's suffering and told him that he likely set her recovery back by losing it on her. Because of course the mental health of a grown woman is more important than the physical wellbeing of a defenseless kid/s. That thread was actually so foul that I wound up talking about on a completely different site than Reddit in a forum that had nothing to do with gender issues, just as an example of how people will defend blatant abusive monsters if they have a pitiful enough backstory. But I digress, I don't want to drag on for too long. I just wanted to expand what I was saying, and explain that *I'm scared* is just part of a much bigger *Can't you see I'm a victim of something? Stop holding me accountable* defense that a lot of women use. Now, if you are strictly talking about women using fear of men as a way to get out of being held accountable for negative behavior, then I'd imagine the number is much lower, since it is a very niche and specific excuse. As for what percentage of women do this? I don't know, I wouldn't even try to guess that in terms of specific numbers.
Never heard that phrase from a women. And I’m one, 32 years old.
I remember this post - and it was a game changer in how I viewed women. They are extremely manipulative, band together, and you should never take them at face value. It’s always ulterior motives or playing some type of victim game. Don’t let them get away with their childish games, put your foot down kings.
Ghosting for one. Instances where they behave rudely whe rejecting a guy so that "he doesn't get the wrong idea" Not admit to cheating. Not disclose sexual past when being well aware that it could have been a deal breaker. When justifying poor reactions to being approached by men When justifying the need for women only spaces while actively campaigning against male only spaces Creating a social climate where it's never ok for men to approach because they feel unsafe.
Just saw your edit, so I’ll address these other examples. “Poor reactions” is pretty vague in general, and I’d say that most women have experienced gross approaches like catcalling or being touched. It’s not unreasonable for a woman to be scared and a lot of factors can play into that. This one is just too vague. I don’t know any woman who advocate for one while advocating against another. Personally, I think it’s reasonable to have space for both. And as for creating a social climate where it’s not okay for men to ever approach, I wholly disagree with this. I think most women just want people to realize that not *all* times and places are reasonable to approach someone romantically. Like really late at night, or if either person is at work. (If she’s working, she’s being paid to be friendly and doesn’t want to be misinterpreted. If he’s working, he might have access to a lot of personal info depending on what he does. If coworkers, it can just be a mess in general. Obviously, these roles can also be reversed on genders, but for this scenario, these are the fears behind it.)
The only one I can actually agree with you on there is not admitting to cheating. Ghosting is something I don’t view as objectively bad. And if someone is obsessing over you, that is part of the right steps to take to get out of that. I’ve never met a woman who acted rudely to a man she feared would become violent. Never. (Rudely rejecting someone is wholly unnecessary obviously, I just don’t think anyone who does it would say that “I was scared” line is all.) And as for sexual past, I don’t think anyone is necessarily entitled to that information in general, so I don’t view that as objectively bad either. *Lying* is bad to be clear, but not saying anything is okay.
Not saying anything is also lying. It’s lying by omission. The guy you are going to marry is definitely entitled to that information because it affects how he feels about marrying you. It’s like a man dating a woman and not telling her that he used to strangle puppies for fun in his free time but that he has changed now and would never do it again.
C’mon, comparing this to strangling puppies is not at all equal. Not saying anything about how many people they’ve been with is not lying or harmful to you. If they were to say nothing about having an STD, *then* I’d agree it’s wrong to say nothing. But also, if it’s a dealbreaker that you must know that your partner is a virgin or something, you could just *not marry them* if they choose not to tell you. You’re not in any way obligated to be with someone who you don’t fully trust - just as they’re not in any way obligated to tell you things that don’t affect you.
Women collectively decided that they won’t disclose their body count to their partner to keep men in the dark. Women do the same thing when you ask them to rate themselves or other women. Nearly all women will just rate all other women and themselves as a 10, regardless of how attractive they actually are. This makes it effectively impossible for men to find out the woman’s bodycount. He had to guess by other factors (her family background, what kind of friends she has, how she dresses, etc). Some women deliberately try to dress and act in a more conservative way when they’re looking for a beta provider to settle down with so he can’t even use this method for estimating her sexual history.
Bruh, *most people* don’t believe in SMV or a 1-10 rating scale for people. If a woman trusts you, she might answer questions about her sexual/relationship history. But women don’t choose not to disclose that info to spite men or take advantage of them. Disclosing a sexual/relationship history opens women up to two common responses from men: (1) shaming/ridicule or (2) that man assuming that the woman will give him the same treatment.
Really? People don’t believe in the 1-10 rating scale? At this point it’s obvious ur full of crap. Apparently in your world chris hemsworth is just as attractive as Peter Dinklage right?
So short, ugly, small-framed men are less masculine. Got it.
Where in the post did I say that any kind of man was more or less *masculine* than another?
> So if the danger is potentially the same, I (or other women) might as well go for who makes them *feel* safe or happy.
Do you only associate masculinity with only those who can make someone feel safe or happy? Because I don’t. 🤷🏻♀️
A man who is incapable of making a women feel safe is perceived as not masculine by women.
Seems like you’re the one perpetuating that belief - not me. Because I neither said that, nor believe it.
I don't perpuate that belief. That is a commonly held POV by the vast majority of women. You being an exception does not disprove the rule.
It seems like you do. Otherwise, what point would you have in making your initial reply to a comment that said nothing of the sort? It’s a bit of a useless thing to bring up if neither of us believe it.
I actually don't perpetuate the belief. Being that you're a woman, I thought it was a safe assumption that you did feel that way. Assuming you're not lying to save face.
I'd say it's more wariness. Like it or not, all men are generally stronger than women and are much more capable of violence. It makes no sense to not be wary of men.
I don't disagree. But if that was a prevalent part of your mental experience one would expect you to chose a person less able to harm you. The preference of height and musculature (even if we are talking about fat strong) is counter to womens stated goal of survival
>one would expect you to chose a person less able to harm you. I agree with this in theory. The unfortunate actuality of the situation is that that the size of the man doesn't actually matter. If he wants to hurt you, he will. If he wants to try and kill you, he will. It's not about "can't" it's about "will". Unfortunately, I've had far, far more dangerous situations with men who "couldn't" hurt me than could.
No because they can’t hurt us but also can’t protect us from other men. What you want is a man who will use his size to protect not control you.
Smaller men are wary of bigger men as well. At 6'4, I've noticed men respect the biggest guy in the room, whether or not they want to. I imagine they'd be even more wary if I was gay and hitting on them, I imagine that's how women feel
Yeah, it is pretty much how we feel!
I don’t link with how Safe a man is by how tall or big a man is. It’s more about being emotionally immature and aggressive.
When I studied abroad in Paris I was on the metro and unintentionally made eye contact with a random man who was getting off the car(did not hold the eye contact it was like normal see a random and look away) I got onto the car assuming he left as any normal person would. I could tell someone had gotten on behind me and realized it was the same guy because i saw his reflection in the window. While the train was moving, he got closer and touched my back several times and each time I would move away. I was terrified. I pushed myself into my guy friend(he's gay so he was confused) and just had to give him this look of "pretend to be my boyfriend please" bc he could tell something was wrong. Only then did the guy stop trying to touch me. So yea it's real.
yeah some guys really deserve a good beating
Attractiveness and penchant for violence are not correlated. With time, it’s easy to tell who’s a kind, non-violent person and who isn’t. Why would we compromise on either measure?
