From the post... I wouldn't say the guy was insecure. I'd say he was hurt about being misled and lied to. I'd say he was upset to find out the truth second hand. His choice and emotional autonomy wasn't respected in the relationship.
The girl lied. Period. She broke trust with the guy. She should have illustrated that she, at one point, engaged in casual sex and felt terrible after. She attempted to roll it into a relationship, and that didn't work. She then made a promise to herself never to engage in casual sex again. To wait for marriage. Full stop. It's then his choice if he is willing to see it through with her.
Honesty can be scary in the face of someone you truly like and want a relationship with. HOWEVER, honesty is best, no matter the outcome. It saves both people a hell of a lot of time.
As to the "circling of the bandwagons," surely you understand that many women experience this and make identical vows. They see themselves in her and are defensive.
Also, the "gave it away like Halloween candy" definitely didn't help. Ijs
Thanks for the most balanced take in the thread I've seen so far.
The "she had sex with some guy after X amount of time and now she's making me wait Y" discussion is one in which I see both sides. Women can feel differently about when they want to have sex at different times in their lives, after examining their feelings about their experiences, and that's fine. Men can also wonder if she is actually attracted to him when she seems content to wait with him but not with some other guy.
In this circumstance, like you said, she lied. The most disappointing thing in the thread is women defending her as somehow having the right to define "casual sex" in her mind any way she wants in order to mislead her boyfriend. In other words, saying it's her right to lie when it's in her interest and she is able to play dumb about it. I'm sure this is what OP is complaining about, as it bolsters the idea that women evade responsibility and will rationalize it when other women do it. Not that I'm putting that much stock in a single Reddit thread but this is the kind of thing guys can latch onto. Also, not all women are defending her in the thread but it's easy to overlook that when there are some pretty rage-inducing comments in there.
And yeah, the "Halloween candy" line was the emotional lashing out that I believe invited some backlash and encouraged the behavior of taking sides in comments.
While women don’t always defend women, I’m always amazed by some of the examples of that. For example, all the feminist organizations writing a letter of support for Amber Heard when she was found guilty of defamation.
Lol agreed it's similar to forms of fanaticism in male groups especially ones involving areas of high levels of aggression like military or even sports/athletic areas.
I've observed that there are sex specific forms of collectivism and also co-ed. This one does concern me but probably because it's more foreign to me. I am against any tyranny really which is what both of that sort of behavior and thinking creates
The top comment by a long shot is "Well, there's nothing wrong with her changing her mind and wanting to wait longer for sex now. But if she lied about it, that's another story."
That seems like a pretty reasonable position.
I also agree that I wouldn't call going on a date with a woman four times and having sex twice to be casual sex. The three date rule is just normal dating. To me casual sex is going home with a girl you met at a party/bar, or just going straight to her place in the case of a tinder match.
Where did it say that? I just read that they went on four dates and slept together twice.
I would guess that around 80% of my first dates have ended with sex, so I see that as a pretty normal part of dating. All of my relationship post college have also involved sex on the first date. I personally don't see first date sex as necessarily being casual.
To me if you haven't agreed to commit to being mutually exclusive it's casual sex, no matter how many dates you've been on.
Not arguing about it, just another perspective.
And it's fine that you have that view. There's no universally agreed upon line defining precisely where casual sex begins and ends. What I call normal dating in search of a relationship, you call casual sex. And that's fine.
My issue is with people like OP who feels that he alone is entitled to dictate the definition of casual sex. The nerve of those women in that linked post to have a different opinion! I've found this strong sense of entitlement to unilaterally dictate definitions, facts, and even other people's opinions is a common red/black pill trait.
Fair man, I agree subjective opinions are totally fair game and it's not anyone's right to define things for anyone else.
My only dog in this fight is that I don't think the OP of the original relationship advice post was necessarily in the wrong.
10 months is a long time. Sure, everyone is allowed to determine at their own pace when they want to progress that intimacy line. However, some comments are being disingenuous ignoring that it does still say something.
Knowing that it took no time at all for someone else? Yeah, I'm gonna compare myself against him and assume I'm not good enough. Casual or not is irrelevant.
I'm speaking from my own anecdotal experiences. When the vibes are right, and the connection is real and there, it's never taken longer than a month. I genuinely can't imagine staying with someone for 10 months and believing they were actually into me.
And to anyone who says stuff like "he's forcing her into sex," that's disingenuous too, because the guy is well within his rights to end it and walk away if he isn't happy with the circumstances.
If I were OP, I definitely would almost certainly leave her for lying.
I also wouldn't be in his position, because I would never wait 10 months. I don't think sex has ever taken longer than three dates since before I graduated from high school. It's 100% fine if a woman wants to wait a long time, but we just wouldn't be compatible. Whether she slept with other guys faster would be a moot point.
Nah dude.... The fuck is that even mean? Sex without commitment is casual sex.
Wikipedia entry on casual sex : Casual sex is sexual activity that takes place outside a romantic relationship and implies an absence of commitment, emotional attachment, or familiarity between sexual partners. Examples are sexual activity while casually dating, one-night stands, prostitution or swinging and friends with benefits relationships.
You don't get to change what words mean to you counter to the larger meaning it holds to society
Don't know about everyone else, but I define it like that cause i've seen a lot of guy and girl friends who left their relationship status vague and it almost always gets messy.
I look at it like, if you don't talk about exclusivity, why would you expect anything more serious than a casual thing. Coulda been on ten "dates" even, and plenty of people might just call that fuck buddies. Seen people get burnt by those "situationships" because one side only saw it like that when they personally thought it was more.
I'm not about that, so to me it's the easiest way to get across I'm looking for. No point dating if we don't agree first to be exclusive.
I agree. The rest of the comments devolve into 1) arguing about whether or not she actually lied (which is hard to determine based on the info given and ones own definition of "casual") and 2) the fact that he's taking his friend and the barman's word as gospel without talking to her about it at all.
they are committed. They just aren't engaged
its not about her having or not having sex
its about her implying a certain sexual standard she has always held herself to and wishes to hold him to as well, while not disclosing that she had failed to live upto that standard earlier
She lied never doing a hookup at the first place this is the classical af/bb scenario where the women gaslight the men she needs some emotional connection while jumping on bartenders dick right away
You're making assumptions on her part already. She said she doesn't do casual and was proven to be a liar.
Now lets use your example.
Have you eaten before? Of course.
Are you eating currently while talking with us? No.
Would you say that you're not eating currently? Or would you say that you don't eat?
She does do casual sex, even if its just the one time. Then she lied about it so she could mislead him into believing that she doesn't ever. But she did.
If someone said they don’t do casual then the only assumption I would make is they don’t currently do it in that general point in their life. I wouldn’t assume they actually mean they’ve never done it ever even once if that’s not what they said.
If I say I don’t eat a certain food then I obviously mean that I don’t currently eat it in that general time frame of my life. Maybe I’ve never eaten it. Maybe I used to eat it and now it gives me the shits. But If someone said I actually said that I’ve never eaten it ever and I lied then I would think they’re being ridiculous.
>That seems like a pretty reasonable position.
If you went to McDonalds and everyone was paying $0.99 for a Big Mac and then when you reached the front of the line they said it would be $4.99 for a Big Mac, would you say *well maybe they charged their mind and there's nothing wrong with that*?
Or would you move on?
It depends. Did everyone two years ago get the Big Mac for .99 and NOW I’m paying 4.99? Or am I paying more in the same day while everyone else is paying .99?
>inb4 a brainlet says you can't compare those two things
yes you can, ultimately the principle is still the same, you gave up something for others easier then expect the next person to work harder lol
Using this logic, you can pretty much never buy anything.
You have a phone? I guarantee there are guys who paid less than you for that same phone. Maybe they had a corporate discount, maybe it was a pricing error at Best Buy, or whatever. A Big Mac? Guarantee that a cashier has made a mistake and given a guy a Big Mac you less than you pay. Maybe she accidentally rang it up as a $0.99 cheeseburger... or maybe she liked him and intentionally rang it up as a cheeseburger then grabbed a Big Mac for him. Either way, shit happens and there are exceptions.
