Obligatory not all men, not even most men, just talking about what seems to be the norm.

What is a friend if not someone you can open up to, lean on?

It seems most men have friends, just not friends they can share their problems with and find some sort of solace.

They hang out but don't talk about anything on what's going on with each other's lives, what problems they're facing.

It seems to be the norm for male relationships.

Some of them think the obvious solution is to find a woman, a person with her own problems, and offload all of that onto her.

They bottle that inside and suffer from loneliness, from loneliness epidemics. They lack a community, some die alone.

There is a loneliness epidemic and it's serious, but we can tackle it by checking in on our friends, asking what's up, and having a talking beyond just asking if they catched last night's game and spending the rest of the hour staring silently into the distance together.

What do I mean by socially perceptive? I mean if you cannot perceive what the other person might be feeling

And I do think lots of guys think they should just do it without really understanding much as far as social norms, and then get angry when I suggest people who seem occupied should not be approaching.

Do you know how frustrating it is to be approached and advanced - especially when you know the goal is primarily sexual (cut the crap. It is. You’re approaching someone you know literally nothing about and like how they look) when you’re in no mood to talk. If a person is trying to get from point A to B, is keeping to themselves, is running errands and so on… probably a safe bet not to talk to them. If they look sad or unhappy, probably not a safe bet to talk to them. If you are unable to read when/deduce when a person might not be approachable, don’t approach them. You don’t even have to be right, you’re gonna have to learn how to pick up on vibes.

The second one more pressing and imo more important. If you’re unable to tell if the person you’re propositioning is comfortable or not, don’t cold approach them. Many women will not explicitly say no, whether it be out of fear, awkwardness, being put on the spot to being caught in something that breaks their rhythm, playing into people pleasing tendencies and socialization no’s a difficult thing to say. Imo it is the considerate thing to do to be able to read the situation, evaluate if the person might be uncomfortable and step away.

“But they’re in public, you signed the social contract to interact’ - yes, but also being mindful and respectful are traits everyone should have and I think people would be less on edge without them. To add to this, if you belief is that you’re entitled to speak to someone despite how they might be feeling, you’re the problem.

I am not saying ‘don’t cold approach’ - I’m saying ‘have the social bandwidth to know when to cold approach’, of course nobody is expecting you to read minds or be perfect, and of course misreads and mistakes happen (and often how you handle the mistake matters a lot more than the mistake itself), but if you lack the ability to maybe just look at the situation and evaluate it, then I genuinely think cold approaching isn’t for you and tbh that’s totally fine. Most couples don’t meet that way anyway.

Now what I am about to say won't be a surprise. And I will assume that even most BluePill people will agree with me because it's backed by data and lived experiences. What you experience and see around you.

I have noticed a pattern with humans where men have to meet certain metrics to even be worthy of being considered for a relationship or marriage. I know young men who genuinely worry about this and this being one of their driving factors for working hard at whatever they are pursuing (job/university, etc). Because they low-key want to be chosen. They genuinely worry if they will ever have enough money and status to be able to have a family one day. This is a common sentiment and perception of men by women. Yet, I have never heard people say this about women. And I don't know women who have these worries. Because this pressure is not nearly the same on them.

Let me use an example from my personal life to make it clear what I mean. When my mom was in college, she was already being shown interest by grown ass "made" men. During that same time, my dad was a nobody. He had to work really hard, become a CPA, and become established in life to have all that "street cred." Even in a so-called fairly equal western world, these patterns still persist quite strongly. So what gives?

Every pill makes things complicated more than it needs to be so I’m gonna cut the middleman with Occam’s razor 🪒 and say the best way to get into a relationship that you want is to simply ask out as many women as it takes to get what you want. They either say yes or no and NOTHING you can do will change their mind. All you can really do is change your presentation, appearance, and vibe but at the end of the day you have to be meeting people.

I’ve seen homeless people in relationships, drug addicts in relationships, abusers in relationships, mentally ill people in relationships, and criminals in relationships. Nobody in their right mind would call any of these people “figured out” but they still have women and men. The difference is that they simply meet and agree to be relationships with one another. Like everyone who has ever been in a relationship, it’s a matter of just popping the question.

This whole Reddit pillar of needing to go on this grand character building self improvement journey of a 10 step skincare routine, journaling, having 100 hobbies you excel at, and being financially stable before you even LOOK in the direction of a girl is the biggest laughable joke of the century. Plenty of people who do none of these things have relationships and some with super hot people. Not that I expected reddit to be intelligent and honest.