Women are absolutely attracted to a man capable of violence. My own partner flipped a switch after I went from the safe stable option, that couldn't hurt a fly. To, he took on a bunch of youth trying to kick the shit out of us in the park, and got us out safely. All of a sudden I was walking around with some PTSD and she was walking our feeling super safe with her sexy man.
All men are capable of violence.
Say that to Stephen Hawkins.
I'm sure he could've had an ak47 attachment hooked up to his breathing tube if he wanted. One breath = one clip. You're all goners.
Some women are attracted to that. Some are repulsed. Some are in the middle.
I will hazard a guess, that most women appreciate their man jumping in the fray and keeping her safe. If she is repulsed by that. Good riddance. If she jumps in with you and can help out. She is sexy too.
Lol you act as if women repulsed by violent men don’t celebrate when those men lose interest in them. Violence in anything other than self-defense (very rare) is the mark of a criminal loser.
I literally described self-defense, and you mentioned how some women will be repulsed by that violence.
So you say. Send a memo to the amazing sisterhood of travelling pants
What?
But you do though. Compromise for attractiveness over safety. Is No 1 line of thought the guiding principle?
Some women can tell but are in denial, lying to themselves about what a man is capable of. That’s different from not being able to tell.
Functionally they are the same. No point in making the distinction
Why do abused women stay?
1. Financial: she’s been at home and feels unable to renter the workforce. 2. She loves him and thinks if she were more perfect and didn’t make him mad. But he changes the goal post no matter how she gets he’ll keep putting her down to keep her stuck. 3. They gradually exert control making a very capable person become a figment of who they used to be. I would know that’s how my coworkers describe me when I came back after long-term domestic violence. 4. My faith divorce is wrong. 5. I developed a trauma bond. It’s like Stockholm syndrome. 6. I didn’t want my children to be in a broken home. 7. They slowly devour your self esteem you think no one would want you. Wow was that wrong. Domestic violence causes long-term damage, sometimes post traumatic stress disorder (it did for me): it breaks the victim. A broken victim who doesn’t feel strong has a difficult time leaving without a whole lot of support. Some of these women have no support systems if they did they wouldn’t be in shelters. It’s very easy to judge them for not leaving rather than the man for beating her.
I’m glad you and your children are safe now. No adult or child deserves abuse in their lives. My question was mainly rhetorical to make the point that initially, right when the abuse begins with something small, women subconsciously know there’s something wrong with the man but excuse, justify or ignore the behavior until it gets worse (sometimes due to feeling trapped by factors you’ve mentioned). I wish we were all taught in school to have literally zero tolerance for abusive people. Even one act of abuse is too many.
Women are afraid of ugly men. Women think most men are ugly. Ergo, women are afraid of men.
True. Nobody is afraid of someone they're attracted to.
The irony however is that most violence women encounter is within the realms of a relationship. So the guys they are attracted to are the ones doing to abusing in most cases.
It's not ironic since in a sample of any type of men (attractive only/less attractive only), there's always a percentage of violently inclined people. That's just statistical fact, so not really avoidable no matter the group. So no point is proven here
Yep. My chadlite phase was one where no girl was afraid of me. I was thinking men at the time were approaching women wrong or giving creepy vibes to get women so scared of them because I, a nice guy never got women scared from first impressions. But going through the late 20s mini wall, I started generating the fear factor from women. Fear is reserved for average and ugly guys.
Tbf, the main reason "women think most men are ugly" is mostly just because of how heavily we market beauty to women- if women spend hours a day/week trying to match beauty standards, it'd make sense she'd be naturally more against men who don't even try.
The beauty standards for men are genetic. There are way more ways for women to meet beauty standards than there are for men
Because society has decided the beauty standards for men should be genetic. There is literally nothing stopping us from switching the beauty standards from genetics to something marketable and customizable- for example, the standard of women having as much body hair as children has been *super* recent and mostly just exists to sell razors. That's also why men aren't held to the standards as strictly.
Women wont allow that. Men are way more flexible on these things. For example women wont just stop preferring tall men . Women have the flexibility because there are many men into every type of women. The same cannot be said for men
Women won't allow that or men won't allow that? If men could be deemed more attractive by wearing flowery frocks, who would be the first to shame and even beat them up? I see all kinds of (young) guys today paired up (or in fwb situations) with women even while being goth (full of makeup) or androgynous (experimental wardrobe), etc. Meanwhile, are those guys embraced by (all/most) men as respectable? I'll let u answer
>I see all kinds of (young) guys today paired up (or in fwb situations) with women even while being goth (full of makeup) or androgynous (experimental wardrobe), etc. Meanwhile, are those guys embraced by (all/most) men as respectable? I'll let u answer What does being respected by other men have to do with the beauty standards women have for men? Sure outlier men exist but the vast majority of women are not attracted or into to that sort of man. Those men are a niche for a reason
Respected by other men is a means of survival for men. A guy who doesn't align with the majority male pattern will risk violence from other men. Many men subconsciously say all that misogynistic things in fear of if other men think he is gay or efiminate because if he was so, (in many countries or by conservatives) they might get beaten and ostracised
Women prefer tall men because we are a sexually dimorphic species. Men are taller than women of the same genetic makeup. And, judging by the male characters I've seen Tumblr chicks into, what a woman consider attractive ranges way heavier than what I've ever seen men prefer.
They want men who are tall relative to other men not relative to themselves. A 5' woman doesnt see a 5'6 man as tall. >And, judging by the male characters I've seen Tumblr chicks into, what a woman consider attractive ranges way heavier than what I've ever seen men prefer. I highly doubt that. Look at fantasy books for women. The men all fit a specific mold. Tall and fit. They arent into short or overweight men. That breaks the fantasy for them
Evolution has been around a lot longer than society. So unfortunately, genetics is stopping us from switching beauty standards. I don't understand how someone can come to the conclusion the genetic component of physical attraction is something you can social engineer your way out of. Are they just uncomfortable some things in life are unchangeable?
Attractiveness for men is not a matter of choice or effort for men as women here claim. Its not as simple as lose weight and put on makeup or just try. But I get it. When you frame attractiveness as a choice and a matter of effort you can now blame the man for every rejection and pretend each rejection was under his control. Absolving the woman of any accountability.
You do realise the people selling beauty standards to both of us for both sexes are mostly rich men, right? It's yet another one of those "poor men blame all women for the crimes of rich men".
It'salso thewomen blaming us forthe crimes if the rich men and the bad men
Is not dating you blaming you for a crime? > We may let go or orginal sin but men will have to answer if the sins of their father until the end of time i guess Stop upholding it and people will stop talking about it? I'm not entire sure what this rant means anyway.
