# Men are partly responsible for women lying about Promiscuous pasts???



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> Well people class having preferences and standards as shaming. So how else do we stop it, other than making it illegal.


I think it's different. I know everyone isn't going to have the same preferences as me, but I'm not going to tell anyone that they have to be a certain way to attract a mate. An exception to that might be hating and blaming others for your problems is a bad dating strategy. In these cases, a little bit of shame might be useful.


recycled_lube_oil said:


> Whilst I am in agreement, when it comes to relationships, I don't think it applies so much. People are free to have preferences and likewise, those who get dumped due to those preferences (men or women) need to accept that life ain't fair. Does this apply to how people handle credit, wanna get married, wanna see my finances, well mind your own fucking business. Yeah, that would work, right?


If someone is healthy and mature, they are going to find a partner.


----------



## NIHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Mark R said:


> If you are socially clueless as a woman, you're pure. You attract men.


So you're saying my autism makes me pure and attractive? Man normally some of society treat it like it's a disease. I mean technically I could pass it on to my offspring so ... . I've never been told it's a turn on. Or does saying the word Autism change your opinion about the pure part? I've never really let it slow me down, I have my close friends but I make no wrong assumptions here thinking that it helps me find mates. Trust me I don't say I'm social awkward to bash my eyelashes and come off pure. I say it because I can't lie easily or not at all, autism trait. I always snort when people say they want someone that tells the truth all the time, no they dont. I say I have no game because I've lived in my body for 40+ years and might have empirical data of observation of what I've been through. Though I do think I'm a good lover and very loyal so I'm happy my husband loves me. I was in my mid thirties when that happened.



> Blaming others for your problems is a sad state to be in.


I don't understand the above... when did I blame others for my problems. If I did I'm sorry.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

NIHM said:


> So you're saying my autism makes me pure and attractive? Man normally some of society treat it like it's a disease. I mean technically I could pass it on to my offspring so ... . I've never been told it's a turn on. Or does saying the word Autism change your opinion about the pure part? I've never really let it slow me down, I have my close friends but I make no wrong assumptions here thinking that it helps me find mates. Trust me I don't say I'm social awkward to bash my eyelashes and come off pure. I say it because I can't lie easily or not at all, autism trait. I always snort when people say they want someone that tells the truth all the time, no they dont. I say I have no game because I've lived in my body for 40+ years and might have empirical data of observation of what I've been through. Though I do think I'm a good lover and very loyal so I'm happy my husband loves me. I was in my mid thirties when that happened.


Despite the obvious social impairment that I wouldn't wish on anyone, autism does have some positives like being able to retain facts and the ability to focus on certain things.

1) Some people consider a reduced body count a good thing in women.
2) Social impairment reduces the body count (seen as purity by some).
3) This somewhat mitigates the damage done by social impairment.

Autistic people typically are not liars and manipulators as you said, so it is more that type of purity.


NIHM said:


> I don't understand the above... when did I blame others for my problems. If I did I'm sorry.


I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the men who are angry at other men for getting all the action and are angry at the women who choose them


----------



## NIHM (Mar 24, 2014)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> Well people class having preferences and standards as shaming. So how else do we stop it, other than making it illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No they're probably not unique. But man I did touch a nerve. Did you actually spend time looking all those up? The cute animal one reminds me not to be vulnerable on this site, highly regret it now. Damn fi. Hum I thought some of those could be fun topics for my ENFP group. I never said I don't come up with unique topics. I think I've actually stated I suck at being social and I'm weird. I said this specific thought about females having to much sex has been brought up a lot. But I guess we all recycle things. 

But yeah I'm boring and weird, you're not showing what I already know. But you're making a great point that I don't lie about how awkward I am. Lmao. I gave a good chuckle to the irony of this. Being bullied about being boring after I said I had no game. 😆 sorry I have a weird since of humor. You're just really getting me going today. 




> So you think lying about the past is OK? Well thats your perogative.


I don't lie easily and slightly jealous of those that do. There are many reasons why the average healthy adult can and does lie. On the daily most average people lie 2.8 times a day. Someone lying about their past could have many reasons. If it's a stranger maybe I just haven't gained their trust or they're afraid. I don't really force the issue on them and it's not an upsetting event for me. Just almost everyone I know lies. If you lie to much you could have aspd and if you lie to little or not enough you could be apart of the spectrum. I mean I know a sociopath really well, you want to talk about lying. I'm not going to hate her for it. 





> have no issues with Bee's. That is a strange comment. Running out of meds?


You missed the whole point of this. Meaning that's an odd question to ask. It's random isn't it? It's out of place. It's just as odd as the questions you asked me. 



> Whilst I am in agreement, when it comes to relationships, I don't think it applies so much. People are free to have preferences and likewise, those who get dumped due to those preferences (men or women) need to accept that life ain't fair. Does this apply to how people handle credit, wanna get married, wanna see my finances, well mind your own fucking business. Yeah, that would work, right.


Again you keep putting words in my mouth and making odd jumps in logic. 

I don't care what someone previously did in their loved life with others. If they go into a relationship and tell me they slept with 10 but only 2, I don't care. If they tell me they slept with 2 and it's 23 I don't care. I will care if they have an std. I will care if they suck at pleasuring me. I will care if they raped someone. I mean those values I might care about. I will care if they smell really bad or like sleeping next to a tick tock clock or if they hate sleeping with out a fan. But that's btw me and them at that moment in time. The past is the past. I would hope that they wouldn't lie to me about things but would be ok with it because almost everyone lies. If they don't know me well I might expect it. It's a pattern I've observed from every normal person out there. Not that they're perfect people in this world, no one is perfect. But when I mean normal I mean belonging to a bell curve of averages. Anyways probably will not reply again to you.


----------



## NIHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Mark R said:


> Despite the obvious social impairment that I wouldn't wish on anyone, autism does have some positives like being able to retain facts and the ability to focus on certain things.
> 
> 1) Some people consider a reduced body count a good thing in women.
> 2) Social impairment reduces the body count (seen as purity by some).
> ...


Ahh thank you for the clarification. 

Also an interesting and enlightening conclusion. I've always liked your posts.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

NIHM said:


> No they're probably not unique. But man I did touch a nerve. Did you actually spend time looking all those up? The cute animal one reminds me not to be vulnerable on this site, highly regret it now. Damn fi. Hum I thought some of those could be fun topics for my ENFP group. I never said I don't come up with unique topics. I think I've actually stated I suck at being social and I'm weird. I said this specific thought about females having to much sex has been brought up a lot. But I guess we all recycle things.


I have no qualm with being unoriginal and recycling things. Everything most people say these days has been said before anyway. 



> But yeah I'm boring and weird, you're not showing what I already know. But you're making a great point that I don't lie about how awkward I am. Lmao. I gave a good chuckle to the irony of this. Being bullied about being boring after I said I had no game. 😆 sorry I have a weird since of humor. You're just really getting me going today.


Well happy I gave you a chuckle.



