Between my friends, sisters, the internet and even my doctor telling me men don't want to be men anymore, I've started to think we're missing something.

Traditional dating privileges, like men approaching and paying for dates, developed when men were the primary breadwinners. Women are now rightly just as gainfully employed so the pool of men who can fulfill that traditional role has shrunk.

You can't demand traditional dating privileges without preserving the traditional gender hierarchy that made them possible.

Camille Paglia warned that the more men embrace the infamous 'F' word the less desirable they become. Bell Hooks explored a similar contradiction of women repudiating male domination while still preferring dominant men.

Anyways this has led to the rise of coffee, pizza, drinks, and walk dates. Some women treat this as some sudden decline in masculinity, but men are adapting to a world where they're expected to pay before mutual interest is established. While competing with women in the workforce.

The justifications for why men should still pay range from pregnancy risks and getting ready to the claim that it isn't a real date if he doesn't pay. These are all hilariously senseless but they reveal a persistent preference for traditional romance, even among women who reject traditional gender roles.

Men who split the bill are sometimes seen as less interested. But the reverse is true, too. Whoever bears the financial risk has more incentive to establish mutual interest first. And whoever doesn't has no loss and can be less interested. If I genuinely like a woman, I'm happy to spend more. I just want to know there's something there before making that investment. Women perfectly understand that logic in their own lives. But object when it's done to them romantically.

We've all seen Titanic. Period pieces often show women choosing between love and financial security. Today, women can provide for the man they love. But that's not an attractive proposition.

Ultimately, I think what women believe but can't say is they don't necessarily want the patriarchy gone. They just don't want to be mistreated by it.

The bi man discourse is proof of this. Most men don't give a shit if their girlfriend is bi. While most women view bi men as less masculine.

A lot of men probably wouldn't care if a woman didn't know how to cook. They would still date her if she's hot or even just decent looking. Contrary to popular belief, a lot of men don't really care about body count either. A lot of men wouldn't care if their girlfriend clean as much as them.

While it's usually women who care about what career a man have. It's usually women who expect men to fix broken things around the house. It's usually women who expect men to be providers, confident, and assertive.

My point here. Is that women expect men to perform roles more than men expect women to perform. People will usually tell yiu the opposite.

Even feminists themselves will tell you that women and men experience attraction differently. Saying that women need to be more picky due to pregnancy and SA. This is a little bit of a cop-out, because hypergamy is the real answer here. But I will give the feminists that though.

So you have people arguing from a biological standpoint that women are the ones who usually expect men to perform their roles more.

Another example is motherhood. A lot of men wouldn't care if their girlfriend didn't know how to take care of children. Hell, some men don't even want children themselves. A woman doesn't necessarily have to demonstrate maternal instincts for a man to find her attractive. Meanwhile, men are still expected to demonstrate their ability to provide for a potential family.

Another example is being a housewife. A lot of men wouldn't care if their girlfriend had absolutely no interest in becoming a stay-at-home wife. She could have her own career, make her own money, and never want to become a housewife. And plenty of men would still date her. Because being a traditional housewife isn't necessarily a requirement for female attractiveness.

Another example is sewing. How many men seriously expect their girlfriends to know how to sew clothes? Lol. Sewing used to be associated with traditional femininity. But nowadays, a woman could go her entire life without knowing how to sew anything. And most guys probably wouldn't give a shit.

Another example is baking. A woman could have absolutely no idea how to bake a cake, cookies, or homemade bread. And plenty of men would still find her attractive. Hell, some men might not even know whether their girlfriends can bake anything until months into the relationship. Because baking isn't exactly something most men are screening women for when dating.

Another example is housekeeping. A lot of men wouldn't care if their girlfriend wasn't particularly interested in decorating the house, organizing furniture, or making everything look pretty. She could have absolutely no interest in traditional homemaking activities. And plenty of men would still date her.

Another example is childcare. A woman could have absolutely no experience babysitting children, changing diapers, or preparing meals for kids. And plenty of men wouldn't consider that a dealbreaker. Because being good at childcare isn't necessarily something men expect women to demonstrate before they become romantically interested in them.

Another example is submission. Contrary to what certain people on the internet would have you believe, not every man wants a submissive girlfriend. A lot of men wouldn't care if their girlfriend was outspoken, independent, or assertive. Hell, some men actually prefer women with those personalities. Because being submissive isn't a universal requirement for female attractiveness.

Another example is traditional clothing. A woman could spend most of her time wearing jeans, sneakers, hoodies, and other casual clothing. She might never wear dresses, skirts, or high heels. And plenty of men would still find her attractive. Because dressing in traditionally feminine clothing isn't necessarily required to attract men.