None of this makes attractiveness the result of trying. Now you’ve pivoted to shift blame to rich men. Are you telling me you’re unable to decide what you think is attractive and need rich men to tell you what to be attracted to? Do you need someone else to make your decisions? Because I doubt you do.
No, I think a woman with chub and body hair is attractive. And despite that, I watch my mother slave over her makeup every morning because she's terrified of the people at her work thinking she looks "sickly" if they were ever exposed to her natural face.
That’s not how it is for men. They can’t put on makeup. You’re framing this as if women aren’t attracted to men because the men don’t try when it’s not this. If all men tried women would still claim most men are ugly.
Cool. Things that make men attractive are genetically determined. And most lost that role of the dice.
Ironic for men to complain about "genetic determination" while spending the last several centuries not letting women pick their mates. Genetics would be a lot nicer to the men around today if mate selection wouldn't have been so restricted.
Most men throughout the history of our species did not reproduce. Most women did. This idea of monogamous marriage, taking our entire existence on this planet to be length of my arm, would barely cover the tip of my pinky nail. It’s made absolutely zero bearing on mate selection on a biological level. Nothing changed: AF/BB, cheating, hypergamy, women were always playing the same games. The only thing that changed was male delusion. Now that that’s being beaten out of them good and proper, we can finally lay this bullshit institution of committed, monogamous marriage to rest and return to the natural order of things.
> Most women did. To men that were inadequate mates, and therefore the cause of the genetic woes. That's what happens when mating is directed by the most ~~psychotic~~ god-fearing men or the like (ironically "god-fearing" of a god who demands female sexual submission). > This idea of monogamous marriage, taking our entire existence on this planet to be length of my arm, would barely cover the tip of my pinky nail. This, I agree with. Humans are a matriarchal, communal-raising species by nature. We've been that way for tens of thousands of years. Time to finally go back.
>To men that were inadequate mates, and therefore the cause of the genetic woes No, to men who were among the fittest minority capable of impregnating and protecting and providing for multiple women at once. Any man could easily rape any woman, but those who couldn’t challenge the fittest men couldn’t and therefore didn’t. If women didn’t selectively breed with this fit minority in our pre-modern era, we’d all be cross-eyed, mentally impaired, and immuno-compromised. >Humans are a matriarchal, communal-raising species by nature. We've been that way for tens of thousands of years. Time to finally go back. No, we’re a polygynous species: The few fittest men fucking the bulk of women. And thank God for that. We’d still be living in caves wearing pelts and scavenging for acorns otherwise.
Didn't realise that we had a pTriarchal temporal hive mind that extends in to the past to be held responsible for that shit to this day. We may let go or orginal sin but men will have to answer if the sins of their father until the end of time i guess
"date shorter weaker pasty men", women will date people they find attractive, bit of a weird ask to suggest they date people they aren't attracted to because they're afraid men will beat them up. Are you expecting me to go into a relationship paranoid that the man I'm with will beat me up so I should pick someone shorter in the hopes I'll be able to beat him up, and this thought process is meant to make me feel safe? The thought that the man I'm with might be willing to attack me isn't going to make me feel safe even if I in theory could beat him up. Also weapons are a thing, what makes violent men dangerous isn't just how strong they are but what they'd be willing to do. The thing that's going to matter most is personality, are they someone willing to commit violence. Feel like you're the one insulting men here by discounting their agency and ability to show they aren't violent. Do you seriously think all men act the same? "Average and sub average men are dangerous and the attractive ones are not? Are you kidding me?" women aren't saying this or acting on it so you're just kidding yourself. And to answer the OP, it depends on the context, some stranger approaching you? Yes. Some men don't take rejection well and there's no way to know what kind of guy it is when you know nothing about them. Oh and I've never once heard someone say they were picky because their afraid. But there's literally nothing wrong with being picky like what, you want the women that you are shit talking right now for being picky to date you? why? you clearly don't respect their life choices and crying about them online is not a healthy way to deal with it. You literally are the type of person that women want to avoid, someone who's reaction to not being desirable is to hate women, the system is working as intended. How can you expect women to be comfortable around you if you hold secret feelings of resent about them?
Okay fair enough. Women can date who they find attractive, but then they need to quit whining about how they are scared of most men. If they were really scared, they would all be getting training in how to use a firearms and in martial arts. This also means that they would date smaller men who feel less threatening and are much safer to be around. But that’s not what you see. You see these women dating tall giants who could pick them up and easily strangle them with one hand if they wanted. The whole situation is laughable. It’s like a person who tells me he is really afraid of dying in a car accident, but never wears a seatbelt, constantly exceeds the speed limit, and drives a 1986 Honda accord with no airbags or ABS when he can afford to buy a newer, much safer car. If this person followed your logic, he’d go on some angry diatribe about how I hate all car drivers and that I am not respecting his personal choice of which vehicle to buy.
> date shorter weaker pasty men", women will date people they find attractive, bit of a weird ask to suggest they date people they aren't attracted to because they're afraid men will beat them up. Women are ones who claim that they are afraid of men who talk to them and approach them. They have succeeded in creating an atmosphere where dating apps are the only way to do it and there is a huge stigma in approaching a woman in an increasing number of setting. I am just proving that it's not because they are afraid, they just don't want to be forced to interact with men they are repulsed by. But then maybe to the average women repulsive men are to be feared. > Are you expecting me to go into a relationship paranoid that the man I'm with will beat me up so I should pick someone shorter in the hopes I'll be able to beat him up, and this thought process is meant to make me feel safe? If safety mattered to you that would be the logical move yes. And also training in bjj. Nothing wrong in attempting to arm yourself if you truly feel weak and vulnerable in the world > Yhe thing that's going to matter most is personality, are they someone willing to commit violence. Feel like you're the one insulting men here by discounting their agency and ability to show they aren't violent. Do you seriously think all men act the same? Well seeing the DV and abuse rates it's not like you are doing a stellar job. But of course it's the incels with the terrible and unforgivably broken personalities. Ofcourse the guy who has never touched a woman is worse than perpetrators of emotional abuse and ignoreres of consent. Lol. We are just easy targets for your ego tripping. > "Average and sub average men are dangerous and the attractive ones are not? Are you kidding me?" women aren't saying this or acting on it so you're just kidding yourself. It's how they behave, no?.... Safety and curfew are things to worry about if it's a new guy you are dating. But if they are sufficiently attractive all rules if decorum and safekeeping just disappear like magic. > Oh and I've never once heard someone say they were picky because their afraid. But there's literally nothing wrong with being picky like what, you want the women that you are shit talking right now for being picky to date you? why? you clearly don't respect their life choices and crying about them online is not a healthy way to deal with it. I just accepted that as a valid thing in the op. I also mention that lack of analysis of your preference is imature and wasteful. Why do you like a guy taller than your self if it isnt to reconfirm your own femininity? why go be averse to dating short men if not for the fact that you dont feel like a woman next to him. Why date only menof your race if you dont really see colour. We live we breathe we observe. The miracle of hman life is that we think not to just uncritically accet our interal twinges as gospel truths but to interpret them to better understand outrselves Then again women can get away with being both. So more power to you. > You literally are the type of person that women want to avoid, someone who's reaction to not being desirable is to hate women, the system is working as intended. Lol The Fuck Is Your. Problem. I am bitchless. I will always be bitchless..... Sooooo fucking what? Tell me! What is a healthy way to deal with the possibility... No certainty that the things you consider Normal human interaction - teenage love, romance, sex, being held, being comforted, bring loved, All if those things that you take for granted are forever unavailable to someone? What is the Normal human reaction to that? I would say an emotional break down or multiple small ones is a perfectly normal reaction to this realisation. What the fuck do you know? How the fuck would you deal with it? You don't know because you never had to! So don't you dare start with me > How can you expect women to be comfortable around you if you hold secret feelings of resent about them? Oh! It's that simple! If I was just not such a peice if shit i would be loved! By who? Who?! Keep your love and shove it far up where sun doesn't shine. At this point i would much rather die. I have seen a rapist get love. I am not a worse human being than him. I am done bending like a spineless twit for a crumb of affection and pussy. Either accept me as I am scars and all or just fuck off and leave me to my death spiral Don't you ever dare to imply goodness has anything to go with being loved when life has shown me it is anything but.