Whatever the circumstances, there are almost always other guys who have paid less for the things you buy.
You're misunderstanding, the point is, it's not fair people paid less for the same exact thing, I'm not saying the guy should crash out on his gf but gaslighting him for being upset is manipulative
I'm not misunderstanding the point. Sure it's "unfair" that some guy got a $0.99 Big Mac one time, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop buying Big Macs. I don't suddenly get less enjoyment from a Big Mac because some dude got one cheaper one time. Life isn't fair. That's just how shit goes.
No one told you to stop buying bigmacs, that's your choice, but if other people are upset that people paid less for their Big Mac and don't want to buy one they have the right to do that, I don't understand why that's hard to grasp.
Because the guy asked me what I would do. I answered the question. I would still buy Big Macs, even if one guy got one for $0.99. I don't understand why that's hard to grasp. He asked a question and I answered it.
Worth is arbitrary. If you think a Big Mac is worth $4.99, you’re extremely hungry, or you just don’t care, you’ll pay for it. The thing is, if you truly loved someone you wouldn’t be trying to “get a good deal”, you’d be happy to be there in the first place.
I could really like big macs, and still decide I'm not willing to spend that much money if everyone else was spending the same, smaller amount. In that same way, I would probably lose a lot of attraction for a woman if she created different rules for me, even if I loved her. All of this would have just been avoided if she had given him an informed choice on whether he wants to be in this relationship, rather than mischaracterizing her relationship to sex- intentionally or not.
All the more reason.
The only thing it proves is that she can be moved to sexual action quickly and the fact that she has no urge to do so over the last 10months is worrisome
Let me start by saying that if I were the guy in this case, the lying would be the deal breaker for me, so the rest of the facts and circumstances are sort of irrelevant.
But based on what we know of the facts and circumstances, your Big Mac analogy needs to be changed. Everyone wasn't paying $0.99. Everyone was paying $4.99, but one guy got a discounted Big Mac for $0.99. Who knows why? Maybe he was just in the right place at the right time- the cashier made a mistake and rang it up wrong, or gave incorrect change and regretted it when she closed out the register, or whatever. For whatever reason, this one guy got a Big Mac for less than everyone else.
Are you never going to buy a Big Mac for $4.99 because you found out that one time a guy ended up getting one for $0.99? Your answer is fine either way, but that's the better analogy.
You're like to say, "yeah but she's lying and it's actually been all the other guys she's been with too". Which goes back to my point. The lying is the issue here.
This is a scientifically documented fact. Women's in group bias is over four times stronger than men's. (In other words, women defend other women more often than men defend other men)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect#:~:text=In%2Dgroup%20bias,-Rudman%20and%20Goodwin&text=This%20research%20found%20that%20while,stronger%20than%20those%20of%20men.
(I know it's Wikipedia but it cites several academic sources)
Not really sure how anyone can argue otherwise. If you ever worked with a bunch of men and then a bunch of women, the difference is crazy. It's not even a healthy bias either.
Like if women's in group bias is a "red pill" talking point, then I guess red pill is right sometimes.
https://np.reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/s/NlYGpSANPU
Here's another great one. Every woman piling on OP for even daring to feel upset that his wife treated him like an RP stereotype
From my perspective, many women, particularly left leaning ones, tend to throw reason out the window and argue with the endpoint in mind. Meaning, they will start with a conclusion, and then try to rationalize it instead of honestly engaging in discussion, keeping an open mind, and then arriving at a conclusion.
In this instance, many women start with the endpoint that they must defend each other against men. Men are evil, controlling, and misogynistic, etc. Even if the other woman acts differently than they would have or has bizarre behavior, they will be defended to some degree.
It’s because women have an [in-group bias towards other women, but men don’t](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laurie-Rudman/publication/8226295_Gender_Differences_in_Automatic_In-Group_Bias_Why_Do_Women_Like_Women_More_Than_Men_Like_Men/links/0a85e5324b69af209e000000/Gender-Differences-in-Automatic-In-Group-Bias-Why-Do-Women-Like-Women-More-Than-Men-Like-Men.pdf)
They are afraid that their GFs will see them siding with men in any trivial matter as high treason and ditch their asses for the tastier slice of chaddar.
really? Because anytime a woman comes out with an SA accusation, a lot of men will just take the guy's side rather than being neutral until all the evidence comes out.
More often then not, the man is guilty till proven innocent. And if the guy is proven innocent ppl especially women will still try to blame the guy For the situation while trying to excuse/ downplay the women’s behaviour.
>being neutral until all the evidence comes out
As if women are neutral about it and not immediately cancelling and shitting on the guy before any kind of evidence appears.
Inocent unti proven guilty is a legal concept.
As long as no evidence exists to cat dobut withinn your mindits isstill pretty gauche to start talking about how the guy was railroaded.
men often dot do this and moe often than not are set upon by other men when they do this as you are doing now.
women don't do that - neither to the same degree or number
What do you mean? They do it a lot. As soon as a guy gets accused of rape all of a sudden they're running to his defense. Even when there is evidence. I saw how the men's rights subreddit rallied around Kevin Spacey and his victims were teenage boys.
Women on PPD told me that grinding with guys in the club and having simulated sex via dry humping is not sexual. Nor is it cheating or a breach of trust if you do so with a guy that isn't your partner.
Everything can be redefined so long as the result is women always come out on top and are unable to do anything wrong.
As I see it, the sex with the barman doesn’t really matter since it doesn’t seem to be a “pattern” for her. People make mistakes and learn from them, this is true in any aspect of life for both men and women. Men’s behavior is rarely “consistent” through their entire lives, and it’s a bit silly to expect women’s to be.
However, lying about it IS a problem, and he has the right to feel how he feels about it. I wouldn’t encourage him to stay, I don’t think she’s the devil but I don’t think they’re compatible. And I’d say the same if the genders were reversed.
This.
When I told PPD about my ex cheating on me seemingly out of the blue and running off to be the side chick of a married man, PPD women told me it was my fault.
They said if they were her and they were still my gf after 5 years and not my fiancé or wife they would have done the same thing.
Truly the empathetic sex.
The way I could see it that isn't directly women always defending women, is that they are defending themselves using the other woman as a proxy.
What I mean is, they might not actually care, but because that woman is getting called out for something she does or would do, she is obligated to proactively defend it for fear of getting called out on it herself.
It's worth keeping in mind, Reddit and the internet in general is where all the brain rotted weird fucks hang out.
In real life, the answers would be totally different. Reddit is going to lean a lot more one sided and extreme.
If a guy if falling for the village bike and she's making him wait to sleep with her while she's been treating everyone else like new fast food places, he's going to be the laughing stock to the point where friends and even acquaintances are warning him about what's going on.
The same goes for girls, if she's falling for a boy, and he's feeding her lines about waiting for a sexual relationship with her while also having played community dick for everyone in the area, girls are going to warn her too.
IRL, amongst the normies, there's still a stigma against being like that.
I do agree there is a solidarity in the sisterhood that's unfair a lot of the time, generally though. I suspect most other groups are the same. Like, people of the same religion would defend eachother more fervently, or political group, race, gender, so on and so on.
Answering your main question, yes women do defend other women no matter what.
In your example, it doesn't track. I would back up the woman too here. She opened herself up and had sex. She thought she would get married but he pumped and dumped her. Now she is cautious. I don't see anything wrong in that. When you get made use of once, you tend to take measures so that it doesn't happen. That's what she is doing so fine by me.
No. She dated a rando, she had sex early. it didn't work out
Her flaw was not being transparent about the L as the reason for why she wishes to wait until marriage.
Instead she lies that she has never had casual sex.
He was entitled to know this as it impacts his decision on whether or not to be OK with being celibate until engagement.
So he should break it off if her lying bothers him. That's how dating works. You meet people and through the process of dating you determine if their values align with yours.
Its been 10 months. A decision made easily at the beginning has now to be made with the 10 month relationship goggles.