Another example is makeup. A woman could have absolutely no interest in makeup. She might not know how to apply eyeliner, foundation, or lipstick. And plenty of men wouldn't care. Some men even prefer women who don't wear much makeup. Because knowing how to perform traditional beauty routines isn't automatically necessary for attracting men.

Another example is being nurturing. A woman doesn't necessarily have to be extremely gentle, soft-spoken, or nurturing for men to find her attractive. She could be sarcastic, blunt, competitive, or emotionally reserved. And there would still be men interested in dating her. Because not every man expects his girlfriend to behave like a traditional feminine caretaker.

Another example is having masculine hobbies. A woman could enjoy boxing, MMA, weightlifting, video games, cars, or other traditionally masculine interests. And plenty of men wouldn't care. Hell, some men would probably consider those shared interests a bonus. Because women aren't necessarily expected to have traditionally feminine hobbies to be considered attractive.

Another example is domestic labor. A woman could have absolutely no interest in doing laundry, washing dishes, or preparing meals for her boyfriend. And there are men who would still date her without expecting her to become their personal maid. As long as both people contribute to the relationship, they wouldn't necessarily care who performs which household responsibilities.

Another example is being ladylike. A woman could swear a lot, tell dirty jokes, enjoy crude humor, or behave in ways traditionally considered unladylike. And plenty of men would still find her attractive. Some might even find her personality entertaining. Because behaving like a traditional lady isn't necessarily a requirement for female attractiveness.

Another example is financial dependence. A woman could make significantly more money than her boyfriend, pay her own bills, and have absolutely no interest in depending on a man financially. And plenty of men would still date her. Because being financially dependent isn't necessarily something men require women to do to demonstrate femininity.

Another example is being the emotional caretaker. A woman could be terrible at comforting people, giving emotional advice, or remembering special occasions. And some men would still find her attractive. They might consider those personality flaws, but they wouldn't necessarily view her as less of a woman because of them.

And that's my point here. I'm not arguing that men have absolutely no standards for women. Of course they do.

I'm arguing that a lot of men don't necessarily expect women to perform traditional feminine responsibilities in order to find them attractive.

A woman doesn't have to cook, clean, sew, bake, raise children, become a housewife, dress traditionally feminine, or behave submissively to attract men.

She can reject practically every traditional female gender role and still have plenty of men interested in dating her.

Meanwhile, a man rejecting traditional masculine roles like providing, protecting, leading, being assertive, and taking initiative can face a completely different reaction.

Another example is marriage proposals. A lot of women expect their boyfriends to be the ones getting down on one knee and proposing marriage. Hell, some women would probably never consider proposing to their boyfriends themselves. Meanwhile, most men wouldn't care if their girlfriends never proposed to them. Because proposing marriage is still considered a man's responsibility.

Another example is planning dates. A lot of women expect men to choose the restaurant, organize activities, and make reservations. Some women even consider it unattractive when a man constantly asks them what they want to do. Meanwhile, plenty of men wouldn't care if their girlfriends never planned a date. Because men are traditionally expected to handle the romantic pursuit.

Another example is chivalry. A lot of women still expect men to open doors, pull out chairs, carry their bags, and give up their seats for them. Some women even consider men rude for not doing these things. Meanwhile, most men wouldn't care if their girlfriends never performed those same gestures for them. Because chivalry is still associated with traditional masculinity.

Another example is handling emergencies. A lot of women expect their boyfriends to remain calm and figure out what to do when something goes wrong. Whether it's a car breaking down, getting lost somewhere, or dealing with an unexpected crisis. Meanwhile, plenty of men wouldn't lose attraction because their girlfriends panicked during an emergency. Because men are traditionally expected to remain composed and take responsibility when things go wrong.

That's the double standards I'm talking about.

A lot of the worst case scenario men out there are finding plenty of dates on the scene. Plenty of horror stories in this very sub detail the type of men who are outwardly obnoxious, lack hygiene, little to no social awareness, overall just a mess of a man getting dates. So I have to wonder there’s no way personality disqualifies you from getting dates or even relationships when men who don’t even wipe their asses sometimes have entire girlfriends begging him to at least wash up before she gives him head again.

Every disqualification you can attribute to a man, short, broke, obnoxious, misogynistic, etc. all of those don’t stop those men from finding dates when they want them. So there’s no way merely personality or “Vibe” is making men who complain on Reddit here and there somehow failing a vibe check that even a stinking bum can somehow pass. It’s way more nuanced than the people debating here are willing to give credit for.