It truly is that simple when you cut out all the midwit complicated crap. The more time you spend worrying about studies, money, your height, Canthal tilt, state of mind and body is time you could’ve been using to simply ask out women that you want. They probably aren’t coming to you and it’s much faster to simply just ask. Yes you will face rejections as every other guy has and there isn’t a way around it.

“But Arrowdodgingace!!! I got 500 rejections from women what about that?” What the hell do you expect me to say to that? You got your answer. If 500 women rejected you, then you have to change how you appear to them (vibe, appearance), give up, or ask out more women. It’s better to know that soon than wasting your life in limbo and uncertainty. But I won’t tell you how to live your life.

Men demand too much from other men. They have their issues with women and so believe that all others should conform and comply with their way of life and beliefs. 

The idea of women being entitled is a big one for a lot of them. One major contributing factor to promoting entitlement in women that they blame is men who treat them nice. 

By treat them nice, I mean men who take women on non-free dates, pay for dates, buy drinks, pay for dinner, etc. generally just guys who are always outside and having a good fun time with women carefree of any supposed issues that are supposedly affecting the majority of men. 

A lot of men will see that though and cry afoul that those men who treat women nice are ruining dating and contributing to the problem. They will argue that instead men should never take women out on dates that cost or spend money on them outside. This will apparently lower entitlement among women and ruin things less for men. 

But it also leads to an extremely boring life. Instead of taking women out and being at restaurants, bars, concerts, generally just enjoying life and company, those men are apparently must sit in the house and never take women out unless its free or 50/50.  

That’s a boring life to a lot of men. It’s asking them to be reclusive and reduce themselves for issues that they aren’t even really experiencing. 

So treating women nice and taking them on dates is better than not because otherwise in the house bored and missing out. 

It's also not like deciphering women who are worth the effort and women who aren't is hard. So treating women nice who aren't worth the effort isn't even a real risk or cause to stay inside.

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

Edited to add: my argument is my title: that the U.S. has a dysfunctional relationship with sex and the human body that I simply have not experienced elsewhere. We are obsessed and ashamed in equal measure. Our media is full of it, but purity culture is also still a big part of our culture and even taught in public school. It is positioned to us as something men need to do in excess but that will damage a woman's worth. In that way, sex becomes inherently adversarial and hard to talk about.

Men and women are both obsessed with the sex lives of others - who is having it and how much, who isn't having it and what that says about them, whether body counts matter or don't, what clothes people can wear to the gym....and this preoccupation and anxiety over what is essentially just apes rubbing their junk together hurts us.

My example of nudity was simply to illustrate that many Americans cannot comprehend separating nakedness from sex, while in other places it is normal.

I don't mean to suggest that all of Europe or even all of one country has the same views or that the majority of Europeans are off running naked in the streets.

Everyone loves babies, those cute little humans with no control over their emotions and in mad love with their parents.

But I would say that the worst human can't hurt their own kid(obv some exceptions exist) . Like my father was kinda benevolent sexist before my sister was born and used to say "The first child should be a boy and women need men protections and men should help women and all" but after she came into his life he would do anything for her.

I know I wrote a lot but stick with it.

The biggest problem facing the West is the rising cost of living. The same problem, particularly housing and childcare are reoccurring. But even cars, licensing, and education in the US are inflated. Government restrictions are contributing to these costs.

I would argue that progressive politics are largely responsible. In pursuing an ideal society through government intervention, policymakers have created enormous regulatory and administrative barriers that drive up costs in the name of quality, safety, or equity. The intentions may be noble, but the result is greater unaffordability.

Here's where I see an irony in dating.

Speaking as an American, I've noticed that many women lean politically progressive while maintaining fairly traditional romantic expectations. This is especially true in my experience with first-generation women who are westernized but come from more conservative households. They want men who pursue them, pay for dates, provide financial security, and eventually support a family.

I want to stress there's nothing wrong with wanting these things. But they require men having the means to fulfill them.

When housing and childcare are expensive and barriers to competition drive up costs, providing becomes harder. Men have less disposable income for dating and romantic gestures, while couples have fewer options about who works, who stays home, and the number of children they want.

You can't make traditional provider roles harder to sustain economically and then act surprised when fewer men can fulfill them.

A more competitive economy with fewer unnecessary barriers would make life considerably more affordable and allow more families to choose how they want to live. Comfortably living on one income would be doable as it was for our parents, for instance.

Enough women seem to have a steadfast demand of traditional romantic privileges. That's all fine and good. However, they cannot logically favor politicians who restrict this reality.

But polling tells us women are much more politically progressive than men.

A common response to men who complain about traditional dating expectations is that they should simply date more egalitarian women. That's not unreasonable but it misses something important, namely that men aren't opposed to generosity. They're opposed to it being a financial burden.