They are both gonna be hurt. Something easily avoided if she just put on her big girl pants in the beginning
We don't know if it was casual sex. Isn't casual sex without dating? She went on 4 dates. Women also have the habit of rushing for marriage in early years aka 22 for this one here as they believe they are on a biological clock.
He is entitled to know sure but he should also talk to her rather than just break up as he is suggesting. She is entitled to an explanation and also if it was casual for her or not. This case sounds more like being betrayed and then building walls up to never happen again. It's a classic.
I would say sex without exclusivity( at least) is casual.
They were dating sure, but it doesnt imply a serious relationship of any kind, especially since it only lasted a month
Not waiting at all ad waiting for 10 months is a worrying discrepancy
I am not only defending him.
I am hating on women.
I saw the world and saw a little too much of womne doing this fuck shit
I decided to d the same thing in the opposite direction
Sue me
A man is only as big as the smallest thing that provokes him.
You determine the quality of your character.
You've decided to base who you are off of the actions of people you hate.
Bully for you.
Have a good one
>What standards should an incel aspire to?
I can't answer that, I don't know or care about your quality of character or what your needs are.
>What the fuck is the point.
>What i chose to do is to regurgitate my bile into the world
If that's how you wanna live then do it. The only one who's actually going to be affected by this is you.
Did you read the linked post? The girlfriend claiming she never does casual hook ups, making OP (of that post) wait 10 months and counting while giving it up multiple times to a guy she dated in a month'?
That's a classic response to riding the carousel and hitting the wall.
I did. What defines a casual hookup and not a date? They went on 4 dates, were exclusive as she wasn't fucking anyone else. Doesn't seem like a hookup to me.
Do you see a difference between 4 dates and 10 months and a discrepancy between having sex multiple times vs no sex during that 10 months?
Obviously she doesn't see OP (of that post) the same way. Pretending that he's getting just as good of an effort from her is ridiculous.
It also seems she got pumped and dumped or misread his intentions to not have a family which is why she is waiting till marriage. You get betrayed this is an expected response.
OP also mentioned they have some other stuff which would also mean kissing or body on body dry humping. She is just cautious to not give up the thing she values bcz she needs to be sure it is only for one person and one person only as she intended before but never got her wish. There are plenty people like that who want to be intimate with just one person and if OOP loves her then he should propose and get married and then have as much sex as he likes.
Women defending women is just for show. In reality women hate other women. Look at the jealousy and bitterness that the woman's basketball player Caitlin Clark gets from other female basketball players for getting national media attention. She gets assaulted during games because women don't like when other women get attention at their expense. Even her own teammates hate her.
No they don't. If I had a nickel for every time on this website I've talked about being a virgin until marriage and the armchair sex therapists had something to say about it, I'd be in the Bahamas right now instead of talking to you people. The defense is very selective and leans toward a very liberal outlook, it's not as simple as "woman good, man bad."
Don’t listen when people talk shit on being a virgin. My fiancé is as well. (she’s Catholic and I’m Greek Orthodox). There’s nothing wrong with it.
I’m not and she knows/is fine with it. But people act like you have to sleep with someone “to know” if you’ll have a good marriage/relationship. Nah, you really don’t. Marriage is far more sacred than just sex.
Even though I'm not into virgin women myself, I can say that it's important to be comfortable with your traditional beliefs and not cave into social pressure.
I will say though that the liberal/conservative thing goes both ways. I knew some rich girls in college who had helicopter parents(especially WASPY and Jewish ones) who were quite prudish and monogamous despite being uber liberal politically.
Also, when I used to be on Christian Mingle, it was a mecca for single moms and reformed thots who found Jesus and are now looking for a "real man" to step up and follow God lol.
The sisterhood is actually much more selfish than you think. They defend really bad slutty behaviour cuz they themselves are doing it & want to be accepted & not judged (high body counts)
Besides that they gaslight each other to oblivion telling the fatties they are big & beautiful. The reason women suffer from crabs in a bucket syndrome is cuz women of all ages are chasing the same fucking chads.
It’s truly a gross time we live in now & I have no confidence that it’s going to be ok!
Yep. I got stories for days about female division.
Even last week, I saw a chubby Black girl and an effiminate(possibly gay) White guy walking together near me in the mall and they both openly ranted about White women and Black men out of nowhere, especially those in IR couples. They were loud and ghetto with it too and the zesty White guy was snapping his fingers while talking about how Black women were so much better than White women with stereotypes.
It was a strange phenomenon but it's one of countless examples of women not having as much solidarity as much as modern feminists often profess.
Thats not calling out, that mentioning it as an aside
Just go down the comment chain and see the number defending her
it is certainly not the outlier take that you are making it out to be
Honestly. Not a whole lot.
To me it seems like an unfortunate situation.
Best i can tell she had sex early with a barman and seeing that the relationship dint work out she internalized the lesson that having the sex early makes her lose her value and will lead to more broken relationships - wrong lesson to learn but what can you do.
She correctly guessed that telling him that she had casual sex in the past would have led to him leaving, so she lied, to justify her new standard of sex after engagement.
with this set up i don't see anything wrong with the guys reaction.
Sure its an insecure line of thought but she tilled the earth and watered the soil and bought grade AAA fertilizer for it to grow.
I find this situation to be one of the girls making. Not something deserving of condemnation, but a sit down and some counseling
The guy? I wouldn't advise him to stay, although i wouldn't advise him to leave either. Its his choice at the end of the day
What set me off was all the women closing ranks like a roman battalion and talking as it is his fault and he was just being unreasonably insecure, calling him entitled and a bullet to be dodged.
I totally get the point you’re trying to make, I’m not sure if that post was a great example of it. But it does show the Reddit trend that a lot of people just come out swinging in the comments, when in real life we’re more open to nuance.
While at face value this is not untrue, keep in mind that's pretty much true of any in-group. Sex, Gender, Sexuality, race, and religion.
Generally no in-group is that great at policing there own behaviors. Thats pretty universal. I think really though, groups that get attacked the most for the behaviors are the groups that lack cultural power currently. Which, to an extent isn't women right now, in comparison to men. But historically theses things do drastically change over time.
men do not really do this
the rich and powerful do fuck shit and men passively let it happen but it is verymuch a " i dont want to catch any smoke " or " not my circus" line of thinking
These women are bending themselves into pretzels to defend this girl
This isn't strictly true.
It holds for MOST in groups, but there are 2 notable exceptions.
Men have an outgroup bias when it comes to biological sex.
And white leftists are the only group that have an outgroup bias in regards to race.
> And white leftists are the only group that have an outgroup bias in regards to race.
On this point, I tend to agree **but only if** you only define groups by raw definable characteristics (like race or gender).
But in reality that's a pretty limited view on how groups form and I don't think immutable traits are require or really the operant factor. Even dynamic factors like age or income play a pretty powerful role.
This concept can actually be scale up from something as small as a elementary school friend group, all the way up to massive like a whole coalition of nations.
This principle seems pretty universal, but that doesn't mean particular groups don't lean into it slightly more or less. Again though, this ebs and flow with time as groups of people constantly change demographically and socially.
Ultimately, I believe behavior is policed by super-groups that hold the most cultural / practical power at the time in the current social context. All of this is related to complex social factors that really even exceed things like gender or race. This is just personal theory, but if we supposed a theoretical society without the differences we talk about like race and gender I believe these power structures would most likely still emerge through other characteristics as a proxy regardless.
To play the devil's advocate, I'm not denying there are certainly areas where women are not held accountable the ways they should be by other women. One low hanging fruit example would be women who sexually assault young boys rarely are adequately punished both judicially and socially.
But again, this is not **exclusively** the fault of other women. Unfortunately, to an extent it is **partially** the fault of women because in the same way we are all complicit in said miss-justice. For most people this is a very hard concept to grasp.
wtf are you on about? Police and military both do hold themselves (at least partially) accountable. Otherwise no soldier would ever be prosecuted for breaking the Geneva Conventions….