> I don't lie easily and slightly jealous of those that do. There are many reasons why the average healthy adult can and does lie. On the daily most average people lie 2.8 times a day. Someone lying about their past could have many reasons. If it's a stranger maybe I just haven't gained their trust or they're afraid. I don't really force the issue on them and it's not an upsetting event for me. Just almost everyone I know lies. If you lie to much you could have aspd and if you lie to little or not enough you could be apart of the spectrum. I mean I know a sociopath really well, you want to talk about lying. I'm not going to hate her for it.


I tell white lies a bit. Except for when people say they want the truth and honesty, I give them exactly what they ask for. They never seem grateful that I respected their wishes either.




> You missed the whole point of this. Meaning that's an odd question to ask. It's random isn't it? It's out of place. It's just as odd as the questions you asked me.


If someone says to me "X is bad", "we shouldn't do it". My first thought is "how would we stop X", my next thought is "what would life be like without X".



> Again you keep putting words in my mouth and making odd jumps in logic.


You stated "This world needs more of mind your own damn business.". So I am applying that idea to other parts of relationships.



> I don't care what someone previously did in their loved life with others. If they go into a relationship and tell me they slept with 10 but only 2, I don't care. If they tell me they slept with 2 and it's 23 I don't care. I will care if they have an std. I will care if they suck at pleasuring me. I will care if they raped someone. I mean those values I might care about. I will care if they smell really bad or like sleeping next to a tick tock clock or if they hate sleeping with out a fan. But that's btw me and them at that moment in time. The past is the past. I would hope that they wouldn't lie to me about things but would be ok with it because almost everyone lies. If they don't know me well I might expect it. It's a pattern I've observed from every normal person out there. Not that they're perfect people in this world, no one is perfect. But when I mean normal I mean belonging to a bell curve of averages. Anyways probably will not reply again to you.


Yes people lie. But the thing with lying is get away with it, not get caught. If I catch someone lying, I lose trust. 

Anyway, have a nice day.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

NIHM said:


> Lols why are you replying to my comment with these questions. I'm laughing so hard right now. Where did I imply anything to suggest these questions? If you're going to ignore history that's on you. But don't ask me if I dislike fire and then ask me a question if I like to drown. At least make this a logical point.


I think he makes a perfectly valid question, following your logic to its logical conclusion.


NIHM said:


> Right? Logic has left the building. I mean we had one person try to explain it's because females might get pregnant from one of the dudes... not looking at the other side that one guy can knock up lots of females and take them out of the market. With that logic you think the beta males would get upset more at a man being busy with all the girls.... 😆


No, they wouldn't. Because heterosexual men don't want to date other men. They don't care if other men have slept with 1 or 10.000 women. They however care whether the women they want to be in a relationship with has slept with other men or not. Being mad at Claude for sleeping with Jessica is just dumb. If Claude was chaste and didn't sleep with Jessica despite finding her attractive not to "break the market" Jessica would have instead slept with Ken. See, Jessica is the problem here not Claude. When it comes to a woman having 1 partner or 20 partners there is only 1 constant factor: the woman. So being mad at man being busy with all the girls is pretty non-sense, because the woman is "at fault" if you want to call promiscuity that.

If you want to blame men for that fine, but that's not how it works no amount of you wishing men would blame men for that would make men blame men for that. It makes as much logic as having a dog who keeps biting every person on the street and then making a case that it's actually every person on the street that is at fault and men should be upset over that, not about the dog.


NIHM said:


> I'm just making the very one sided conclusion that you seem to be dense about. Do you think this post is unique? I've heard this post made a thousand times. This exact topic. Either by females hating females or males hating females that do it. It gets a little old. I've seen one chad posts but it went over the inability to land a women not because they had too much sex but because they couldn't get any.
> 
> You also missed the point on how ridiculous I thought the origin argument of a girl getting pregnant to be used why she can't have sex so you missed the point completely about me making a joke for the male perspective both being pretty stupid invalid excuses to prevent consenting adults from having sex. If your criteria for dating is solely on how many bangs she's had and if she's lied about it, that's your thing. It's not my criteria for a male.
> 
> ...


He didn't seem dense to me at all, he came across very reasonable and up straight about it. It's you on the other hand to tries very hard to make a big fuss about it like "omg I'm laughing so hard right now, just spilled my milk over my boss and now I have fallen over the chair". I don't think you realise your laughing is irrelevant. You can laugh that 9/11 happened, you can laugh for the dumbest reasons known to mankind, people are going to take your laughing as a sign that you are very confident in yourself, but not as a sign that you are right.

Incels hate Chads for one simple reason - envy. Incels by definition, can't get women. Chads by definition, get all the women they want. Not going to comment on the manosphere in-fighting as I don't know much about that, but I ultimately agree with his point that men cannot decide what other men do or don't do. Nor can they decide what women do or don't do. But both men & women can decide what their preferences and standards are.

This seems to be completely contradictory to your point that "why is there such a big fuss about it! as long as it's 2 adults having consent everything is okay!". And then getting upset that posts like these exist. Yes, as long as it's 2 adults having consent everything is okay, 100% agree with that, but, that doesn't change anything of what he said. His point is still 100% valid in spite of that supposed "counter-argument" you are proposing. As long as it's 2 adults having consent everything is okay, but at the same time, both men & women, and for men promiscous women are not one of their preferences in terms of who they want to be in a relationship with.

He puts it very neatly here: All we can decide as a man, is whom we decide to allow into our lives and for those men, I guess promiscuous women are not in that group. This does not contradict at all that as long as it's 2 adults having consent everything is okay, the 2 work perfectly together.

So his question that _"Would you like to live in a world where preferences and standards were outlawed? Tell me how that would be a good thing?"_ is perfectly reasonable given your original argument, but your response seems out of the blue and non-sensical to the subject at hand.

You clearly have a hate towards men caring about how many partners a woman has had before them, not sure if hate but strong dislike to say at least, you find it unfair. I already explained the reasons for this in my original post on this topic so I'm not going to repeat it here as well as why "you're an incel" is an insult for men but a virtue for women, if you're an "incel women" that's actually a good thing and to be praised. (don't you find that double standards? why are you mad at one double standard but not at another? I'm not mad at either of these double standards for the record, I just accept them as they are)

As he said, men don't make the rules, they play the rules. And I think that is true for women as well, they don't make the rules but play the rules they have been given. If you're upset with the rules.... don't hate the player hate the game.

Now to your actual response that wasn't at all related to the question he sent you, which you avoided.

No, this post is not unqiue. Ok, you have heard this post made a thousand times. So? you don't seem to be making any single point, except for the fact that you're mad about it. Which is kind of irrelevant.

If it gets old you can just simply skip it, not click on this topic, but you are clearly emotionally invested in this topic for some reason therefore your reactions. There are tons of topic I just read and leave them at that, simply because I'm not interested in them or don't think I have anything to contribute. Most topics I just read the title don't like it and then look at the next title, so "it gets old" is really a subjective argument, basically saying that the whole world should do what you want because you want it, because you don't like it.