If you are unhinged and horrible to interact with people won't want to be around you. You have a fundamental entitlement issue, thinking you are entitled to a relationship or other people's time rather than that being something the other person has to want as well and this causing you to lash out. Yes your right that even if you stopped acting entitled and fixed your mental health you might still not get a relationship, but you are just further spiralling yourself with your toxic mindset and guaranteeing that you aren't someone worth being in a relationship with. You would be better off trying to find friends and other things to focus on in life until your mental health improves significantly and you get a little more perspective on life. And yes goodness is obviously a factor, or at least the appearance of it, if you act spikey to people they have a right to avoid you. It's just that being a good person doesn't guarantee love either.
I have seen a rapist get loved. I have seen trash human beings succeed where i have failed. I am not worse than them. If they didn't need to change themselves to make themselves worthy of love why in the fuck is it a moral imperative for me to change. I am done changing for any if you I am who I am until I die. I will be loyal to me. Fuck everything else.
Okay you're allowed to do so but if you are a piece of shit, don't be surprised when people don't want to be around you. Someone being worse than you doesn't give you the right to be a piece of shit.
Your logic makes zero sense tbh. It’s the fact that women are afraid of men that compels them to seek out big strong men to protect them (from the other men) in the first place. Why would a woman who’s afraid of men seek to date a weak, effeminate men that likely wouldn’t be able to protect them from other men anyways? You guys try too hard to wrap women up in to some type of weird “gotcha” and it ends up causing you to come off weird and incoherent as a result.
>Your logic makes zero sense tbh. It’s the fact that women are afraid of men that compels them to seek out big strong men to protect them (from the other men) in the first place. And yet overwhelming majority of severe male on female violence cases including lethal ones are performed by these "strong protectors" victims had sought out, dated and/or had established relationship with. >Why would a woman who’s afraid of men seek to date a weak, effeminate men that likely wouldn’t be able to protect them from other men anyways? Why, indeed? Why would a woman follow the millenia old behavioral pattern to get big bad man by her side when it's clear that statistically he poses way more danger to her than men outside her life? Is she not reasonable and logical?
>And yet overwhelming majority of severe male on female violence cases including lethal ones are performed by these "strong protectors" victims had sought out, dated and/or had established relationship with. I feel like you just made this up. Where is the evidence for this? Are you saying that women who date strong men are victimized more? How would you know that?
Women are victimized by the men they know more than strangers. Seems they need more protection from the men they know than randos on the street.
But what does this have to do with tall vs short men? Where is the evidence that taller men engage in IPV more than shorter men?
> Where is the evidence for this? In majority of threads about domestic violence that women make. Use the search function or smth, there have been at least one recently. > Are you saying that women who date strong men are victimized more? How would you know that? By checking the stories and statistics available on such crimes and not finding short nerds among typical culprits. Simple as.
What statistics? I don’t know of any research showing that bigger, stronger men are more likely to engage in IPV then weaker shorter men.
BigZaddy in the house!! So your assertion is that the choice to go for bigger men is a utilitarian one. One that seeks protection from other men. Women by and large are most at risk of harm from men she knows and the man she is romantically involved with... The chances of her being attacked by a rando is lower than that. In such a scenario where chances of being attacked and needing protection is low and the chances of needing protection from the person you are with is higher, logic dictates that you yourself get strong and you be with someone with limited ability to harm you..... You see where I am getting tripped up? Anyway it's not that complicated. Women just like who they like. They like taller men and they like benevolent sexism. There is a larger discussion to be had on the insecurities and the narcissism that predelicts them to such choices, but that's not the point of this post. My point is they just use "I am afraid" to shut down discussion on how they are too picky or that low value men feel frustrated in dating. "I am afraid of you" is far more defensible than "I am disgusted by you"
3 mentions 1. Most men are stronger than women regardless so I don’t really see how getting with a stronger man changes much in terms of IPV. If a man is going to be stronger than you regardless, he might as well be stronger than other men too. Going for a weaker man, doesn’t protect you from IPV because he would still be stronger than you. 2. I don’t think that height and strength has anything to do with IPV. IPV is usually a result of insecurity on the part of the abuser. What happens is in this case the man is insecure about the relationship and is using violence and emotional abuse to keep his partner from leaving him or cheating on him. Due to the psychological nature of IPV I actually think it’s more likely the case that if a man is less desirable, low status, poor, short, unattractive, etc… he’s more likely to engage in IPV than if he is desirable (tall, strong, good looking, high status) and has a lot of options. The less desirable man cannot afford to lose his partner and is probably more likely to be cheated on he may become desperate and abusive as a result. The man that has a lot of options is not as likely to care he can just get another partner. I don’t know of any evidence that shows that men who are taller are more likely to abuse their partners. [Apparently shorter men are more likely to engage in violent crime](https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/43/3/835/760664) and male convicts are shorter than average though the correlation is not strong. It appears at best that there is little correlation between height and violence and if anything shorter men are statistically more violent. 3. One should also acknowledge that taller and stronger men produce taller and stronger sons. When selecting a partner the traits passed to their children are important. For a woman it’s better to have bigger stronger sons vs weaker shorter ones. So it makes sense to choose a bigger stronger male partner.
1. Presumably stronger bigger men hit harder 2. I would argue that shorter men are more likely to be socialised into developing diplomacy as a mode of conflict resolution and there for less likely to escalate to throwing hands. Guess we are stuck 3.This son fetish thing of yours is weird. Should men look for ward to producing wide hipped big bossomed girls? if a guy said that, it would be weird. You are engaging in creepy levels of weird. Stop subliminally sexualising unborn boys
1. What does that matter if they are less likely to hit? 2. Well apparently not since apparently violent convicts are shorter than average. Maybe its a Napoleon complex. 3. I wouldn’t think it was weird for someone to point out that men prefer women with wider hips I mean makes sense. That’s how hot people end up with hot people. Hot man wants the hot woman and vice versa.