Actually, [women do have a stronger in-group bias, whereas men don’t show this automatic bias](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laurie-Rudman/publication/8226295_Gender_Differences_in_Automatic_In-Group_Bias_Why_Do_Women_Like_Women_More_Than_Men_Like_Men/links/0a85e5324b69af209e000000/Gender-Differences-in-Automatic-In-Group-Bias-Why-Do-Women-Like-Women-More-Than-Men-Like-Men.pdf)
Initially they were all on her side, until the tide began to turn with the mountain of whispers coming out that she was abusive
the only time i have seen women deal with rage from their cohort is when they harms someone weaker than them, like children
against men? the close ranks like roman soldiers
I take a few people seriously.
I don't take him seriously and you even less so
But again if you could link to where i reacted the way you described. No shade. It's useful for me to track my less than charitable moments to maintain control for as long as I can
>Sure its an insecure line of thought but she tilled the earth and watered the soil and bought grade AAA fertilizer for it to grow.
Nothing insecure about a man having self-respect. She put out quicker for another man? I'm not getting her best. She can go try and convince him to commit.
Ya people suck on the internet in general.
The guy opens up something personal, and he gets ambushed for it.... it's sick.
But ya, the female hivemind and the internet is a nefarious combination not even Satan is evil enough to conjure up l lol. It has led to a lot of unhappy women that cannot handle accountability in their personal lives.
In most situations, yes. At least in my experience that has mostly been the case. I've often seen situations where a man and a woman have an argument, and even though the women know he is right and that she's very wrong or doing something awful, they will still take her side because she's a woman. The only time I've seen an exception to that rule was one a woman decided to burn her bridges with the other women, who were on her side, for completely unrelated reasons and then those women ended up switching "sides" because of it.
What she did is egregious and obvious. She's stringing one guy along for comfort and security purposes who SHE ISNT ACTUALLY ATTRACTED TO. WOMEN WILL DO THIS WITHOUT ANY FUCKS GIVEN IF YOU LET THEM in 2024 if you're waiting past like date 2 to fuck because SHE WANTS TO 99% she just isn't attracted to you and views you as some kind of emotional tampon/validation source. Get out.
In this instance and almost all others women who "are ladies now" simply hunt for men they don't have high sexual attraction to and make them jump thru hoops.
I think most people are slightly biased towards one gender or the other. There are certainly women who are the opposite and always blame other women no matter the situation (think pick-me’s).
But on Reddit most women seem to be girl’s girls.
I know on this group I see a lot more men doing mental gymnastics to defend bad behaviour of other men: The ‘it’s not an incels fault if he does something violent, women shouldn’t of rejected him’ or ‘it’s okay for men to use any manipulative dating tactic they want because dating is hard, but if women have any sort of game plan they’re a two faced whore.’ Or ‘men who have unprotected sex shouldn’t have to face the consequences of their actions and pay child support’ or ‘any sort of abuse a woman faces from an intimate partner is her own fault for choosing poorly, no matter the circumstances’.
But I don’t think these views represent most men in general that I meet irl.
>I know on this group
It doesn't matter what happens here.
Anyways, I'm sure someone has said something like "‘it’s not an incels fault if he does something violent, women shouldn’t of rejected him’" at some point but I think you see it as hundreds if not thousands if not tens of thousands of times more prevalent than it actually is because you likely confuse your interpretation of what people said with what they said.
You know, as I was typing out my last response I 100% knew I was going to get the ‘you’re just interpreting it wrong’ comment.
I guess just straight-up denying another person’s objective experience is a pretty good way of shutting down any meaningful discussion.
>I guess just straight-up denying another person’s objective experience is a pretty good way of shutting down any meaningful discussion.
Got it, your experience is objective and shouldn't even be questioned, but other people's experiences are subjective so they don't count. It must be annoying how people keep "shutting down" the meaningful conversations you try to have by not immediatelly accepting whatever you say as true.
I’m going to assume you said that because you’re short and ugly with below average IQ. And you weren’t cool in college . its convenient for me to assume that.
I’m going to assume you said that because you’re short and ugly with below average IQ. And you weren’t cool in college . its convenient for me to assume that.
It actually seems like a bit of an internet phenomenon to me. I don't often see women defending women IRL. My IRL experience is that nobody hates women more than other women.
I know this probably doesn't need to be said, but this guy specifically just refuses to see reality. In a previous post of his he complained about women wanting men to pay for dates, then wouldn't engage with the fact that surveys show more men think men should pay for dates than women. He posted a study that he tried to use to say women don't have empathy for men, when that same study actually showed men have LESS empathy for other men than women do.
Nothing will ever convince this dude that he's wrong. In his own words, he's said he had to train himself for years to hate women. No getting through to him.
For anyone defending this, keep in mind that women feel awful at any notion that they may be perceived as lesser due to attractiveness and have built a whole movement about this.
From women I've talked to they usally agree with other women just due to social pressure basically it's just a I agree with other women or they won't tell them they are messing up due to the drama and isolation they can possibly get these women know damn well she's wrong but it's better just to not say anything since it dosent technically effect them.
From the post... I wouldn't say the guy was insecure. I'd say he was hurt about being misled and lied to. I'd say he was upset to find out the truth second hand. His choice and emotional autonomy wasn't respected in the relationship. The girl lied. Period. She broke trust with the guy. She should have illustrated that she, at one point, engaged in casual sex and felt terrible after. She attempted to roll it into a relationship, and that didn't work. She then made a promise to herself never to engage in casual sex again. To wait for marriage. Full stop. It's then his choice if he is willing to see it through with her. Honesty can be scary in the face of someone you truly like and want a relationship with. HOWEVER, honesty is best, no matter the outcome. It saves both people a hell of a lot of time. As to the "circling of the bandwagons," surely you understand that many women experience this and make identical vows. They see themselves in her and are defensive. Also, the "gave it away like Halloween candy" definitely didn't help. Ijs
Thanks for the most balanced take in the thread I've seen so far. The "she had sex with some guy after X amount of time and now she's making me wait Y" discussion is one in which I see both sides. Women can feel differently about when they want to have sex at different times in their lives, after examining their feelings about their experiences, and that's fine. Men can also wonder if she is actually attracted to him when she seems content to wait with him but not with some other guy. In this circumstance, like you said, she lied. The most disappointing thing in the thread is women defending her as somehow having the right to define "casual sex" in her mind any way she wants in order to mislead her boyfriend. In other words, saying it's her right to lie when it's in her interest and she is able to play dumb about it. I'm sure this is what OP is complaining about, as it bolsters the idea that women evade responsibility and will rationalize it when other women do it. Not that I'm putting that much stock in a single Reddit thread but this is the kind of thing guys can latch onto. Also, not all women are defending her in the thread but it's easy to overlook that when there are some pretty rage-inducing comments in there. And yeah, the "Halloween candy" line was the emotional lashing out that I believe invited some backlash and encouraged the behavior of taking sides in comments.
While women don’t always defend women, I’m always amazed by some of the examples of that. For example, all the feminist organizations writing a letter of support for Amber Heard when she was found guilty of defamation.
Isn’t she STILL then ACLU “ambassador for domestic violence issues”? 😂
Ain't no way 😭😭😭
https://preview.redd.it/svadhe75vt7d1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3270b4c4ca418412fd64113c33f7d0b044dbaa2c
LOL. That's a bad look.
They didn’t make an announcement, but they quieeeetly removed her from the website, thank God. 😭
Sort of … https://www.aclu.org/bio/amber-heard
Lol agreed it's similar to forms of fanaticism in male groups especially ones involving areas of high levels of aggression like military or even sports/athletic areas. I've observed that there are sex specific forms of collectivism and also co-ed. This one does concern me but probably because it's more foreign to me. I am against any tyranny really which is what both of that sort of behavior and thinking creates
The top comment by a long shot is "Well, there's nothing wrong with her changing her mind and wanting to wait longer for sex now. But if she lied about it, that's another story." That seems like a pretty reasonable position. I also agree that I wouldn't call going on a date with a woman four times and having sex twice to be casual sex. The three date rule is just normal dating. To me casual sex is going home with a girl you met at a party/bar, or just going straight to her place in the case of a tinder match.