He didn't miss the point that you find it ridiculous, but you missed the point that you finding it ridiculous means nothing. You find it ridiculous, so what? if you have any actual reasoning, you're welcome to give it (probably the reason was that "men should be mad at men fallacy"), you're acting as if somehow you finding it ridiculous makes you entiteld to be right. You find it ridiculous, doesn't mean it's ridiculous. It's just denial.

"both being pretty stupid invalid excuses to prevent consenting adults from having sex" is just the buzzword for "I don't like it". I already explained above how he doesn't deny or contradict the fact that as long as it's 2 adults having consent everything is okay. And those pretty stupid invalid excuses are just you being offended by it, there are pretty good reasons behind it, already explained in my original post on this topic, but if you don't want to believe them or have a different opinion that's okay.

I've had one night stands. So I'm all for as long as it's 2 adults having consent everything is okay, it's just that I wouldn't go home with those girls to show them to my parents. I know you will get pretty upset by this fact, but I don't care, I'm living my life not your life. I'm not telling you who to marry or what to do. This is exactly his point about _"Would you like to live in a world where preferences and standards were outlawed? Tell me how that would be a good thing?"_ and why this question is perfectly logical despite your protest and making you fall off the chair.

Yes, I know it's not your criteria for a male. It's not women's criteria for males in general. In fact, it's the opposite: You can insult a woman by calling her a hoe, but not a man, that's a quality, it means he was selected by other women before, he was pre-selected therefore he's good and valueable.

The average woman is not that affected by a man's body count, by contrast, may even get esteem or boost herself by a man's body count _"look, I got a man who got all these women, he was pre-selected, clearly all these women knew he was a good catch, so I got a good catch"_.

You don't like the fact that men care about a woman's promiscuity, but for women is actually the opposite as in a man's promiscuity might even be a benefit meaning he was pre-selected by other women before meaning she got a good catch? double standards? yes. But at the same time, consider that _"as a man is very difficult to be a Chad (sleep with tons of women) but as a woman is literally flawless to be a hoe (sleep with tons of men)"_. As a man, it's quite literally an achievement if you managed to sleep with 50 women. As a woman, it's not, it's the opposite, you have nothing special, you just have to go to a guy and ask him _"do you want to have sex?"_. You don't need any other quality beside the ability to go out there and ask for sex. This can make it out for you if the _"if your man sleeps with another woman you can be 100% sure that the child is yours"_, this is literally not the case for men, argument doesn't cut it for you.

As said previously, you might find it unconvincing. But consider it from a male perspective if you can. Imagine if your man cheated, the state would come and take your kid. Through no fault of your own. How much would that suck?

Literally, if your man went and slept with another woman, the state officials would come and take your child arguing that _"you are not a good mother"_, how much would that suck? and how careful would it be about your man's promiscuity after that? would it be okay for you to say "as long as it's 2 adults having consent everything is okay" including your husband after that?

This is why men care more about a woman promiscuity than a woman about a man's promiscuity. You might be offended by it, but won't change the reality that men face. This is literally something that men always have into account. This is why you hear rap song lyrics like "you don't treat the one that you lovin' with the same respect that you treat the one that you humpin" but you don't hear the female equivalent of that in literally any rap song written by a woman like ever. Because women don't have a problem with that. Because if you gave birth, it's your child.

And there are other double standards too, like height. Men don't care about height, as long as you don't have dwarfism men don't care about a woman's height whether it's tall men or short men. But a woman does care about a man's height, a lot. It's one of the most attractive things he can have. But literally there's no way to say "one of the best things you can do to improve your looks is improve your height". Because you can't improve your height. Women on the other hand seem more concenred with the fact that men judge them by their weight, which I'm not advocating being judgmental towards fat people but am going to say that yes being thin or fit makes you more attractive and unlike height your weight is absolutely one of the things you can work on. So you can absolutely take the advice that "one of the best things you can do to improve your looks is improve your weight", because unlike height it's not set in stone, it's difficult to do it to become more attractive but doable. What can you do about these double standards? you can either be offended by it, or figure out how to best use them to work them out in your advantage, like if a man likes women with long hair figure out how to get a long hair so that men like you rather than be upset that women don't have the same standards for men and women don't actually demand men to have long hair to like them. From your response, it seems you choose the former, being offended by it, being upset by reality because you don't like it, rather than accept it and adapt to use it best to your advantage.

So yeah, fine, be offended all you want, but won't change reality. Won't change "the rules" if you will, because there are biological reasons for it, when you will be able to make all women on the planet not care whether a man is missing an arm, then, I will say that I was wrong and you can indeed change the rules if you don't believe them hard enough and make other people believe in your version of events hard enough, but until then, don't hate the player hate the game.

I know this may come across as a rant, but really I have nothing against you, all of this was directed against your message, none of it was against you personally.

EDIT: Just read the part where you said you have autism, I'm sorry if any of my message has robbed you the wrong way, I do not know how autism works or what is the difference between autism or neurotypical but I'll try to abstain from making bold statements that could cause you an upset from now on and I'm sorry if I did caused you to become upset in our conversation, I hope you can understand that this was not my intention and this is simply my opinion. Please let me know if there's anything that bothered you and I'll stop doing that.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

If you're non-judgmental you won't ever have problems like this one, they'll be sincere.


----------



## NIHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Dezir said:


> I think he makes a perfectly valid question, following your logic to its logical conclusion.


I disagree. It's like skipping steps 2 through 30 when you're only on step 1. Which is a highly escalated question. It's a snowball argument that never really works well in a debate because of the absurdity. It's like asking someone if they like honey and then they say no so you ask the more absurd question which does not correlate with any evidence to ask it "do you think all bees should die?" It's random and in no way proves that because someone dislikes honey they want all bees to die. I found the question to be of absurd quality. It's more of confused what like why?



> No, they wouldn't. Because heterosexual men don't want to date other men. They don't care if other men have slept with 1 or 10.000 women. They however care whether the women they want to be in a relationship with has slept with other men or not. Being mad at Claude for sleeping with Jessica is just dumb. If Claude was chaste and didn't sleep with Jessica despite finding her attractive not to "break the market" Jessica would have instead slept with Ken. See, Jessica is the problem here not Claude. When it comes to a woman having 1 partner or 20 partners there is only 1 constant factor: the woman. So being mad at man being busy with all the girls is pretty non-sense, because the woman is "at fault" if you want to call promiscuity that.


This makes no sense to me. Just as much as guys getting angry at making 20 girls pregnant does not make sense. Do you get it now? I was deliberately making an absurd response to your comparison. Not to justify it.



> If you want to blame men for that fine, but that's not how it works no amount of you wishing men would blame men for that would make men blame men for that. It makes as much logic as having a dog who keeps biting every person on the street and then making a case that it's actually every person on the street that is at fault and men should be upset over that, not about the dog.


When did I start blaming men for what? And this whole paragraph makes no sense to me. Like please take a moment to read it and tell me if that reads well to you. Read it out loud, that helps me. I suck at language too.

I read it several times and you're saying men wouldn't blame men. The other guy just used Chad's as an example to blame men for something I suggested which was a ridiculous notion to begin with.