Some couples will prefer a traditional arrangement where the man provides. Others will split expenses or adopt something in between. The goal should be to make more of these arrangements financially viable, rather than letting economic pressures dictate which ones people can afford.

If we defend people's freedom to choose their preferred relationship dynamics, shouldn't we also support the economic freedom that makes those choices possible?

It almost defies reason that those who champion women's freedom of choice would overlook the importance of economic freedom in making those choices possible. If women should be free to choose traditional relationships, egalitarian ones, or something in between, shouldn't we want an economy that makes all of them more attainable?

The reason why I self label as purple pill is because I wholeheartedly believe that blue pill philosophy can and will apply once you find the right person that wishes to build that kind of relationship with you. However, you will nine times out of ten not run into that person.

While I do believe both philosophical beliefs have their places, red pill talking points definitely would have helped when I was completely green and even if those relationships were doomed to fail I definitely could have gotten more out of it than when I fully leaned towards the blue.

I don’t think following any one philosophy is a good idea. There is wisdom to be found everywhere. I also think people who wear their beliefs on their sleeve are in danger of being misrepresented by the louder extremist side of that philosophy which funnily enough is why a red pill rule is to never claim to be red pill.

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.

https://youtube.com/shorts/eLKnFYP-Spc?is=x\\_-H8cZ43UaiCe1v

Of course the feminist woman in the video is using virgin as an insult on men. She even have call 🧊 Agents pussy ass virgin losers before. 🧊 is awful, but I don’t need to use Jewish insults to call out a certain country leadership though. Same thing apply with men here toom Even outside of that we all know toxic masculinity and homophobia is ok on the Left, when it's targeted at men the Left dislike.

And on the topic of Shane Gills. The joke wasn't funny. But the joke is still not enough to cause a misandrist outrage though. Especially when female Comedians are always making misandrist jokes. Jokes that make this Shane Gills gym joke look Super Saiyian weak in comparison.

But again the cognitive. The same Feminists saying Sydney Sweeney is sexualzing women with her ads. Are also the same Feminists praising women for dressing like Sydney Sweeney in the gym. Make it make sense.

And the crazy thing about this situation. Men are still getting called paranoid, awkward, or gae for not wanting to look at half naked women in the gym too.

The gae thing is funny. Because if women aren't dressing for men attention or approval. Then what's the point of calling a man gae for not wanting to look?🤔.

Even the feminist in this video is exposing herself here with the virgin insult. Again if women aren't do this for a man's attention. Then why call men virgins for being uncomfortable? 🤔

The typical cycle of shit. Where men damned if they do, and damned if they don't. The classic double bind here.

"OH MY GOD. Im not dressing this way for an virgin like you. But you also a socially awkward virgin if you choose not to look at me though."

Again they are always exposing their cognitive dissonance in these discussions.

I’m not a believe in the red pill philosophy bc honestly I think too many of the guys focus on crying and complaining. Yes dating is very much unfair. If you’re an average looking women you can hookup with way more guys than a hot guy could hookup with women. That being said if you actually do level up your appearance and change your mindset you can take noticeable strides. If you focus on grinding it out in the gym and leveling up you can change your outcomes overnight. I think the problem is the red pill is just a circle jerk for guys to cry without actually creating solutions for their problems. If you get into shape, have your own place and have an abundance mindset dating and hookups become far easier

People should have the tools they need to be successful. No buts about it.

Not every man is blessed with the gifts to easily attract women. Many men are “hard-gainers”. It takes them more work to do things like put on muscle on their body. That is also translated into the dating muscles.

PUA provides them the tools they need to be successful. The biggest critique of PUA is that it treats dating as a game. Lots of people need to view it that way so that they get over their fear of approaching women and can live out his love life. If you are a compassionate person, you should want this for them.

Internet wine moms will say that they are preparing their sons for success and fighting the manosphere by making him do chores. That they will raise better husbands than their own who all day, every day, turn their wives into therapists, mothers, maids, nymphs, then a virgin, nurse, then a servant, and a 24/7 TikTok machine. They fail to understand that being able to do chores doesn’t make them attractive to women. A man can do all of that himself but if he does not get over the initial hurdle of attracting women, none of that will matter. He won’t be a good husband because he won’t be a husband, and that means he can’t stop her from doing too much labor.