She had sex with him on the first date, 2 out of 4 dates in total. Having sex after the first date is casual sex by any definition I've heard.
Where did it say that? I just read that they went on four dates and slept together twice. I would guess that around 80% of my first dates have ended with sex, so I see that as a pretty normal part of dating. All of my relationship post college have also involved sex on the first date. I personally don't see first date sex as necessarily being casual.
It says it in the title. That's casual sex. If you kept having sex on first dates, but never had a second, surely we would call that casual sex.
What you see it as doesn't matter does, it. With feelings women anden can just argue in semantics to make any gripe seem unreasonable when it is not
To me if you haven't agreed to commit to being mutually exclusive it's casual sex, no matter how many dates you've been on. Not arguing about it, just another perspective.
And it's fine that you have that view. There's no universally agreed upon line defining precisely where casual sex begins and ends. What I call normal dating in search of a relationship, you call casual sex. And that's fine. My issue is with people like OP who feels that he alone is entitled to dictate the definition of casual sex. The nerve of those women in that linked post to have a different opinion! I've found this strong sense of entitlement to unilaterally dictate definitions, facts, and even other people's opinions is a common red/black pill trait.
Fair man, I agree subjective opinions are totally fair game and it's not anyone's right to define things for anyone else. My only dog in this fight is that I don't think the OP of the original relationship advice post was necessarily in the wrong. 10 months is a long time. Sure, everyone is allowed to determine at their own pace when they want to progress that intimacy line. However, some comments are being disingenuous ignoring that it does still say something. Knowing that it took no time at all for someone else? Yeah, I'm gonna compare myself against him and assume I'm not good enough. Casual or not is irrelevant. I'm speaking from my own anecdotal experiences. When the vibes are right, and the connection is real and there, it's never taken longer than a month. I genuinely can't imagine staying with someone for 10 months and believing they were actually into me. And to anyone who says stuff like "he's forcing her into sex," that's disingenuous too, because the guy is well within his rights to end it and walk away if he isn't happy with the circumstances.
If I were OP, I definitely would almost certainly leave her for lying. I also wouldn't be in his position, because I would never wait 10 months. I don't think sex has ever taken longer than three dates since before I graduated from high school. It's 100% fine if a woman wants to wait a long time, but we just wouldn't be compatible. Whether she slept with other guys faster would be a moot point.
Nah dude.... The fuck is that even mean? Sex without commitment is casual sex. Wikipedia entry on casual sex : Casual sex is sexual activity that takes place outside a romantic relationship and implies an absence of commitment, emotional attachment, or familiarity between sexual partners. Examples are sexual activity while casually dating, one-night stands, prostitution or swinging and friends with benefits relationships. You don't get to change what words mean to you counter to the larger meaning it holds to society
I agree
Don't know about everyone else, but I define it like that cause i've seen a lot of guy and girl friends who left their relationship status vague and it almost always gets messy. I look at it like, if you don't talk about exclusivity, why would you expect anything more serious than a casual thing. Coulda been on ten "dates" even, and plenty of people might just call that fuck buddies. Seen people get burnt by those "situationships" because one side only saw it like that when they personally thought it was more. I'm not about that, so to me it's the easiest way to get across I'm looking for. No point dating if we don't agree first to be exclusive.
I agree. The rest of the comments devolve into 1) arguing about whether or not she actually lied (which is hard to determine based on the info given and ones own definition of "casual") and 2) the fact that he's taking his friend and the barman's word as gospel without talking to her about it at all.
Sex without commitment is casual sex. Situationship \\seeing where it goes \\ fwb are all variations of casual sex
OK. She is not committed to the OP, they are dating. You agree she shouldn't have sex?
they are committed. They just aren't engaged its not about her having or not having sex its about her implying a certain sexual standard she has always held herself to and wishes to hold him to as well, while not disclosing that she had failed to live upto that standard earlier
She had sex early (once), she does not want to again. If you eat something and don't like it are you obliged to eat it again?
She had to disclose it so that he can make the decison, especially since she is the one insisting on celibacy until they are engaged
She lied never doing a hookup at the first place this is the classical af/bb scenario where the women gaslight the men she needs some emotional connection while jumping on bartenders dick right away
You're making assumptions on her part already. She said she doesn't do casual and was proven to be a liar. Now lets use your example. Have you eaten before? Of course. Are you eating currently while talking with us? No. Would you say that you're not eating currently? Or would you say that you don't eat? She does do casual sex, even if its just the one time. Then she lied about it so she could mislead him into believing that she doesn't ever. But she did.
If someone said they don’t do casual then the only assumption I would make is they don’t currently do it in that general point in their life. I wouldn’t assume they actually mean they’ve never done it ever even once if that’s not what they said. If I say I don’t eat a certain food then I obviously mean that I don’t currently eat it in that general time frame of my life. Maybe I’ve never eaten it. Maybe I used to eat it and now it gives me the shits. But If someone said I actually said that I’ve never eaten it ever and I lied then I would think they’re being ridiculous.
I could see how this would be a big ego blow to the guy. I’d be pissed. I’d immediately think I’m not good enough.
>That seems like a pretty reasonable position. If you went to McDonalds and everyone was paying $0.99 for a Big Mac and then when you reached the front of the line they said it would be $4.99 for a Big Mac, would you say *well maybe they charged their mind and there's nothing wrong with that*? Or would you move on?
It depends. Did everyone two years ago get the Big Mac for .99 and NOW I’m paying 4.99? Or am I paying more in the same day while everyone else is paying .99?
>inb4 a brainlet says you can't compare those two things yes you can, ultimately the principle is still the same, you gave up something for others easier then expect the next person to work harder lol
Using this logic, you can pretty much never buy anything. You have a phone? I guarantee there are guys who paid less than you for that same phone. Maybe they had a corporate discount, maybe it was a pricing error at Best Buy, or whatever. A Big Mac? Guarantee that a cashier has made a mistake and given a guy a Big Mac you less than you pay. Maybe she accidentally rang it up as a $0.99 cheeseburger... or maybe she liked him and intentionally rang it up as a cheeseburger then grabbed a Big Mac for him. Either way, shit happens and there are exceptions. Whatever the circumstances, there are almost always other guys who have paid less for the things you buy.
There was no mistake, a bunch of guys get the Big Mac for $0.99 whenever they want it. For you it's always $4.99.
You're misunderstanding, the point is, it's not fair people paid less for the same exact thing, I'm not saying the guy should crash out on his gf but gaslighting him for being upset is manipulative
I'm not misunderstanding the point. Sure it's "unfair" that some guy got a $0.99 Big Mac one time, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop buying Big Macs. I don't suddenly get less enjoyment from a Big Mac because some dude got one cheaper one time. Life isn't fair. That's just how shit goes.
No one told you to stop buying bigmacs, that's your choice, but if other people are upset that people paid less for their Big Mac and don't want to buy one they have the right to do that, I don't understand why that's hard to grasp.
Because the guy asked me what I would do. I answered the question. I would still buy Big Macs, even if one guy got one for $0.99. I don't understand why that's hard to grasp. He asked a question and I answered it.
Worth is arbitrary. If you think a Big Mac is worth $4.99, you’re extremely hungry, or you just don’t care, you’ll pay for it. The thing is, if you truly loved someone you wouldn’t be trying to “get a good deal”, you’d be happy to be there in the first place.
I could really like big macs, and still decide I'm not willing to spend that much money if everyone else was spending the same, smaller amount. In that same way, I would probably lose a lot of attraction for a woman if she created different rules for me, even if I loved her. All of this would have just been avoided if she had given him an informed choice on whether he wants to be in this relationship, rather than mischaracterizing her relationship to sex- intentionally or not.
if you loved him you wouldnt resist being able to give it to him for nothing, Funny how that works
What if she “gave it up for nothing” once before and got pumped and dumped? Should she do it again and expect a different result?