> He didn't seem dense to me at all, he came across very reasonable and up straight about it. It's you on the other hand to tries very hard to make a big fuss about it like "omg I'm laughing so hard right now, just spilled my milk over my boss and now I have fallen over the chair". I don't think you realise your laughing is irrelevant.


I do laugh easily and normally correspond to my meaning or thought process online. Some people like to add fake meanings to your responses. I find it more effective. If I'm sad, I'm sad. If I'm laughing, I'm laughing. If I'm mad, I'll say I'm mad. I thought the joke was funny. Come on now tension between an ESTP and INFJ, you didn't find that that funny?



> You can laugh that 9/11 happened


That's an absurd conclusion, why would you think very many people would laugh at 9/11?



> you can laugh for the dumbest reasons known to mankind, people are going to take your laughing as a sign that you are very confident in yourself, but not as a sign that you are right.


Correction they could take it as I'm a very peculiar individual that has a weird sense of humor but I agree I can laugh over dumb things. I am actually pretty confident in myself most days but not all days. I'm not right all the time. Maybe in math.




> , but I ultimately agree with his point that men cannot decide what other men do or don't do. Nor can they decide what women do or don't do. But both men & women can decide what their preferences and standards are.


I can agree with this.



> This seems to be completely contradictory to your point that "why is there such a big fuss about it! as long as it's 2 adults having consent everything is okay!". And then getting upset that posts like these exist.


I said that I'm upset that post like these exists? I thought I said this topic has been brought up a lot. He seems to be unaware of that fact in his reply to me when trying to defend my useless and absurd suggestion, completely missing the point. That both suggestions are absurd and odd to me. Try not to put meaning where it is not. I don't remember saying I was upset.



> Yes, as long as it's 2 adults having consent everything is okay, 100% agree with that, but, that doesn't change anything of what he said. His point is still 100% valid in spite of that supposed "counter-argument" you are proposing. As long as it's 2 adults having consent everything is okay, but at the same time, both men & women, and for men promiscous women are not one of their preferences in terms of who they want to be in a relationship with.


Ok, I already answered his original question. Didn't he blame men for this? I answered that I blame society, both groups do it. Both females and males have led to the idea and perception. I wouldn't say it's a landslide 100%. There are some males posting in here that don't seem to mind. His reply to me wasn't my original answer but something absurd I saw your post about females being pregnant. I know you don't like it when I say I laughed but I did. I can't help it, have to tell the truth.



> He puts it very neatly here: All we can decide as a man, is whom we decide to allow into our lives and for those men, I guess promiscuous women are not in that group. This does not contradict at all that as long as it's 2 adults having consent everything is okay, the 2 work perfectly together.


Redundant point since I already answered that you're pointing out something I never said.



> So his question that _"Would you like to live in a world where preferences and standards were outlawed? Tell me how that would be a good thing?"_ is perfectly reasonable given your original argument, but your response seems out of the blue and non-sensical to the subject at hand.


He didn't quote my original response. He quoted my absurd point that made no sense because I was pointing out your absurd point.



> You clearly have a hate towards men caring about how many partners a woman has had before them, not sure if hate but strong dislike to say at least, you find it unfair.


I do? I don't really have an opinion either way about it. I might dislike the inequality about it but hate or even dislike is a strong word choice. So I might find it unfair so that's true.



> I already explained the reasons for this in my original post on this topic so I'm not going to repeat it here as well as why "you're an incel" is an insult for men but a virtue for women, if you're an "incel women" that's actually a good thing and to be praised. (don't you find that double standards? why are you mad at one double standard but not at another? I'm not mad at either of these double standards for the record, I just accept them as they are)


I find them both unfair terms. I'm not mad at either but hopefully one day with calm teaching and understanding like these discussions it might change one person's perspective to better the world. I'm not the teacher in this scenario. I don't have enough care about it. I simply replied to the philosophical post and greatly regret it.



> As he said, men don't make the rules, they play the rules. And I think that is true for women as well, they don't make the rules but play the rules they have been given. If you're upset with the rules.... don't hate the player hate the game.


Then some of us just don't play it, ignore it, or play a different game. With me, I'm probably oblivious that there is a game being played. Socially stunted. I have more things on my mind than something so small.



> Now to your actual response that wasn't at all related to the question he sent you, which you avoided.


The question was absurd, I don't reply to them.



> No, this post is not unqiue. Ok, you have heard this post made a thousand times. So? you don't seem to be making any single point, except for the fact that you're mad about it. Which is kind of irrelevant.


I'm not mad but I am becoming amused at the fact that you think I am. A small slight smirk is on my mouth. Trying hard not to laugh.



> If it gets old you can just simply skip it, not click on this topic, but you are clearly emotionally invested in this topic for some reason therefore your reactions. There are tons of topic I just read and leave them at that, simply because I'm not interested in them or don't think I have anything to contribute. Most topics I just read the title don't like it and then look at the next title, so "it gets old" is really a subjective argument, basically saying that the whole world should do what you want because you want it, because you don't like it.


Do you mean you've given me permission to skip reading your posts? I have to admit that is a release. I mean you wrote a pretty long reply. I thought it would be rude if I typed tdlr.




> I've had one night stands. So I'm all for as long as it's 2 adults having consent everything is okay, it's just that I wouldn't go home with those girls to show them to my parents. I know you will get pretty upset by this fact, but I don't care,


I mean you're pretty redundant on this whole upset thing... why would anyone care what you do with your life? It's your life, and you shouldn't care what others think. 



> You don't like the fact that men care about a woman's promiscuity, but for women is actually the opposite as in a man's promiscuity might even be a benefit meaning he was pre-selected by other women before meaning she got a good catch? double standards? yes. But at the same time, consider that _"as a man is very difficult to be a Chad (sleep with tons of women) but as a woman is literally flawless to be a hoe (sleep with tons of men)"_. As a man, it's quite literally an achievement if you managed to sleep with 50 women. As a woman, it's not, it's the opposite, you have nothing special, you just have to go to a guy and ask him _"do you want to have sex?"_. You don't need any other quality beside the ability to go out there and ask for sex. This can make it out for you if the _"if your man sleeps with another woman you can be 100% sure that the child is yours"_, this is literally not the case for men, argument doesn't cut it for you.


A lot of assumptions about what I don't like and do



> Literally, if your man went and slept with another woman, the state officials would come and take your child arguing that _"you are not a good mother"_, how much would that suck? and how careful would it be about your man's promiscuity after that? would it be okay for you to say "as long as it's 2 adults having consent everything is okay" including your husband after that?


Wow. Ok, this is really long to read and I got nothing. I stopped reading at this point. How many assumptions do you make? This is redundant, I don't want to know so you don't have to answer or reply to me. In fairness, I can make long and novel posts too but you might have broken my record.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Ngl posts like this are the only things that low key make me want someone to take one for the team and have sex with the red pillers and misogynists on this site (i say attempt bc im not sure theres enough lube in the world to make whoever stepped up not Ben Sharpios wife in this scenario)

so they can be publicly ranked and we can scientifically break down the experience.