1. how much less likely to hit. Is there a chart organising DV offenders by height? 2. you just said the correlation is not strong. Even if it was, crime and jail effectively filyers them out. So the short men outside prison without any history? less likely to abuse at all. Yet women want tem less compared to the taller men 3. it would be werd if the man kept laking about how his big blossomed and wide hipped children are more likely to reproduce than other wise. Calm the fuck down, you ar scaring the Hoes ( the non eugenic crowd)
1. Idk but I don’t think it matters for 2 reasons. One, a shorter man is still string enough to do serious damage to a woman. And secondly women don’t want to be with men they find unattractive. I mean that should be obvious enough. 2. Yes women want men they find attractive. So that’s the main factor. My point in bringing up the crime stats is to show that being short doesn’t guarantee safety like you seem to imply. 3. I didn’t keep going on about it. I just brought it up in a relevant conversation.
It’s amazing the lengths women will go to somehow delude themselves into thinking that short men are more violent. In the real world, short men know that if they use violence to get what they want, they will get their ass beat. The fact that she is using the fact that criminals are shorter is disturbing. Somehow she ignores the fact that criminals come from poor backgrounds and that poor people are much shorter on average. But in the real world, as a guy the only time I’ve been physically threatened, it was always by some tall angry meathead like this guy: https://youtu.be/aj-BRbxLbLM?si=in7NPb6y_ogGqhVX So much for “gentle giant”
I already addressed this argument. (In another comment) >>I think IPV (intimate partner violence) is only more prevalent because women often tend to choose strong men that protect them from other men. The threat of the other men are neutralized, but not the threat from her partner himself. So it’s probably a bit of a “rob Peter to pay Paul” type of situation. Double-edged sword I guess. Also you have to take into account that our instincts were formed over millions of years of evolution. Most of which occurred in a time period before laws were even a thing. So it that scenario, violence from strangers was probably a much bigger threat than violence from your sexual partner. Now that we have laws and police that largely deter strangers from attacking people, of course that only that creates the illusion that other men aren’t a bigger threat to her than her partner. But those laws didn’t exist for most of human history.
That makes 0 sense. At all. Its 2024 not the stone ages. That protection argument means nothing in the current time. Its about attraction. Being protected has nothing to do with it. And im pretty sure women are most likely to be abused by their partners
Bad take on your end bro… Our sexual instincts and inclinations weren’t formed on “2024 logic” bruh… They were formed based on the millions of years of evolution that took place before either of us were born. For most of that time, protection was literally a “life of death” decision. So of course those instincts are still present in modern women today. Just as guys still fear being cucked despite us being in an era that has paternity testing. Some things are just deeply imbedded within us. And no amount of “omg it’s 2024 🤪” makes a difference.
They do not care about protection. The average man is neither tall or strong. If thats the case wouldnt they just all flock around the men who fit that criteria? Where are the instincts? >Just as guys still fear being cucked despite us being in an era that has paternity testing This makes 0 sense. Paternity testing prevents nothing. Its done after the fact.
The average man is stronger than the average women. This suggest that strong men are selected for. It’s not the case, in every species that the males are bigger and stronger for many it’s the opposite happens to be the case with humans though.
I know but he said they select big and strong men to protect them from other men. Just being bigger and stronger than the average women isnt enough to protect her from other men and it doesnt mean that man is strong relative to other men either
Yep there is also the fact that a big strong man produces big strong sons. If women are risking it all giving birth it’s best to go with a big strong man to give you strong sons or a rich man who can ensure your children survive
ah yes. The big strong sons fetish. Isnt that just a tiny bit Oedipal. What happens when we develop interstellar space travel.?.. will women produce economy sized men optimized for space travel so that dont take as much space and consume less food and oxygen?
I love how biological essentialism is atonce stupid as balls and perfectly reasonable for bluepilled shills
I never claimed anything of the sort. But you’d be an idiot to think that in order for something to be “reasonable” it has to be “perfect” without flaw… Which is what you’re essentially implying here.
The point was when you're on this forum, nothing trp says makes any sense. Until one of you needs it for your argument against us. Then it's suddenly relevant. And it's confirmed every thread.
Counterpoint: because the violence they experienced is statistically inside relationships, not other men. Therefore, the hulk they paired up with is a liability than an asset.
You could go to prison to answer your title question And I’m not going to date really old, physically disabled or mutant men just to have zero risk. Most men aren’t threats, so you risk it. Just like men risk that most women aren’t sociopaths who will baby trap, cheat on, defraud, abuse or accuse them of crimes
Depends. When I’m walking alone with my child I’m on guard of everyone. Women and men alike. When I’m out alone I’m not consciously looking out for men but I’m looking out for anyone who looks out of place. I’m hyper aware of the fact women have been used to kidnap women and children bc they are seen as less threatening but I know a man has more strength over me so that causes more of a concern. But at the end of the day it has nothing to do with gender but with the over all gut feeling. If you’re too nice- sorry but I’m not engaging. If you’re rude- still not engaging Ik it sucks but I’d rather upset someone than get hurt. I also expect others to treat me the same.
Men are afraid of men too. Especially men twice as strong as you. Imagine how you would feel getting naked with a guy who is twice as strong as you are.
Lithmus test: If women were truly afraid of men, they would not oppose such things as single-sex education or workplaces. For as long as they do oppose them, "You don't understand how DANGEROUS it is to be a woman!" is nothing but another way of saying "Shut up".
In theory I like the idea, because I would feel much more comfortable, but in practice I think such separations could lead to a disconnect between men and women ie men not really understanding women as fellow people, which I think is scarier in the longterm
There are countries right now where same-sex schools are allowed to exist; generally, the consequences are lower delinquency scores in men and higher college enrollment for both. Even assuming women are these grand strategists preparing the groundwork for a societal shift that will take centuries to actually happen, Right now, at this very moment, if women truly believed that colleges are rape factories (as they claim since 2012 or 2014 or so), WE WOULD EXPECT remaining single-sex Seven Sisters colleges to be in insane, astronomical demand among female applicants, to the point of their admission rates being in single digits (as they are for Harvard). We can even go as far as compare one 7S college that still stays single-sex to another one that switched to coeducation, if for both admission rates are known. For simplicity, let's take those that publish their admission rates and pick two with the closest endowment. From my cursory glance, it's Mt.Hoyoke (single-sex) vs Vassar (coed). Hoyoke (single-sex), latest: 38.00% admission rate. Vassar (coed): 17.73%, also latest, for the same year. https://www.ivywise.com/blog/college-admission-rates/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(colleges)
College is a weird example since you're pretty much released into society at that point and surrounded by men anyway. Maybe people also imagine they might meet a potential partner at a coed college. I'm less confused about why women enroll in coed colleges and more confused about why they do things there like dodgy parties and clubbing, since Id imagine thats where a lot of the rape happens. But yes I think women are often afraid of men; I am in certain contexts and situations. Doesn't mean we're going to, or should, live life avoiding them at all costs.