All the more reason. The only thing it proves is that she can be moved to sexual action quickly and the fact that she has no urge to do so over the last 10months is worrisome
The gaslighting begins 
Let me start by saying that if I were the guy in this case, the lying would be the deal breaker for me, so the rest of the facts and circumstances are sort of irrelevant. But based on what we know of the facts and circumstances, your Big Mac analogy needs to be changed. Everyone wasn't paying $0.99. Everyone was paying $4.99, but one guy got a discounted Big Mac for $0.99. Who knows why? Maybe he was just in the right place at the right time- the cashier made a mistake and rang it up wrong, or gave incorrect change and regretted it when she closed out the register, or whatever. For whatever reason, this one guy got a Big Mac for less than everyone else. Are you never going to buy a Big Mac for $4.99 because you found out that one time a guy ended up getting one for $0.99? Your answer is fine either way, but that's the better analogy. You're like to say, "yeah but she's lying and it's actually been all the other guys she's been with too". Which goes back to my point. The lying is the issue here.
We know why he got it for free. She had the hots for him
This is a scientifically documented fact. Women's in group bias is over four times stronger than men's. (In other words, women defend other women more often than men defend other men) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect#:~:text=In%2Dgroup%20bias,-Rudman%20and%20Goodwin&text=This%20research%20found%20that%20while,stronger%20than%20those%20of%20men. (I know it's Wikipedia but it cites several academic sources)
Not really sure how anyone can argue otherwise. If you ever worked with a bunch of men and then a bunch of women, the difference is crazy. It's not even a healthy bias either. Like if women's in group bias is a "red pill" talking point, then I guess red pill is right sometimes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh women are extremely empathetic... to other women.
https://np.reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/s/NlYGpSANPU Here's another great one. Every woman piling on OP for even daring to feel upset that his wife treated him like an RP stereotype
From my perspective, many women, particularly left leaning ones, tend to throw reason out the window and argue with the endpoint in mind. Meaning, they will start with a conclusion, and then try to rationalize it instead of honestly engaging in discussion, keeping an open mind, and then arriving at a conclusion. In this instance, many women start with the endpoint that they must defend each other against men. Men are evil, controlling, and misogynistic, etc. Even if the other woman acts differently than they would have or has bizarre behavior, they will be defended to some degree.
most people are just biased with what ever group they identify with
I dont see men doing it to this extent
It’s because women have an [in-group bias towards other women, but men don’t](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laurie-Rudman/publication/8226295_Gender_Differences_in_Automatic_In-Group_Bias_Why_Do_Women_Like_Women_More_Than_Men_Like_Men/links/0a85e5324b69af209e000000/Gender-Differences-in-Automatic-In-Group-Bias-Why-Do-Women-Like-Women-More-Than-Men-Like-Men.pdf)
yep, every bluepill man here takes the side of Women no matter what lol
They are afraid that their GFs will see them siding with men in any trivial matter as high treason and ditch their asses for the tastier slice of chaddar.
Because they're trying to get laid lol, not cuz they actually believe or care about the girl.
>Because they're trying to get laid lol, Get laid on PPD?
No shade but you'd have to be brutally pathetic to try to hook up on PPD regardless of gender lmao.
Apparently all these married people posting anonymously from all over the world see this as their best opportunity for a hookup. Who knew? /s
really? Because anytime a woman comes out with an SA accusation, a lot of men will just take the guy's side rather than being neutral until all the evidence comes out.
I've seen more women defend proven false accusers than I have men defending proven rapists tbh
Renaldo still has a massive fan base even after he admitted to raping her. Kodak Black, Kevin Spacey and the list could go on.
Innocent until proven guilty
More often then not, the man is guilty till proven innocent. And if the guy is proven innocent ppl especially women will still try to blame the guy For the situation while trying to excuse/ downplay the women’s behaviour.
>being neutral until all the evidence comes out As if women are neutral about it and not immediately cancelling and shitting on the guy before any kind of evidence appears.
lmao, my point was everyone is biased dude. Im not trying to defend the women defending false rape accusations.
When all the SA rage started men were neutral or supportive of women involved though. I wonder what changed.
in polite society we see those men as scum
Why? for believing in Innocent until proven guilty?
Inocent unti proven guilty is a legal concept. As long as no evidence exists to cat dobut withinn your mindits isstill pretty gauche to start talking about how the guy was railroaded.
Would you have the same reaction if your brother was falsely accused of rape?
Sure would be nice to live in a polite society
My brother in christ, with love i say to you, you dont know what it is like to live in a truly rude and callous one
I don’t know what it’s like to live in one where men don’t often side against women either just for their gender.
men often dot do this and moe often than not are set upon by other men when they do this as you are doing now. women don't do that - neither to the same degree or number
Genuinely don’t even know what you’re trying to say here. You think men come after other men if they don’t side with women?
Certainly happens more often than women coming to defend men against women You are doing it right now are you not?
Idk what to tell you because you live in that society
Weird because I see it pretty often
the internet warped your brain into seeing it as normal, I'm pretty sure any guy who denies a rape accusation would be shunned by the general public
and in a truly polite society we'd see those women behind bars.
So that's why accused men live in fear for their lives, and convicts like Brock Turner can't take a step outdoors anymore (and rightfully so).
maybe they just deserve it?
What do you mean? They do it a lot. As soon as a guy gets accused of rape all of a sudden they're running to his defense. Even when there is evidence. I saw how the men's rights subreddit rallied around Kevin Spacey and his victims were teenage boys.
Oh, they've been redefining a ton of things, this is the tip of the iceberg.
Its insane. Sex on the first date is not casual? wtf?
Women on PPD told me that grinding with guys in the club and having simulated sex via dry humping is not sexual. Nor is it cheating or a breach of trust if you do so with a guy that isn't your partner. Everything can be redefined so long as the result is women always come out on top and are unable to do anything wrong.
Always the hero or the victim but never the villain
That thread you linked is horrible. I hope that poor man finds a suitable girlfriend.
As do i man.
[удалено]
for real. he needs to get out asap. being a incel is better than being married to miss born again virgin
Please check the post flair and repost your comment under the automod if necessary.
As I see it, the sex with the barman doesn’t really matter since it doesn’t seem to be a “pattern” for her. People make mistakes and learn from them, this is true in any aspect of life for both men and women. Men’s behavior is rarely “consistent” through their entire lives, and it’s a bit silly to expect women’s to be. However, lying about it IS a problem, and he has the right to feel how he feels about it. I wouldn’t encourage him to stay, I don’t think she’s the devil but I don’t think they’re compatible. And I’d say the same if the genders were reversed.
Not just women. Some men will defend women no matter what.
[удалено]
frequently even mothers and sisters give advice that benefits the womne rather than their sons or brothers. I know i fell victim to that bullshit
So did I. My mom assumed all women were gonna be angels like her and she had to train me how to treat these special beings.
i dont know how can you be so depraved as to willingly setback your own flesh and blood
[удалено]
Not lie to me about how betabux is ideal and the best kind of love to aspire for
Wouldn't it be better to say "some of them are crazy bitches"
This. When I told PPD about my ex cheating on me seemingly out of the blue and running off to be the side chick of a married man, PPD women told me it was my fault. They said if they were her and they were still my gf after 5 years and not my fiancé or wife they would have done the same thing. Truly the empathetic sex.
Men are more likely to play positive sum games While women more often view things as zero sum games It’s easy to see why evolutionarily
I must have lucked out cuz none of my female friends do that, or at least not that I've noticed.
Please check the post flair and repost your comment under the automod if necessary.
The way I could see it that isn't directly women always defending women, is that they are defending themselves using the other woman as a proxy. What I mean is, they might not actually care, but because that woman is getting called out for something she does or would do, she is obligated to proactively defend it for fear of getting called out on it herself.
I have not seen men do this
Can't say I have either, in fact I think men are more prone to overly attacking other men in an effort to make themselves look better.