Who monologs during? Who listens to music with headphones? Who does their taxes? Who doesn't know anatomy or how bodies work? Etc. It's a fascinating idea. Except no woman could enjoy that experience.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Ngl posts like this are the only things that low key make me want someone to take one for the team and have sex with the red pillers and misogynists on this site (i say attempt bc im not sure theres enough lube in the world to make whoever stepped up not Ben Sharpios wife in this scenario)


Christ, take it you have never been to the official Red Pill Forum, PurplePill Debate or been on an Incel sub (look I was bored during lockdown OK, what else was I to do?). This place is not redpilled and it is pretty tame (hence enjoyable). 

If you want a true Red/Black/whatever Pill experience, it goes something like this:

BlackPilled Dude: I was on Tinder and swiped a hottie. She didn't swipe back, f**king 80/20, Chad is banging her, women bitch must die AWALT. Wait till she hits the wall, now where are my Cheetos, I must jerk off to anime. Nahh my wrists are not large enuff for me to get laid, I am a wristcel, damn women swallowing the dogpill. Hail Eliot Roger, I am too weak to rope so I must cope.

That is the majority of it. Its a shame as there are normally some decent self improvement articles buried away. But mostly its just the above sort of shit.

But anyway, PerC is not RedPilled. Trust me. I explored the rabbit hole during lockdown (never again). 

I actually initially wished I could help some of the guys, but reality is, they hate themselves too much (yes... everything is a projection of their own self loathing/hatred). And what makes it worst is the mods know this and f**king don't care, encourage it as they get more clicks.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> Christ, take it you have never been to the official Red Pill Forum, PurplePill Debate or been on an Incel sub (look I was bored during lockdown OK, what else was I to do?). This place is not redpilled and it is pretty tame (hence enjoyable).
> 
> If you want a true Red/Black/whatever Pill experience, it goes something like this:
> 
> ...



I actually have explored some of these and the worst was actually mgtow ages ago bc I assumed it would be full of cool hobbies and shit. Like surely if people don't want relationships they talk about actual ideas and interesting things and not just women and relationships right? RIGHT?!

IT WAS ALL ABOUT WOMEN. all of it. Not one post about like "hey everyone I am using my freedom to learn wood working or botany" no. Not one.

I was so disappointed. It's all they talked about.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

daleks_exterminate said:


> I actually have explored mgtow ages ago bc I assumed it would be full of cool hobbies and shit. Like surely if people don't want relationships they talk about actual ideas and interesting things and not just women and relationships right? RIGHT?!
> 
> IT WAS ALL ABOUT WOMEN. all of it. Not one post about like "hey everyone I am using my freedom to learn wood working or botany" no. Not one.
> 
> I was so disappointed.


Hahaha, I actually thought the same about MGTOW. I dunno, I thought it was guys leaving the grid, climbing mountains, hunting lions and washing in springs. So yeah, my romantic notion of what MGTOW was/is was destroyed. Its not even full of guys discussing profit margins, nope its just "Women Bad, blah, blah, blah". 

Whats even funnier about these communities, is I got called a White Knight and male feminist repeatedly. I've read some of the Red PIll recommended reading (The Rationale Male, Way of The Superior Man, No More Mr Nice guy, etc), yet unless I commit to just slagging off women I am a white knight feminist. I still find it funny. All I said was I enjoy talking to women and thats where it started going south.

Even me responding to your thread now, would make me be classed as a "Dancing Monkey".


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> Hahaha, I actually thought the same about MGTOW. I dunno, I thought it was guys leaving the grid, climbing mountains, hunting lions and washing in springs. So yeah, my romantic notion of what MGTOW was/is was destroyed. Its not even full of guys discussing profit margins, nope its just "Women Bad, blah, blah, blah".
> 
> Whats even funnier about these communities, is I got called a White Knight and male feminist repeatedly. I've read some of the Red PIll recommended reading (The Rationale Male, Way of The Superior Man, No More Mr Nice guy, etc), yet unless I commit to just slagging off women I am a white knight feminist. I still find it funny. All I said was I enjoy talking to women and thats where it started going south.
> 
> Even me responding to your thread now, would make me be classed as a "Dancing Monkey".


How dare you make your own decisions instead of being their lacky. It may cause actual human interaction instead of a bullshit role play of boringness. How strange...


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

Dezir said:


> No, they wouldn't. Because heterosexual men don't want to date other men. They don't care if other men have slept with 1 or 10.000 women. They however care whether the women they want to be in a relationship with has slept with other men or not. Being mad at Claude for sleeping with Jessica is just dumb. If Claude was chaste and didn't sleep with Jessica despite finding her attractive not to "break the market" Jessica would have instead slept with Ken. See, Jessica is the problem here not Claude. When it comes to a woman having 1 partner or 20 partners there is only 1 constant factor: the woman. So being mad at man being busy with all the girls is pretty non-sense, because the woman is "at fault" if you want to call promiscuity that.


Why get mad at Jessica? Just get with Ava or Isabella.


recycled_lube_oil said:


> Whats even funnier about these communities, is I got called a White Knight and male feminist repeatedly. I've read some of the Red PIll recommended reading (The Rationale Male, Way of The Superior Man, No More Mr Nice guy, etc), yet unless I commit to just slagging off women I am a white knight feminist. I still find it funny. All I said was I enjoy talking to women and thats where it started going south.


Is the Red Pill movement made up incels and anti-feminists? I'm familiar with a couple of these books. Neither of them seemed to be anti-women. They have basic advice like develop yourself, seize the day, be assertive, and women are fine as they are. Wouldn't Red Pill books complain about women?


daleks_exterminate said:


> I actually have explored some of these and the worst was actually mgtow ages ago bc I assumed it would be full of cool hobbies and shit. Like surely if people don't want relationships they talk about actual ideas and interesting things and not just women and relationships right? RIGHT?!
> 
> IT WAS ALL ABOUT WOMEN. all of it. Not one post about like "hey everyone I am using my freedom to learn wood working or botany" no. Not one.
> 
> I was so disappointed. It's all they talked about.


Good observation. That's probably because men living interesting lives attract women.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

Mark R said:


> Is the Red Pill movement made up incels and anti-feminists? I'm familiar with a couple of these books. Neither of them seemed to be anti-women. They have basic advice like develop yourself, seize the day, be assertive, and women are fine as they are. Wouldn't Red Pill books complain about women?


This.... is... what... baffles.... me...... I am the type of guy, that in regards to communities, will actually click the "Read here first" and the F.A.Q, I will do the required reading before participating. Thats just me.

But yeah Red Pill, TRP, the side bar material seems not so bad. Don't get me wrong, some of it is definitely questionable and some of it, I honestly hope is satire.

So I read the recommended reading then jump into the community. The community is the exact opposite of what I expect. Your saying won't Red Pill books complain about women. I'm wondering are the Red Pill communities even comprehending what the Red Pill is? So yeah, the "community" and its "syllabus" seem totally detached from each other.