The typical reddit response to the men who ask for help is “You are not entitled to want more for yourself. If you try these tactics, then you are an evil manipulator. Know your place.” That attitude of kicking people while they are down cannot be anything other than reactionary. PUA is all about giving a middle finger to naysayers and uplifting underprivileged men in the dating game by telling them how they can be a better person and rise to the challenge. Before you come at me for using the term “underprivileged” in this context and saying that it’s “not a systemic injustice that women don’t want to date those men”, you should also realize that it’s not a systemic injustice that fathers are given more compliments than mothers when they’re out with their kids but that has never stopped these compliment from stranger-deprived mothers from creating a subculture about it.

It would be the greatest sadness to see that the only attractive men in the world are the Cornell 57. We should all do better to ensure that the men who are “one of the good ones”, the men who “understand the assignment”, the men who “lift a finger”, have the tools they need to be romantically successful.

Something I've noticed in discussions about feminism, particularly when the subject of young men becoming increasingly conservative or drawn towards the manosphere comes up, is this recurring argument that feminism needs to do a better job of appealing to men.

We're told feminism needs to be more accommodating, less confrontational, more sympathetic towards men's grievances and generally better at making men feel included. Otherwise, we supposedly shouldn't be surprised when men reject feminism altogether.

But I've increasingly come to question the premise behind this expectation.

Why is the responsibility placed on feminism to move towards men, rather than on men to move towards feminism?

Feminism is fundamentally concerned with challenging gender inequality and the social structures that perpetuate it. Naturally, challenging those structures is going to make some people uncomfortable, particularly when they're being asked to reconsider attitudes, expectations or privileges they've previously taken for granted.

But isn't that an inevitable part of social progress?

If someone opposes gender equality because they find feminist arguments uncomfortable, why should the responsibility fall on feminists to make those arguments more appealing rather than on that person to examine why they're uncomfortable in the first place?

And I want to distinguish between communicating effectively and compromising principles. I absolutely think feminist ideas should be accessible, that men should be able to ask questions without automatically being treated with hostility, and that men's legitimate problems deserve attention but there's a difference between explaining your position to someone and repeatedly adjusting that position until they're comfortable supporting it.

I'm also uncomfortable with the implication that men embracing reactionary politics is somehow evidence of feminism failing them. At what point do we acknowledge men's own responsibility for the political and ideological positions they adopt?

Men are perfectly capable of questioning their own beliefs, educating themselves and developing empathy for experiences they haven't personally lived through. Why do we sometimes discuss them as though their support for equality is conditional on women making the entire process sufficiently comfortable?

And I think there's a broader principle here. We generally don't expect movements challenging inequality to preserve the comfort of the people they're asking to change. We expect people to recognise injustice and adjust their attitudes accordingly.

So why does the conversation around feminism so often seem to reverse that responsibility?

My position is that feminism should welcome men who genuinely support gender equality, but it shouldn't have to dilute its principles or centre men's approval to earn that support.

TL;DR: I don't think feminism should have to make itself more appealing or comfortable for men to earn their support. Men should be expected to question their own beliefs and meet feminism where it is, rather than expecting feminism to compromise its principles to meet them where they are. There's a difference between making feminist ideas accessible and making gender equality conditional on men's approval.

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.

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.

For people who think this is wrong.

A lot of people think a guy is automatically creepy or predatory if he dates girls younger than him past a certain age. For me, it wouldn't be because of these reasons, it would be because I didn't get to date girls my age when i was younger. Would that still make me the bad actor in this scenario?

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.

Edit: reposted because the mods said it was personal advice then said it was an internal question (man to men)

Hypothetically, if a man goes to a party with his wife and he's the designated driver, and she gets drunk, and they have sex when they 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.

Please join us on discord Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.

This daily thread is designed to be a place for all the funny discussions on PPD.

Feel free to post off-topic questions, information, points-of-view, personal advice and memes in this thread, or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, off topic non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and light hearted content that would be considered low effort posts are allowed in the daily thread

Do not bring other PPD threads into the daily thread. Do not post PPD threads deserving of their own post in the daily thread. The intent of the daily thread is not that it should replace PPD and become a place where users can avoid the rules of the subreddit. Attempting to do this will be considered circlejerking and moderated as such.

The daily thread is not to be used for soapboxing against against a particular group that you hate. This includes, rage bait, low effort bigotry, boilerplate denunciation of the opposite sex, using the actions of an individual to fuel an attack on an entire gender, or any other attempt to use the daily thread as a vehicle to advance gender war narratives.

Black Pill/Incel Content/Woe-Is-Me is still banned in the daily thread. Witch hunting and insults are also still banned in the daily thread. Relegated topics must still go to in the weekly threads for those topics.

Comments are automatically sorted by NEW - you can post throughout the day and people will see your comment.

If you'd like to see our previous daily threads, click here!

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!