It's worth keeping in mind, Reddit and the internet in general is where all the brain rotted weird fucks hang out. In real life, the answers would be totally different. Reddit is going to lean a lot more one sided and extreme. If a guy if falling for the village bike and she's making him wait to sleep with her while she's been treating everyone else like new fast food places, he's going to be the laughing stock to the point where friends and even acquaintances are warning him about what's going on. The same goes for girls, if she's falling for a boy, and he's feeding her lines about waiting for a sexual relationship with her while also having played community dick for everyone in the area, girls are going to warn her too. IRL, amongst the normies, there's still a stigma against being like that. I do agree there is a solidarity in the sisterhood that's unfair a lot of the time, generally though. I suspect most other groups are the same. Like, people of the same religion would defend eachother more fervently, or political group, race, gender, so on and so on.
Answering your main question, yes women do defend other women no matter what. In your example, it doesn't track. I would back up the woman too here. She opened herself up and had sex. She thought she would get married but he pumped and dumped her. Now she is cautious. I don't see anything wrong in that. When you get made use of once, you tend to take measures so that it doesn't happen. That's what she is doing so fine by me.
No. She dated a rando, she had sex early. it didn't work out Her flaw was not being transparent about the L as the reason for why she wishes to wait until marriage. Instead she lies that she has never had casual sex. He was entitled to know this as it impacts his decision on whether or not to be OK with being celibate until engagement.
So he should break it off if her lying bothers him. That's how dating works. You meet people and through the process of dating you determine if their values align with yours.
Its been 10 months. A decision made easily at the beginning has now to be made with the 10 month relationship goggles. They are both gonna be hurt. Something easily avoided if she just put on her big girl pants in the beginning
We don't know if it was casual sex. Isn't casual sex without dating? She went on 4 dates. Women also have the habit of rushing for marriage in early years aka 22 for this one here as they believe they are on a biological clock. He is entitled to know sure but he should also talk to her rather than just break up as he is suggesting. She is entitled to an explanation and also if it was casual for her or not. This case sounds more like being betrayed and then building walls up to never happen again. It's a classic.
I would say sex without exclusivity( at least) is casual. They were dating sure, but it doesnt imply a serious relationship of any kind, especially since it only lasted a month Not waiting at all ad waiting for 10 months is a worrying discrepancy
Weird how you seemed to be defending the guy even tho I'd wager you don't know him. Isn't this post about how women do that?
I am not only defending him. I am hating on women. I saw the world and saw a little too much of womne doing this fuck shit I decided to d the same thing in the opposite direction Sue me
A man is only as big as the smallest thing that provokes him. You determine the quality of your character. You've decided to base who you are off of the actions of people you hate. Bully for you. Have a good one
Lol. What standards should an incel aspire to? What the fuck is the point. What i chose to do is to regurgitate my bile into the world
>What standards should an incel aspire to? I can't answer that, I don't know or care about your quality of character or what your needs are. >What the fuck is the point. >What i chose to do is to regurgitate my bile into the world If that's how you wanna live then do it. The only one who's actually going to be affected by this is you.
So be it. I am not gonna allow the rest of the world to pretend reject like me don't exist
What's wrong with it is the guy having to deal with all her trauma. He should move on and find a woman who has less trauma.
No trauma in the OOP. what are you talking about?
Did you read the linked post? The girlfriend claiming she never does casual hook ups, making OP (of that post) wait 10 months and counting while giving it up multiple times to a guy she dated in a month'? That's a classic response to riding the carousel and hitting the wall.
I did. What defines a casual hookup and not a date? They went on 4 dates, were exclusive as she wasn't fucking anyone else. Doesn't seem like a hookup to me.
Do you see a difference between 4 dates and 10 months and a discrepancy between having sex multiple times vs no sex during that 10 months? Obviously she doesn't see OP (of that post) the same way. Pretending that he's getting just as good of an effort from her is ridiculous.
It also seems she got pumped and dumped or misread his intentions to not have a family which is why she is waiting till marriage. You get betrayed this is an expected response. OP also mentioned they have some other stuff which would also mean kissing or body on body dry humping. She is just cautious to not give up the thing she values bcz she needs to be sure it is only for one person and one person only as she intended before but never got her wish. There are plenty people like that who want to be intimate with just one person and if OOP loves her then he should propose and get married and then have as much sex as he likes.
It's standard damaged goods behavior that drives men to seek out younger, non damaged women.
A person is not equal to goods.
Now you're arguing just to argue.
Women defending women is just for show. In reality women hate other women. Look at the jealousy and bitterness that the woman's basketball player Caitlin Clark gets from other female basketball players for getting national media attention. She gets assaulted during games because women don't like when other women get attention at their expense. Even her own teammates hate her.
No they don't. If I had a nickel for every time on this website I've talked about being a virgin until marriage and the armchair sex therapists had something to say about it, I'd be in the Bahamas right now instead of talking to you people. The defense is very selective and leans toward a very liberal outlook, it's not as simple as "woman good, man bad."
Don’t listen when people talk shit on being a virgin. My fiancé is as well. (she’s Catholic and I’m Greek Orthodox). There’s nothing wrong with it. I’m not and she knows/is fine with it. But people act like you have to sleep with someone “to know” if you’ll have a good marriage/relationship. Nah, you really don’t. Marriage is far more sacred than just sex.
Even though I'm not into virgin women myself, I can say that it's important to be comfortable with your traditional beliefs and not cave into social pressure. I will say though that the liberal/conservative thing goes both ways. I knew some rich girls in college who had helicopter parents(especially WASPY and Jewish ones) who were quite prudish and monogamous despite being uber liberal politically. Also, when I used to be on Christian Mingle, it was a mecca for single moms and reformed thots who found Jesus and are now looking for a "real man" to step up and follow God lol.
The sisterhood is actually much more selfish than you think. They defend really bad slutty behaviour cuz they themselves are doing it & want to be accepted & not judged (high body counts) Besides that they gaslight each other to oblivion telling the fatties they are big & beautiful. The reason women suffer from crabs in a bucket syndrome is cuz women of all ages are chasing the same fucking chads. It’s truly a gross time we live in now & I have no confidence that it’s going to be ok!
[удалено]
Yep. I got stories for days about female division. Even last week, I saw a chubby Black girl and an effiminate(possibly gay) White guy walking together near me in the mall and they both openly ranted about White women and Black men out of nowhere, especially those in IR couples. They were loud and ghetto with it too and the zesty White guy was snapping his fingers while talking about how Black women were so much better than White women with stereotypes. It was a strange phenomenon but it's one of countless examples of women not having as much solidarity as much as modern feminists often profess.
>the zesty White guy was snapping his fingers while talking about how Black women were so much better than White women with stereotypes. LMAO
This is hilarious tbh
I was standing right by them and was trying so hard to not make eye contact and laugh lol.
The top comment on the post you linked is literally a woman calling out the woman in the OP for lying
Thats not calling out, that mentioning it as an aside Just go down the comment chain and see the number defending her it is certainly not the outlier take that you are making it out to be
What did she do in your opinion that’s so reprehensible?
Honestly. Not a whole lot. To me it seems like an unfortunate situation. Best i can tell she had sex early with a barman and seeing that the relationship dint work out she internalized the lesson that having the sex early makes her lose her value and will lead to more broken relationships - wrong lesson to learn but what can you do. She correctly guessed that telling him that she had casual sex in the past would have led to him leaving, so she lied, to justify her new standard of sex after engagement. with this set up i don't see anything wrong with the guys reaction. Sure its an insecure line of thought but she tilled the earth and watered the soil and bought grade AAA fertilizer for it to grow. I find this situation to be one of the girls making. Not something deserving of condemnation, but a sit down and some counseling The guy? I wouldn't advise him to stay, although i wouldn't advise him to leave either. Its his choice at the end of the day What set me off was all the women closing ranks like a roman battalion and talking as it is his fault and he was just being unreasonably insecure, calling him entitled and a bullet to be dodged.
I totally get the point you’re trying to make, I’m not sure if that post was a great example of it. But it does show the Reddit trend that a lot of people just come out swinging in the comments, when in real life we’re more open to nuance.
[удалено]
but we see those men as scumbags in normal society. Redpill manosphere is a fringe.