Like in one part of the "recommended reading", it went on for about 3 pages, how a guy owes it to himself to be attractive. Its all on him, if he is not attracting women, its on him. And how guys need to wrap their head around this that women don't owe him anything. If he wants anything he will need to work for it.

Personally, I can accept that.

Then boom, as far as the "community" goes, the guys seem to think anything but they should work for it. I even remember seeing talk of enslaving women in cages, so that there was no such thing as rejection. Yeah, its a dark place. But this does not line up with the teachings of the recommended reading what so ever.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

@recycled_lube_oil
I read _No More Mr. Nice Guy_ many years ago and I didn't have any problems with it. I googled around today and couldn't even find a bad review. It doesn't seem like it would harm anyone to read it and do what it says. I'm suprised the group is so disconnected from the reading list.


recycled_lube_oil said:


> I even remember seeing talk of enslaving women in cages, so that there was no such thing as rejection. Yeah, its a dark place.


There's women you can pay for that type of thing and they are unlikely to reject you. It's probably cheaper than building cages.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

The issue nowadays, is that the different movements of the "manosphere" are the only movements acknowledging and addressing the various realities of intersexual dynamics. It wouldn't be such an issue if the people complaining about those movements did acknowledge those realities instead of hiding them under the rug and then dance on the rug, sing "lalalala" while covering their ears… but they don't want to. Typically that's the left, "progressive" side of the political spectrum. The left is not willing to acknowledge those realities, and because of that, is not able to even start thinking about proposing any kind of alternative to what those movements are proposing.

And that's why events such as the recent ban of someone like Andrew Tate is utterly useless, because like him or not, the root of his success, which is mainly to have the discussion about those realities in the first place, is still not being addressed. He is banned from pretty much all mainstream social media platforms, but the message remains, because the left is still actively ignoring those realities and the issues that come with them. The left doesn't have a prescription, and so who's talking about it ? Those "manosphere" movements, some of them somewhat right-leaning. One can dislike what they say to people, but there's literally no alternative. Like, between one side that tells men "it's okay to have urges, standards, and to hold women accountable", and the other that tells us "you're a misogynist how dare you", the former is a pretty easy sell, and the latter is a direct act of antagonism. And the more people hear the latter, the less they care about being called that, and the more they're embracing that. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the left only has itself to blame for it.
So until the left wakes up, opens its eyes, and starts having some _actual_ compassion/empathy for once in its existence, those movements will not only not disappear, but grow. And the more the left swipes those things under the rug, the more people will be angry and go to the opposite side, rightfully so.

Currently the woke movements are wrong, meaning actually incorrect, about biology. I say that as someone with lefty tendencies. I'm a lefty but man, the left actually freaking loses me when people on the left are actively ignoring biology, statistics, and actively relegating men to third class citizens with malicious intentions at best. There could be some compromise done if everyone did acknowledge reality, but a compromise goes both ways, and this is why I think under the current conditions and non-compromise the left is proposing, those "manosphere" movements are _mostly_ correct regarding the prescriptions they make, and that's pretty much the end of that discussion. If someone doesn't like those prescriptions, they're free to start a negotiation, but it won't be a one-way street, it can't be a one-way street. But the "manosphere" movements have the descriptions to back them up, the woke left doesn't, and that's where the woke left will eventually lose this fight for popularity if it doesn't make any changes.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Can I just point something out....

The 'easy' promiscuous women are often NOT the women gold digging men.

Alotta times it is in fact some woman who pretended to act the doe eyed part. Married the guy and took him for half or all.

I rarely care for someone to pay for me, as I much prefer the autonomy of having my own finances.



Dezir said:


> I think this creating your own selection bias also works in reverse. Like men giving f-boy vibes and such. Like having pictures with other women, shirtless body gym, pictures of them smoking, pictures of wealth, instead of for example a picture of them with a dog. Or a picture of them in a plain new T-shirt with nothing special about them.
> 
> Who is the pictures with other women, shirtless body gym, pictures of them smoking, pictures of wealth going to attract? low purity women.
> Who is the pictures with the dog or the pictures with them with a plain new T-shirt and nothing special going on in the background going to attract? high purity women. Women who want to commit, women who want something special, so to speak. Or even if you have a hobby, a picture with a violin or playing chess, who is it going to attract? it's like being a niche market for your own audience.
> ...


I just specifically wanted to touch on this section.

I do not agree with your assessment. At all. From my experience as a woman knowing other women. It is usually the more 'pure' and innocent women who fall for the 'Chads' of the world. Myself who has far less innocence or 'low purity' is FAR less likely to fall for their BS/Charm. Why because I have more actual experience. I know how to spot the kinda guy who uses women. How would I know that? Eh because have been a promiscuous woman.

No I do not mean I stumbled upon the knowledge after screwing a bunch of them. I am saying just like how you said some men are programmed to KNOW instinctively a woman that probably is not 'wifey' material to bother dating if they are trying to create a family. Well myself as someone who has more masculine dominated traits is FAR less likely to screw a chad than the women you deem innocent. 

I assure you I have been to plenty of girls nights over the years where for all intensive purpose some 'pure' woman by societies standards does some pretty dodgy shit behind a boyfriends back with a Chad. Just some irony for ya.

I instinctively know better. I ALWAYS knew to stay away from CHADs from a young age. Chads are way more known for ruining 'good' girls reputations vs 'bad' girls' reputations. I cannot stress enough when I have rolled my eyes, or shuddered for a friend for falling for the most douchey cringey lines imaginable.

There is an expression "Can't play, a player" for a reason.

Now just to be clear I do not really consider myself a 'player' like a Chad. Mainly because I am transparent and I do not go around using men. I am saying though I am more casual in what I seek or my expectations. So why on earth would I fall for a Frat Boy?

You apparently miss this threads I see, which resemble something to the effect of...
'When good girls get played' <---- These are the girls falling for Chads


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

@Lonewaer
There is something serious going on with male/female relationships among people under thirty. Although the small minority of men that #MeToo applies to cause a lot of trouble, a vast majority of men are afraid of even approaching women. They are insecure, lonely, lost, left-behind, and scared of the future. They are attending higher education at half the rate of women. It is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The left can't possibly acknowledge young men as an oppressed class of people (because everyone except them is an oppressed class). There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding among the genders.

@0.M.I.A.0 
I'll summarize how I heard your post through my lens. Sex is about good judgement, not numbers. Some low-number women exercise bad judgement, and that's a problem. Some high-number women exercise good judgement, and that isn't a problem. 

To me, this is a gender-neutral problem. Men suffer when there are bad decisions too, regardless of numbers. People who make bad decisions hurt themselves and others.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

@0.M.I.A.0
I'll summarize how I heard your post through my lens. Sex is about good judgement, not numbers. Some low-number women exercise bad judgement, and that's a problem. Some high-number women exercise good judgement, and that isn't a problem.

To me, this is a gender-neutral problem. Men suffer when there are bad decisions too, regardless of numbers. People who make bad decisions hurt themselves and others.
[/QUOTE]

Sorta I was drawing to that. However it was in reply to his quote where he was saying women who fall for Chads are 'low purity' women, or likely the promiscuous woman. So in that sense I was explaining I think he actually has it backwards.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

0.M.I.A.0 said:


> Sorta I was drawing to that. However it was in reply to his quote referring to women who fall for Chads as 'low purity' women, or likely the promiscuous woman. So in that sense I was explaining I think he actually has it backwards.