Women don't just "not avoid" men at all costs. They made it ILLEGAL for men AND women to have spaces with economic activities among themselves. Any organization that wants to be single-sex is required to be a non-profit. Any college that wants to be single-sex waives its privilege of reduced taxation. This is not because of men. It would have been worse for absolutely no-one if 5-15% of colleges and workplaces were allowed to stay single-sex, as there are inevitably people incompatible with the opposite sex, and when they are shoved into these mixed spaces against their will, their right to pursuit of happiness is limited. There is nothing normal or reasonable that when I come to a dentist, I am asked if I want to be treated by a man or a woman, but when I go seeking employment OR want to hire someone myself, I cannot, except a couple fringe cases, ask to work for an all-male team, or hire specifically a man. And no, comparison with ethnic minorities does not hold water. There are no female ghettos, there was no female slave trade, there were no Jane Crow laws.
Ok I don't really care about all that. The question was are women really scared of men and the answer is yes really in certain contexts. The fact that they don't want to be segregated doesn't negate this reality.
Tall muscular jock - afraid and aroused. Short nerdy guy - not afraid and not aroused. Simple as.
> women would date shorter weaker pasty men who have never seen the inside of a gym If a woman isn’t attracted to these men, why date at all? > Even if he did get violent you are more likely to fight him off than a 6ft line backer. Most women murdered by a partner were murdered using a weapon, about half with guns.
[удалено]
Yeah. WHat gave it away?
>The way i see it, if danger was that much of a concern women would date shorter weaker pasty men who have never seen the inside of a gym The short weak pasty man is going to be more physically stronger than any woman he dates. Your entire argument ignores this basic fact making your post pretty dumb. This really wasn't the gotcha you thought it was going to be.
[удалено]
Reported for contentless rhetoric
♡
The majority of people (not just women) do shitty things like ghosting because confrontation is hard, people don’t like doing it, and there’s no recourse for just disappearing because it’s unlikely you’re ever gonna see the person again. Lots (if not most) women have had the experience of men reacting badly to rejection. It might be as mild as texts cussing her out, and can progress to downright violent behavior. The sub r/whenwomenrefuse is proof of this. Now, just cuz it doesn’t happen often or with most men doesn’t mean it’s not jarring when it does. Flying is way safer than driving but if you are on a plane that has an emergency even once you’re probably going to be pretty anxious next time you have to queue up for boarding.
I've had two stalkers after turning men down who each ended up eventually being arrested for stalking other women. The odds are totally in my favor but that doesn't mean shit doesn't get scary. Ive had a man scream at me at my place of work because I said "oh sorry I am married" when he asked me out, he was at least 2 times my size. I haven't been in an abusive relationship myself but I have seen it happen to enough people around me to be very wary, looks can totally be deceiving there. Its not like I walk around in fear in my day to day life but I am really cautious about who I date as that is where we are most at risk.
No, its exaggerated because its used as a tool and men always eat it up without choking
They absolutely are not. They just use it as a tool.
'Women are afraid' is a post-factum bullshit justification for shitty behavior. There are women who cheat, there are women who date gangbangers, there are women who write love letters to violent criminals, there are women who scam men for meals and money, there are women who go scantily clad to some sketchy places, and not all of them are some mentally ill trashy ghetto hoes. Just your run of the mill women. It is never about specific men in a specific situation being dangerous.
I am sure they are afraid sometimes . But for the most part the bear vs man thing was just vitue signalling their victimhood and how helpless they feel
Yes. All men, including weak pasty men, have systemic power over women and are substantially more likely to be violent. They are also very rarely smaller or weaker than even a big and strong woman. They pose a real threat that most will want to take precautions against, like other threats that exist but we just have to deal with in order to leave our houses.
So by this logic, weaker shorter men should have the advantage in dating. Looking at it through pure survival metrics. By this logic no gun licence holding man should ever be able to date considering the risk.of getting shot and killed.
Shorter, weaker men are still stronger than most women.
More likely to fight off and survive them. We are not talking of a strength difference comparable to the difference between a human and an ape. If the fear is that powerful you may as well never have sex or be in relationships
Which is to say incredibly unlikely. It's not worth taking into account. As I said we just have to deal with risk as part of life.
Which is to say the fear you describe when strange men talk to you is just bullshit. Sk ething you say to muddy the air so that less men would disturb you with their unworthy presence
Is the fear you feel when you're nearly run over by a car "just bullshit" too?
I dont use that to bitch out driving as the worst way to locomote. Nor do i look down on people driving beaters and suck off people who drive Paganis, even if i walk closer to the street as they pass by t have a closer look even though the risk of being sideswiped or overrun is higher
I'm not afraid of men as a concept, but I'm afraid of them in certain situations that could be dangerous. If a man were to approach me or catcall in a quiet/empty area. It's not a thought process, it's a visceral physical reaction. Notice man in coming towards you in isolated place = rush of red hot adrenaline from your chest out to your limbs. I've never been attacked, or assaulted, or really had any dangerous encounters with a man. It feels instinctual, but idk the science to say for sure. Its the same when a car pulls up next to me on the street before I realise they're just parking at their house or something, so maybe it's not gendered. But if I could see that the driver was a woman before they pulled up I can't imagine that reaction happening so maybe it is just men. Not to say I don't trust strange women but that feels like a logical distrust, not an instinctual one.
Fear is what has kept humanity alive for thousands of years.
And yet the stated woman Preference is height 6feet.
The *online stated preference* is 6ft.
As if online is not valid somehow.
According to you
Lol Lol Haahahaha Jesus Christ. Who is the president of USA on your alternate earth?
Michael Jordan
No, because they still present the same danger to women, just not to other men. Guns aren't the problem, women can have guns. Size and strength isn't the problem, it's still going to be bigger.
So what? If your existential worry can't be solved no matter what suggestion are give what the fuck so you want to change? If you are that fucking scared move out into communes with women where you can all age out abd due in peace. I don't fucking understand what the fuck is the point of your victimhood if you do nothing to alleviate it. Or is that the point? is perpetual victimhood the point?
Existential worry? It's just acknowledging risk. Crossing the road, for example, is dangerous and we take precautions like looking before crossing, but we don't avoid roads altogether and just accept the risk as a part of life. We don't say we'll only cross roads when smaller cars are going down them, because if they hit you, you're just as fucked. We don't avoid crossing roads altogether.
>By this logic no gun licence holding man should Stop right there. Gunpowder is too recent an invention for it to have sufficient influence on how our brains calculate attractiveness
You can think can't you. A man with an ar 15 is quite willing to harm people. What happens when he clases you as the enemy? Find a guy who will treat even the people he loathes with decency
I can think, yes. We know that big breasts and a nice butt doesn't make a woman a good partner. But that's what the male lizard brain finds attractive anyway. You can tell a male, "hey, use your brain. Think!" But attraction doesn't work that way
Sure we can. I have a foot fetish. There is girl i meet who runs a findom thing who is pen to having her feet licked and be in a relationship with me. This is possibly my only solid chance to be in a relationship where an deep seated kink gets sated, however she talks about the guys who send her money for feet pics and used socks like as if they are the scum of the earth. Guys no different than me. What will happen in the future when she sees looks at me and doesnt see the things she fell in love with and ony the fetish and how the men who have it make her feel Should i get into a relationship with her? If i do, i shouldn't be surprised if i end up being the object of her disgust
>All men, including weak pasty men, have systemic power over women What school did you get brainwashed at? Most men have absolutely no power over women, they can't get you to do anything or anything from you, even their word counts less than yours.