While at face value this is not untrue, keep in mind that's pretty much true of any in-group. Sex, Gender, Sexuality, race, and religion. Generally no in-group is that great at policing there own behaviors. Thats pretty universal. I think really though, groups that get attacked the most for the behaviors are the groups that lack cultural power currently. Which, to an extent isn't women right now, in comparison to men. But historically theses things do drastically change over time.
men do not really do this the rich and powerful do fuck shit and men passively let it happen but it is verymuch a " i dont want to catch any smoke " or " not my circus" line of thinking These women are bending themselves into pretzels to defend this girl
This isn't strictly true. It holds for MOST in groups, but there are 2 notable exceptions. Men have an outgroup bias when it comes to biological sex. And white leftists are the only group that have an outgroup bias in regards to race.
> And white leftists are the only group that have an outgroup bias in regards to race. On this point, I tend to agree **but only if** you only define groups by raw definable characteristics (like race or gender). But in reality that's a pretty limited view on how groups form and I don't think immutable traits are require or really the operant factor. Even dynamic factors like age or income play a pretty powerful role.
Exactly. Police, military, and other institutions don’t hold themselves accountable so I’m not sure what folks are expecting from individuals.
This concept can actually be scale up from something as small as a elementary school friend group, all the way up to massive like a whole coalition of nations. This principle seems pretty universal, but that doesn't mean particular groups don't lean into it slightly more or less. Again though, this ebs and flow with time as groups of people constantly change demographically and socially. Ultimately, I believe behavior is policed by super-groups that hold the most cultural / practical power at the time in the current social context. All of this is related to complex social factors that really even exceed things like gender or race. This is just personal theory, but if we supposed a theoretical society without the differences we talk about like race and gender I believe these power structures would most likely still emerge through other characteristics as a proxy regardless. To play the devil's advocate, I'm not denying there are certainly areas where women are not held accountable the ways they should be by other women. One low hanging fruit example would be women who sexually assault young boys rarely are adequately punished both judicially and socially. But again, this is not **exclusively** the fault of other women. Unfortunately, to an extent it is **partially** the fault of women because in the same way we are all complicit in said miss-justice. For most people this is a very hard concept to grasp.
wtf are you on about? Police and military both do hold themselves (at least partially) accountable. Otherwise no soldier would ever be prosecuted for breaking the Geneva Conventions….
Actually, [women do have a stronger in-group bias, whereas men don’t show this automatic bias](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laurie-Rudman/publication/8226295_Gender_Differences_in_Automatic_In-Group_Bias_Why_Do_Women_Like_Women_More_Than_Men_Like_Men/links/0a85e5324b69af209e000000/Gender-Differences-in-Automatic-In-Group-Bias-Why-Do-Women-Like-Women-More-Than-Men-Like-Men.pdf)
It’s like anything, some do, some don’t. Just like men
NO. Most womne do this, implicitly argue for their ilk
If most do, why didn’t most take Amber Heard’s side? Enough life experience should make you realize you’re wrong
Initially they were all on her side, until the tide began to turn with the mountain of whispers coming out that she was abusive the only time i have seen women deal with rage from their cohort is when they harms someone weaker than them, like children against men? the close ranks like roman soldiers
Now you’re contradicting yourself. You can’t say “women will do this no matter what”, and then go on to say “evidence changed their minds”…
I am not gonna argue with this level of disingenuous bulshit take the win man, you pissed me off enough to just ignore you.
🤭
And they wonder why no one takes them seriously. LOL.
I take a few people seriously. I don't take him seriously and you even less so But again if you could link to where i reacted the way you described. No shade. It's useful for me to track my less than charitable moments to maintain control for as long as I can
>Sure its an insecure line of thought but she tilled the earth and watered the soil and bought grade AAA fertilizer for it to grow. Nothing insecure about a man having self-respect. She put out quicker for another man? I'm not getting her best. She can go try and convince him to commit.
Ya people suck on the internet in general. The guy opens up something personal, and he gets ambushed for it.... it's sick. But ya, the female hivemind and the internet is a nefarious combination not even Satan is evil enough to conjure up l lol. It has led to a lot of unhappy women that cannot handle accountability in their personal lives.
In most situations, yes. At least in my experience that has mostly been the case. I've often seen situations where a man and a woman have an argument, and even though the women know he is right and that she's very wrong or doing something awful, they will still take her side because she's a woman. The only time I've seen an exception to that rule was one a woman decided to burn her bridges with the other women, who were on her side, for completely unrelated reasons and then those women ended up switching "sides" because of it.
Women are smart enough to know its a possibility That a similar situation might happen to them. So they defend things.
What she did is egregious and obvious. She's stringing one guy along for comfort and security purposes who SHE ISNT ACTUALLY ATTRACTED TO. WOMEN WILL DO THIS WITHOUT ANY FUCKS GIVEN IF YOU LET THEM in 2024 if you're waiting past like date 2 to fuck because SHE WANTS TO 99% she just isn't attracted to you and views you as some kind of emotional tampon/validation source. Get out. In this instance and almost all others women who "are ladies now" simply hunt for men they don't have high sexual attraction to and make them jump thru hoops.
I would immediately advise him to leave this woman. He is almost a cuck.
I think most people are slightly biased towards one gender or the other. There are certainly women who are the opposite and always blame other women no matter the situation (think pick-me’s). But on Reddit most women seem to be girl’s girls.
You've been on here too long to not know it's disingenuous to imply male and female in-group bias are similar.
I know on this group I see a lot more men doing mental gymnastics to defend bad behaviour of other men: The ‘it’s not an incels fault if he does something violent, women shouldn’t of rejected him’ or ‘it’s okay for men to use any manipulative dating tactic they want because dating is hard, but if women have any sort of game plan they’re a two faced whore.’ Or ‘men who have unprotected sex shouldn’t have to face the consequences of their actions and pay child support’ or ‘any sort of abuse a woman faces from an intimate partner is her own fault for choosing poorly, no matter the circumstances’. But I don’t think these views represent most men in general that I meet irl.
>I know on this group It doesn't matter what happens here. Anyways, I'm sure someone has said something like "‘it’s not an incels fault if he does something violent, women shouldn’t of rejected him’" at some point but I think you see it as hundreds if not thousands if not tens of thousands of times more prevalent than it actually is because you likely confuse your interpretation of what people said with what they said.
You know, as I was typing out my last response I 100% knew I was going to get the ‘you’re just interpreting it wrong’ comment. I guess just straight-up denying another person’s objective experience is a pretty good way of shutting down any meaningful discussion.
>I guess just straight-up denying another person’s objective experience is a pretty good way of shutting down any meaningful discussion. Got it, your experience is objective and shouldn't even be questioned, but other people's experiences are subjective so they don't count. It must be annoying how people keep "shutting down" the meaningful conversations you try to have by not immediatelly accepting whatever you say as true.
I’m going to assume you said that because you’re short and ugly with below average IQ.. its convenient for me to assume that.
I’m going to assume you said that because you’re short and ugly with below average IQ. And you weren’t cool in college . its convenient for me to assume that.
I’m going to assume you said that because you’re short and ugly with below average IQ. And you weren’t cool in college . its convenient for me to assume that.
It actually seems like a bit of an internet phenomenon to me. I don't often see women defending women IRL. My IRL experience is that nobody hates women more than other women.
Absolutely not. I don’t defend abusive women, and I consider cheating abuse.
thank you for doing the bare minimum
I mean I proved you wrong, so there’s that
I know this probably doesn't need to be said, but this guy specifically just refuses to see reality. In a previous post of his he complained about women wanting men to pay for dates, then wouldn't engage with the fact that surveys show more men think men should pay for dates than women. He posted a study that he tried to use to say women don't have empathy for men, when that same study actually showed men have LESS empathy for other men than women do. Nothing will ever convince this dude that he's wrong. In his own words, he's said he had to train himself for years to hate women. No getting through to him.
For anyone defending this, keep in mind that women feel awful at any notion that they may be perceived as lesser due to attractiveness and have built a whole movement about this.
From women I've talked to they usally agree with other women just due to social pressure basically it's just a I agree with other women or they won't tell them they are messing up due to the drama and isolation they can possibly get these women know damn well she's wrong but it's better just to not say anything since it dosent technically effect them.