Yes, inexperienced women are easier to manipulate.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Mark R said:


> Yes, inexperienced women are easier to manipulate.


Agreed

The point was though he keeps labeling these women as the promiscuous women. When often times they are not.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

Inexperienced men also fall for manipulation by women, for which I have volunteered as tribute. I just hate to see people take out their anger on the entire opposite gender all because of a few bad experiences. The best we can do as individuals is know ourselves better and learn how to evaluate situations more objectively.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Not sure if this makes sense, but outside of religious communities, I don't know any young women in their 20's or 30's who slutshame other women. Usually this comes from women 40's and above. And similarly, I don't know of any middle aged to older men who slut shame women. This usually comes from young men. 

Not sure if others have had that same experience. But if I had to venture to guess, I think it has to do with a perceived lack of access. The promiscuous young women become the scapegoats for whatever the slutshamer is losing access to. 

I think it's no coincidence that there is a huge stereotype of hypersexual "Chads" sleeping with and using up all the available women. And there's no coincidence that a married woman in her 40's will fear her man getting turned on and sleeping with the nanny/au pair. In both scenarios, it's easier to hold hatred towards the promiscuous woman. (An insecure young man can't win in a challenge against a Chad. An insecure married woman can't turn back the hands of time.)


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> I am too weak to rope so I must cope.


lmafo, this is so funny and so sad at the same time. Not strong enough for the rope, so I must cope.



recycled_lube_oil said:


> All I said was I enjoy talking to women and thats where it started going south.


Part of me is really curious to find out what the heck is going on there, part of me is fearful whether I'll regret going there. Anyway, could you give me a link to these actual communities?


Mark R said:


> @recycled_lube_oil
> I read _No More Mr. Nice Guy_ many years ago and I didn't have any problems with it. I googled around today and couldn't even find a bad review. It doesn't seem like it would harm anyone to read it and do what it says. I'm suprised the group is so disconnected from the reading list.
> 
> There's women you can pay for that type of thing and they are unlikely to reject you. It's probably cheaper than building cages.


The whole idea of Nice Guy vs. Bad Guy is blew out of proportions in my opinion. Women are/aren't with you because you are a nice guy/bad guy. Women are/aren't with you because they are/aren't attracted to you. This has mostly to do with your looks, your money, your social status and your social skills aka personality.

In my opinion, I think personality is a plus but not everything. I think that being: kind, supportive, funny, protective, lighten the mood, helping her, couch phychologist, etc; are positive qualities. Sure, they are not enough to get you out of the friendzone if she doesn't find you attractive. But if you're already in the friendzone it means your personality isn't the problem, we are not friends with people whose personality we dislike. it means you problems must be somewhere else in terms of looks or status or connection with her.

And I can see how being weak&submissive can make you less attractive to most women. But this is again blew out of proportions. Just be a decent person who is able to stand up for itself, not take crap from anyone and burry your head in the sand like a dog and that's it. It's basically being reactive when bad things happen to you, being able to stand up for yourself. Because it implies you can stand up for others too. It doesn't mean you have to be an MMA fighter or something. Heck, even diplomatically standing up for yourself is still standing up for yourself and not being weak and submissive. So yeah, self-respect can be a thing/problem but I think this is seriously blew out of proportions.

Like don't be an ahole. You don't need to be an ahole to get women. Of course, it depends on what everyone's definition of ahole is. But I don't think your personality as in being: kind, supportive, funny, protective, lighten the mood, helping her, couch phychologist, etc; is a detrimental. But a lot of the people who follow the "bad boy" narrative think it is.

Girls don't like aholes for the sake of being aholes. Girls like aholes because they alraedy have other qualities that make them attracted to them. The ahole part is just a tolerated part of a side part of that.

If girls really were in it for ahole all those bitter extremist groups you were talking about would be full of women.

And yes, some women clearly have a preference for bad boys, won't deny that, I've seen them myself jumping from terrible relationship to terrible relationship, due to their own issues, etc; but those are a minority of women and not representative for most women.



Mark R said:


> Why get mad at Jessica? Just get with Ava or Isabella.
> 
> Is the Red Pill movement made up incels and anti-feminists? I'm familiar with a couple of these books. Neither of them seemed to be anti-women. They have basic advice like develop yourself, seize the day, be assertive, and women are fine as they are. Wouldn't Red Pill books complain about women?
> 
> Good observation. That's probably because men living interesting lives attract women.


Not wanting to date Jessica doesn't translate to being mad at Jessica. Yep, go with Ava or Isabella. If I were in that situation, that's exactly what I would do.

Red Pill seems to be full of men who think that will self-improvement you can get all the women in the world. They offer good advice. But I think a lot of that is exaggerated. Not everyone is Leonardo DiCaprio, and they don't care about looks at all. And they see personality as a detrimental as I have said. Maybe it works out for some guys, I don't know. But I can easily see how this can also be used by bitter men as a means to cope. Much like feminism, can be used by some to actually push for equality, while for others to cope and be mad at men for existing.



recycled_lube_oil said:


> Like in one part of the "recommended reading", it went on for about 3 pages, how a guy owes it to himself to be attractive. Its all on him, if he is not attracting women, its on him. And how guys need to wrap their head around this that women don't owe him anything. If he wants anything he will need to work for it.
> 
> Personally, I can accept that.
> 
> Then boom, as far as the "community" goes, the guys seem to think anything but they should work for it. I even remember seeing talk of enslaving women in cages, so that there was no such thing as rejection. Yeah, its a dark place. But this does not line up with the teachings of the recommended reading what so ever.


Everything that's like that can be easily used by mad men for cope. This is not only true in Red Pill but every nische organization I think. Heck, even climate rights activists have their nutjobs.



0.M.I.A.0 said:


> Can I just point something out....
> 
> The 'easy' promiscuous women are often NOT the women gold digging men.
> 
> ...


Absolutely, more often than not in my opinion, gold diggers are non-permiscous women. Permiscous women go for sex. Gold diggers go for money. Gold diggers know that they need to be "top class" in order to attract a rich man whose resources she can drain. And she knows she can't do that by being a hoe but rather a highly wanted and highly attractive women. Being something everybody wants, and being someone with exclusivity, an exclusivity that the rich man can get access to, for a price.

I could be wrong here, since you're a woman, this is your domain, but in my opinion 'pure' and innocent women are going to be like "why is this guy hitting on me? he is clearly out of my league? does he want something from me? did his friends dared him to do this?". But yes your point makes a lot of sense as well, I can totally see how that's the case as well.

While 'low purity' could be either women who know the Chad is using them but they don't care, because they just want to get on with an attractive guy, for sex. Or they are 'low purity' really naive women who just want to "lock" a Chad. Thinking that if they will sleep with him or something the Chad will stay.