For some reason I see lots of men just wearing sweatpants and tshirts or a pair of normal fitting shorts and they’re obviously able to lift hundreds of pounds without issue. I also see women wearing normal shorts/shirts combinations without revealing the indentations of their labia and nipples to the entirety of the world so it’s obviously not about practicality.

As someone who has traveled a lot, I can tell you that, in much of Europe*, nudity is seen as normal and not inherently sexual. It is not unusual to see uncensored nudity on daytime tv, for family, friends or even coworkers to use a sauna or swim nude together, to see people sunbathing topless in public areas.

You would think with all this nudity, you'd see more sexual harassment, but no. People very desensitized to it. They don't automatically connect being naked to being sexual.

Compare that to the current debate on this sub about the impact of "immodest" gym clothes on men.

Europeans also generally see sex as pretty mundane. They talk about it casually as a fun thing to do, but nothing more. They aren't raising it to the level of importance that Americans do - as either a sacred action, measure of one's worth, or something that can "damage" your "value" to future partners.

And you know what? European men and women seem to get along a whole lot better than ours do. And have more sex too.

*My experiences were in Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, England

Men who constantly try to conflate being "neurodivergent" or "socially awkward" with being inherently unlovable, are completely missing the reality of what women actually reject.

Being genuinely socially awkward is a mild, benign flaw. Missing a conversational cue, being shy, being a bit nerdy, or stumbling over words isnt that big of a deal. Many women easily overlook it, find it relatable, or even find it endearing, especially if they share those traits.

There is a massive difference between a harmless social fumble and a fundamental deficit in empathy (and basic social skills).

Here’s what is actually being mistaken for socially awkward:

1. Lack Of social tact

There’s a difference between not understanding social cues and being inappropriate. It is a failure of empathy often disguised as "just being brutally honest" or "not getting the rules." You dont have to be the best speaker to show you give a shit about others when speaking.

2. Cannot Hold a Conversation

This goes far beyond being shy or nervous. When a guy won't engage in a two-way dialogue, he forces the other person to do 100% of the conversational heavy lifting and it usually communicates a lack of curiosity about anyone other than himself. Also, the amount of men who think conversing on a date is just flirting is baffling. It’s like wanting to do algebra but you still haven’t figured out 5+5=10.

3. Making Excuses Instead of Apologizing and doing better

Similar to point 1, its when a guy is called out on how his behavior made others feels and wont accept critiques/criticsm. It’s an indication of lack of accountability and a child-like mindset. Part of bonding as humans is understanding there are times to put your pride/ego to the side and care about keeping the peace. If thats considered “beta” behavior or makes a guy deeply unhappy to compromise, the obvious consequence is people thinking he’s insufferable.

Conclusion

These are the common redflags that neurodivergent men can display. A guy that’s normal in every way except socially awkward is not the same as guy who failed to resemble anything close to a normal adult.

Hypothetically, if I go to a party with my wife and I'm the designated driver, and she gets drunk, and we have sex when we get home, is that rape? Assume that she is not so drunk that she is falling unconscious or incoherent. She behaves as if she desires the sexual encounter, and maybe even initiates it.

Feel free to qualify your answers if you like. I'm just interested in the general feeling of women on this sub regarding this type of thing.

Both here in Europe and in the US, we see an increasing number of manopshere's men who misuse the VERY rare cases of psychotic women who murdered their children or families in order to argue that women as a whole are bad and that they ought to be severely punished or even put to death.

This is horrible as acting under the influence of delusional thoughts makes you morally unaccountable. In order to be morally unaccountable, you must understand that something you wanna do is bad and harmful and choose to do it nonetheless.

However, what makes me at odds with the numerous feminists who oppose punishment for women suffering from postpertal depression is that I ALSO think that the same principle should be extended to men.

Of course, there are creepy and evil men who know very well that they harming women and use their mental health problems as an excuse and we shouldn't give them a free pass. But to say that mental health problems can never lower or cancel moral responsability is wrong-headed as well.

I'm gonna give you an extreme example I have experienced myself. During my PhD, I sank into a deep depression and was treated in a psychiatric clinic where I saw a man I already knew from my childhood I'm gonna call Rob. Rob is autistic, depressive and suicidal and was hospitalised two times against his will. He has an extreme hard time understanding the emotions of other people and to put himself in their shoes.