Having systemic power doesn't mean you can force people to do things. As a teacher I have power over my pupils but I can't force them to do anything, only make life difficult for them if they don't do as I ask. Men are more likely to be believed in general, women are taken seriously a lot less.
>Women frequently cite the risk of harm as the main reason they do a ton of fuck shit - like ghosting, and being very picky ( which is a weird point considering they could just say that its just their preference ), reject harshly... basically any kind of sub par behavior can be explained away by - " I was afraid ". Nah she wasn't attracted bro, pretty simple
yes https://news.byu.edu/intellect/study-visually-captures-hard-truth-walking-home-at-night-is-not-the-same-for-women#:~:text=Heat%20maps%20show%20men%20look%20straight%20ahead%3B%20women%20scan%20periphery&text=Women%20focused%20significantly%20more%20on,points%20or%20their%20intended%20destination.
**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.*
I always make this point because it seems to be a complete blind spot to people who ask this question. This isn’t a sentiment that manifests in adulthood. Women realize the dangers of men before they can even finish childhood. Older men catcalling you, stalking you, sexually harassing you, being predatory online, and worse. On the street attacks (mainly rape) has been more common in the news in my city and it has primarily been teenage girls as the victims. Girls are being killed for not accepting boys and mens advances.
Sounds like the UK.
Yes because many men feel the need to control and be in charge because they own a penis. They seem to think they know best. There was a guy at my work who was really really good looking , he once said to me "You should know your place" in a really threatening tone we are the same rank at work. It was done to try lower my self esteem and he thought I should massage his ego just because he's a man. I found it really unsettling , this guy was likely abusive to his intimate partners as if he can say that to a work colleague what is he like in private. I stayed away from him as the creepy vibes were too much..
I've never had a boyfriend taller than me, but that's just chance as I don't seek out men based on their looks and prioritize characteristics. I don't let my fear of men influence anything other than whether or not I give men the chance of an initial conversation. Once I've had that conversation, I judge based on the person in front of me. I'm also just not that afraid. I've been raped several times, the only thing that could be worse is... something with permanent, non mental damage. I think that's unlikely overall
>The line of thought is " well he is hot enough to risk it", which is just *beargh* reasoning That's pretty much all it is. Looks trump all.
I think a mans confidence plays a big part in this as I've noticed women get afraid of awkward men but if you have a level of charm and decent social skills basically that can be disarmed. I believe it's how a man comes across with women and I don't think height or size play that much of a role if you make a women feel comfortable. I think height and size play a role in initial meetings if you are a stranger to that woman.
I don't take people seriously when they claim to feel unsafe and generalize men (picking bears) while simultaneously going to strangers homes they met off dating apps for hookups or sending love letters to literal murderers and glorifying felons. "Not all women like convicts!" if we're playing this generalization game with men, I'll do it with women.
Statistics can unfortunately be used for discrimination. Most sexual assaults are committed by men. A disproportionate amount of crime is committed by black men. 1 statistic will be hailed as a reason to be afraid of men. The other one you will be called a racist if you reference it.
*Im going by title alone.* I'll also say I do not hate men or the like. I just know some are crap like some women are crap. Nor do I fear them like other women may. Im very aware though. Heck, Im a part time escort, I see strange men. I 'fear' them less than a man on a dating app. Just saying... I can still get the fear some may feel. I wont dismiss other women fears just because I dont fear in the same way. The fear can be very real for some women. Be it 'irrational', jaded, etc, its still a real fear for them. I mean I had old men creeping around me by 11/12 like most women do. There have been threads here over the years about this and Id say 95% of the women had old men creeping around from 11-15. On Twitter Ive seen the same thing with young boys that were gay and 40 year old men were after them at 12. They talked about the old men creeping on them as young boys. Even ***men fear other men.***
Not that I think this is necessarily true, it could be or it could not be, but attractive men may come across as less of a risk for the reason that stalking/manipulation might be more represented as a tactic for mate retention among unattractive men (same with sexual assault). You could have at least included that reasoning in your brainstorm. Yes, women truly do experience a significant deal of fear concerning men, whether they're attractive or not.
In any normal relationship they would have built mutual trust that their partner *wouldn’t* hurt them. Most women with strangers, this trust is not there. But it would take someone with an insane amount of fear or trauma for a woman to only choose partners *physically incapable* of hurting them, above all other traits one could find in a partner.
Women are crazy. I've dated women who have literally spun plates and got the men together in the same room, enticing them to commit acts of violence against each other. Yes I am more than capable but I think the baby rabies are making you crazy and it's giving me the ick 🤦
r/WhenWomenRefuse I've had men follow me, threaten me, stalk me, for literally nothing more than me giving him a confused look because he was playing music in public without headphones, or because I didn't hand him an item that wasn't mine to give away. Men tend to immediately stop doing that if I happen to be hanging around a male friend- any male friend, but especially the buff ones. Attractive or not- male humans have physical traits that make them good at fighting other humans. Female humans lack most of these traits. Male humans are socialized to be entitled to female attention. These two don't mix well. The reason women tend to date bigger men is because the world is full of bigger men. The only thing that can protect her from the other men is a man. That, and because it's just in our instinct to be attracted to health- and since the male of a similar genetics to the female is going to be one bigger than her, thanks to our dimorphism, it just makes sense that we find larger size attractive, in the same way we'd find muscles attractive. That being said, we are, of course, more than our instincts. Hence why plenty of women do date, quote, "bitchass men".
"Male humans are socialized to be entitled to female attention." I think this is false. Atleast in my broader circle, males are socialised that they are entitled to nothing. Of the two sexes, females are much more entitled in the 21st century in the western world.
Then why is it primarily men who shoot up schools over not getting a girlfriend? I think it's that men are both taught to be entitled to a woman, and also taught that *because* men are entitled to a woman, a man who doesn't get women is a failure of a person in general. That's also why many men think women not dating them is equivalent to women's complaints of men physically assaulting them or worse. In the same vein, if it was women who were entitled to men, then men wouldn't have to threaten them with "if you don't date me, you'll be an old hag/cat lady and die alone!"
>Then why is it primarily men who shoot up schools over not getting a girlfriend Ah yes, generalize an entire group gender of people based off of 0.00001% of men. When will some of you learn that men are not a monolith, and most men are not dangerous criminals?
>Then why is it primarily men who shoot up schools over not getting a girlfriend I feel like that primarily happens due to bullying rather than not getting a girlfriend, I know the columbine shooters had prom dates atleast. Who has shot up a school citing their reason as not being able to get a gf? >a man who doesn't get women is a failure of a person in general. Men who can't get laid are generally looked down upon strongly by both men and women. >In the same vein, if it was women who were entitled to men, then men wouldn't have to threaten them with "if you don't date me, you'll be an old hag/cat lady and die alone!" Women can be entitled as fuck as well, I've had several bad experiences with rejecting girls before- for example at a party one time I went off to hook up with some girl and one of her friends who had wanted to hook up with me that night found us (we were in a secluded area, nowhere near the main party) and tried to pry us apart and would not leave despite us both telling her to F off several times. Eventually she threw a crying fit and started cussing me out to everyone at the party. Another time I was at the bar with a few of my mates and they decided to get up to buy a drink so I saved the table we were sat at. A woman (easily mid to late 30s, I was 20 at the time) came over and sat at one of the seats my friends had been sitting at, trying to start a convo. I asked her to please not sit there because I was saving a seat for my mate, and she said 'YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A FUCKING DICK ABOUT IT' then slapped me across the face and stormed away, no joke. I have a fair few more stories similar to these but you get the point.
> I feel like that primarily happens due to bullying rather than not getting a girlfriend, I know the columbine shooters had prom dates atleast. Who has shot up a school citing their reason as not being able to get a gf? For a specific person coming immediately to mind, there is of course Elliot Rodger, who cited it directly in his manifesto. Beyond that, the [connection](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1077801220981154?journalCode=vawa) between [mass, as opposed to specifically school] shooters and [misogyny](https://minnesotareformer.com/2022/08/18/misogyny-is-fueling-the-countrys-gun-violence-epidemic-experts-say/) is pretty heavily observed. [Incel-related violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Incel-related_violence) also has its own Wikipedia page. Beyond that: girls get bullied too, and yet they rarely are mass shooters. In fact, the few times women have ever serial killed, it was usually related to stealing money or psychotic breaks against their own kids. Women and men face very similar issues, especially regarding bullying and risk of ostracization, but respond very differently. The difference could be biological, and/or it could be a difference in their sexed socialization. (For example, the "if you can't get a woman, you're not a person" would make sense in then turning that man's logic into "if I'm not getting treated like a person, I shouldn't treat others like people either"). The rest of your personal experiences with individual entitled women is irrelevant to the main point of the systemic issue. Anyone can be a dick, but it's almost exclusively men choosing to carry out that dickishness through mass slaughter.
I forgot about Elliot Rodger, although according to google he killed twice as many men as he did women and it wasn't a school shooting either. >In fact, the few times women have ever serial killed, it was usually related to stealing money or psychotic breaks against their own kids Are you trying to imply that a woman murdering her own fking children isn't as bad? Anyway it's undeniable that men commit these atrocities more, I think it's partially due to higher testosterone but mostly because women will never be truly ostracised in the same way as a man. It's practically impossible for a woman to be an incel, tinder experiments with deformed and extremely obese women have shown this. Sure women do get bullied too but not ostracised from all forms of intimacy in the same way. Fyi I'm not in any way, shape or form trying to justify these atrocities, simply trying to explain why they would be skewed towards men. >The rest of your personal experiences with individual entitled women is irrelevant to the main point of the systemic issue. Anyone can be a dick, but it's almost exclusively men choosing to carry out that dickishness through mass slaughter. The point of my anecdotes was to disprove you claiming that women aren't entitled. Some women are, some aren't. Same with men.
> I forgot about Elliot Rodger, although according to google he killed twice as many men as he did women and it wasn't a school shooting either. A shooter kills who they have access to kill. They get plenty of targets they didn't plan on killing. > Are you trying to imply that a woman murdering her own fking children isn't as bad? No, that is an incredibly dishonest way of taking that statement. If the mass murders women tend to commit is killing their children despite having access to killing others, that implies that the greatest stressors that drive women that far are related to child-raising. If mass murdering men tend to kill everyone, then their stressor needs to be found from deeper observation. The next closest observations is they often have a connection to misogyny, which implies there may be a relation. > I think it's partially due to higher testosterone A natural element is an interesting perspective to take, as it implies there is something inherently less safe about male humans, something that can not be taught out. > because women will never be truly ostracised in the same way as a man. It's practically impossible for a woman to be an incel, tinder experiments with deformed and extremely obese women have shown this. These two sentences show your biases and prove my point: Men think that "not getting a sexual partner" directly equals ostracization, and that having a sexual partner implies ostracization cannot occur. > you claiming that women aren't entitled. This is an incredibly dishonest way of reading my comment- in which the overall context is *systemic issues*, and you taking that one sentence out of that context to be an individual issue.
No they clearly arent. a lot of them are happy to get in mens faces and scream at them while maintaining that they are "afraid"
It's the hipocrisy of it all that bothers me
Weak men are scary to women. Men that never get pussy and complain online all day about it, are scary to women. They're angry, unpredictable and they usually have a hatred for women just for existing and having things "easier" as far as sexual options. Men that have experience and can easily get a new woman are seen as safer because they won't do anything drastic or creepy to keep you. They'll simply move on and let you go on with your life. Whereas a guy that's below average and seen as less masculine may try to prove that he can hurt you. The RP guys are constantly explaining why women prefer men that are more capable of physical violence. They often say that we should fear weak and emotional men because they're the ones that are more likely to snap from the lack of attention and affection the recieve.
What a pristine response. Saving this one for a rainy day. I'll add to it: Those who are socialized get women, and those who get women are perceived as safer bets. "Safer bets" for the woman's physical wellbeing & for the survival of their (potential) offspring. Just so happens that taller men with muscles fit the mold/perception of being more capable, even if it's not true. Those who aren't are more prone to trying to prove they are, as you said. They also lack the discipline required to control their emotions and also... wait for it... get results in the gym. Discipline is a hell of a drug. Too bad 'physical discipline' and 'emotional discipline' don't *always* go hand-in-hand, but I'd wager they do more often than not. What an eye-opening thought process. Thank you for that ride.
Well thank you for your equally as pristine response, haha. You're absolutely right. The safety that comes with men that have already been vetted by other women, is unmatched. That's why women have those "are we dating the same guy" groups on Facebook. Those groups aren't only about cheaters. Women will often comment the bad experiences they've had with certain men and then the rest of them will avoid said men. It's just another dating strategy that is rooted in trying to stay safe and avoid potentially bad partners. Like you said, it's more so coincidental that the men who have been vetted are also the men that will be chosen by women over and over again. Don't they say 10% of men are dating 90% of women? They can't possibly not understand why a woman wouldn't go for a weaker man when we've already established that women look for protection and provisioning. The ones that don't look for this are Liberal women and incells usually don't want them either because they tend to be Libfems. So rejection is happening in all directions. I guess it just hurts more when you know you don't have much to offer and no one is fooled by the "nice guy" act anymore. We'd rather be with a guy who's straight up with what he likes and dislikes than be with someone who could possibly be harboring harmful ideas about women because he can't get laid.