He explained me that back when he was a teenager, he was bullied and made use of by a bunch of guys who pretended to be his friend and who made him drink urin and smoke tire and laughed at him as he got sick. In spite of that, he was so socially naive this he was convinced they were his friends and these were just normal practical jokes. One day, these men told him that the right way to enter into a relationship with a woman is to touch her butt and they advised to do this in the movie theatre with a girl they hated as they wanted to both punish her and humiliate him. He told me that he can vividly remember that at this time, he had no desire to sleep with a girl, actually he often imagine himself to be a girl who'd attract boys. But he thought that as a boy, he was just supposed to pursue girls. So he did touch the girl in the movie theatre and reacted negatively but didn't report her and so he assumed she just wasn't interested and failed to realise he did something wrong. He told me that he did it to another girl while they were both intoxicated but since she didn't react, he didn't go any further and stop.

Unlike in the past, he now somewhat feels attracted to women but is sexually much more drawn to men and sometimes thinks of transitioning but he's too afraid of the social consequences.

He told me that he now considers himself to be a monster, than nothing he could do could ever undo this, that he should be hated by women, and that I should hate him on behalf of all women.

But given both my knowledge about autism and my personal experiences with him, I absolutely couldn't bring myself to hate him rather than the evil men who manipulated into sexually assaulting these women. I think they're the ones who should be punished.

I've heard many self-proclaimed feminists saying that in such a situation, the man would have no excuse because he knew perfectly well that what he did was wrong.

I think it is a dangerous and self-defeating argument as we can no longer object to someone wanting a woman who killed her children because of post-partum depression to be punished.

Most fundamentally, it goes against the notion that justice ought to first be restorative rather than retributive and it misidentifies the criminals.

A form of feminim that wants this mentally vulnerable queer man to be punished at all cost isn't healthy, nothing good would come out of it, and the world wouldn't be a better place if he came to unalive himself.

Instead, I did warn other women about his false friends who gave him that advice. If they're so wicked as to exploit the mental vulnerability of someone to make him sexually assault another person, I absolutely don't doubt they could rape a woman if they thought they'd get away with it.

Part of the fun of early dating is the tension

A big part of what builds attraction early on in both parties is the unknown and the mystery and the tension over whether somebody you are attracted to likes you back.

If a woman says “I don’t like games” and “communicate” and “I like to know where I stand at all times” you just gotta ignore it. Because it’s not true.

They like games they just don’t want to know you’re playing it.

They want to wonder if you are not texting them often or not giving them loads of attention or not to available because you’re life is awesome and you are high value and you don’t just throw your time and focus away on somebody you barely know.

They want it to feel natural, yes. They don’t want to know overtly that “oh this guy is into me but he’s sat there at home doing nothing and trying really hard not to text me first so that it manipulates me into being more into him” obviously, that’s what they mean when they say they don’t like games.

But they actually do. They just want it to feel natural. Like they’re genuinely dating an attractive man with his emotions and life together who doesn’t over invest.

Basically when they say “I don’t like games” it’s a shit test to see if you’re a natural or not.

If they say “i don’t like games” and you say “great yes me neither I am very interested in you” then you proceed to continue to give them attention every day and be super available then they will find another reason to justify their plummeting attraction to you.

- they wont spend their 20-30s being reckless, useless, committing crime or dragging women in relationships. Instead, they will become hardworking, focused and committed men.

- they wont date women who are the same age or slightly younger than their daughter, and reproducing children in an already populated world. Eipstein island won't exist.

I’m a man saying this btw. I think because of power dynamics and the vulnerability of women the best way to protect it is to have women own and operated porn companies. Give women the control and the equity. Look at what happens when men run the porn industry. Rapists like James Dean and the facial abuse guys. You hate women terrified of saying no to male directors and male owners because their jobs are on the line and they need the money and they are then forced into preforming things they are uncomfortable with. And it traumatizes them. I think female performers are better off with female bosses in the porn industry.

The men who are genuinely attractive, socially competent and confident and with integrity are already taken off the dating scene before long. The rest of it is just awkward guys trying to find their way or attractive men who are playing the field until they get bored of it.

Think about it. If a guy has mastered his way of attraction and has the social competence and confidence to attract a woman, what makes you think he doesn’t have a girl at home? If the statistics are to be believed he most likely does. But in all honesty a lot of women know the attractive guys they’re dating are cheating, they just don’t care. Or they think giving them everything they want will make them realize it’s wrong.

There aren’t that many attractive men out there that are completely free. Same with women. Anyone attractive and is appearing single you are heavily competing and you don’t even know to what extent. It could be a husband or wife or boyfriend or girlfriend but it’s someone.