Interesting point. Yeah, men are programmed to KNOW instinctively a woman that probably is not 'wifey' material to bother dating if they are trying to create a family, well put. But I do not see how you having more masculine dominated traits results in you being far less likely to screw a chad than the women I deem innocent. Can you explain that in more detail please?

Yeah. Fair point. But there is real pure & there is pretend to be pure. I think women know that men look for 'high purity' in women, so even 'low purity' women would pretend to be 'high purity' to get with men. I've seen a few such cases myself.

Do you think that those some 'pure' woman by societies standards who does some pretty dodgy shit behind a boyfriends back with a Chad, are real pure or pretending to be pure?

Do you think in the case of a real pure, the reason for her cheating is naivity or is there something else?

Very well put, Chads are way more known for ruining 'good' girls reputations vs 'bad' girls' reputations, why do you think is that? Why do you think high purity women fall for that as opposed to low purity women? Do you think the Chad specifically targets for them or something?


OrchidSugar said:


> Not sure if this makes sense, but outside of religious communities, I don't know any young women in their 20's or 30's who slutshame other women. Usually this comes from women 40's and above. And similarly, I don't know of any middle aged to older men who slut shame women. This usually comes from young men.
> 
> Not sure if others have had that same experience. But if I had to venture to guess, I think it has to do with a perceived lack of access. The promiscuous young women become the scapegoats for whatever the slutshamer is losing access to.
> 
> I think it's no coincidence that there is a huge stereotype of hypersexual "Chads" sleeping with and using up all the available women. And there's no coincidence that a married woman in her 40's will fear her man getting turned on and sleeping with the nanny/au pair. In both scenarios, it's easier to hold hatred towards the promiscuous woman. (An insecure young man can't win in a challenge against a Chad. An insecure married woman can't turn back the hands of time.)


I've seen my share of women in their 20s who slut shame other women. Not sure why you didn't see it. Maybe they don't slut shame them with other women? or maybe regional differences?

I think that's sometimes the case, but not always the case, most often that not not the case. I can totally see how a man would call a woman a hoe for not wanting to sleep with him (lol?), but more often that not, it's because she slept with other men, that feeling is genuine and is about her actions and consequences, not some personal vendeta against her. Even if he himself does not want to date her, he would still look down on her and call her a hoe for the simple fact she has slept with other men. But at the same time, he would not hesitate to have sex with her.

I don't know why he would do this given that he's not interested in her, I can totally see not being interested in her for a relationship but looking down on her and calling her a hoe for being a hoe is more like, and I might make a huge speculation here, a collective gender-defensiveness thing? like men know other men don't want hoes, so they are "programmed" to look down on hoes and demonize hoes to protect other men, even if they themselves are not interested in that woman and would not date her.

Kind of like women do a lot of collective gender-defensiveness protective behaviors as well. Like, you don't have to be involved for you to take the defense of another woman.

I think incels are bothered by "Chads" sleeping with and using up all the available women. Out of envy mostly. But I don't think the average man is bothered by "Chads" sleeping with and using up all the available women. Rather, they do not see it as "all the available women" but all the promiscous women that they would not date anyway. Basically "there's enough room for everybody, some women are going to be hoes, some are going to be not, I'm going to take what I can and they are going to take what they can". Hoes are more like a "sharing center" than a competition for men. I've literally had friends who were "dating" the same woman, they knew the woman was promiscous, so she thought she was fooling them, that they were cheating them with one another, in reality, they didn't care and they were just using her for sex, they were happy to share. I don't know which one is worse but it was kind of like a wtf situation. Basically, there's a "your girlfriend is not for share, hoes are" mindset. Which is why I don't think there's that much hate for the average man for the Chad, he's not considered competition, he's simply taking up what everybody can take. Sure, there may be some particular cases where a guy is mad that Chad took his girlfriend of stuff like that, causes of cheating, or just couring and the Chad being better at couring, but generally I don't think that's the case with Chads that they are seen as competition.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

OrchidSugar said:


> Not sure if this makes sense, but outside of religious communities, I don't know any young women in their 20's or 30's who slutshame other women. Usually this comes from women 40's and above. And similarly, I don't know of any middle aged to older men who slut shame women. This usually comes from young men.


I know some women like to milk money and gifts from men in exchange for the promise of sex. Men will shame other men for being simps if they give too much resources to women and may not even be getting sex. Some women may shame other women for giving away sex for free.


Dezir said:


> And I can see how being weak&submissive can make you less attractive to most women. But this is again blew out of proportions.


I think this is a pretty big deal. I was talking with a female relative recently. She was upset about her husband not being able to make a stand.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Dezir said:


> Absolutely, more often than not in my opinion, gold diggers are non-permiscous women. Permiscous women go for sex. Gold diggers go for money. Gold diggers know that they need to be "top class" in order to attract a rich man whose resources she can drain. And she knows she can't do that by being a hoe but rather a highly wanted and highly attractive women. Being something everybody wants, and being someone with exclusivity, an exclusivity that the rich man can get access to, for a price.



Ah sigh the dream.
To be so wealthy that you can find a top tier gold digger just to go and cheat on later with a hoe, so she can divorce ya and take half. 'Classy' Top Tier stuff here.  I feel like I am watching CSI Miami. None of this resonates with my life. I just was talking about more basic ass people. Not the 1%.

 It is the verbiage for me.

Good lord. I can't even.
I concede. Please no more debate. Not because I care about who is right or wrong. I am totally fine acknowledging that the majority of the population of males would prefer lower risk. I believe that you are correct most males while selecting a mate do not seek promiscuous female.

I also however do know of many males who would not prefer to address promiscuous females as hoes/sluts just because they do not want to date them.

I.e. I do not go around referring to disgruntled men who appear to have angry man complex and say things like the 'limp dick' over there. If you prefer to refer to promiscuous women as Hoes that is your prerogative. To each their own. I will read if ya respond but also going to respectfully bow out.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Dezir said:


> lmafo, this is so funny and so sad at the same time. Not strong enough for the rope, so I must cope.
> 
> 
> Part of me is really curious to find out what the heck is going on there, part of me is fearful whether I'll regret going there. Anyway, could you give me a link to these actual communities?
> ...


Maybe we have a slightly different conception of "slut-shaming" because I have seen many general cases where the sexual status of a woman was unknown and she still got called a slut, simply for being desirable. Maybe she wore her clothes and did her makeup in a certain way to earn the label. And I've also seen it to where a woman's dating history was known to others, but her sexual history was not. Therefore, just by publicly courting men, she was deemed a slut. That goes for whether or not she dated them all at once or successively. This I don't fully understand.

Oh and I agree that regular dudes do not see Chads as competition. But we're not talking about regular dudes. Regular dudes mind their business and date who they want. The kind of guy who slut shames a woman is probably the same kind of guy who invented the term "Chad" to describe a particular type of man.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

0.M.I.A.0 said:


> Ah sigh the dream.
> To be so wealthy that you can find a top tier gold digger just to go and cheat on later with a hoe, so she can divorce ya and take half. 'Classy' Top Tier stuff here.  I feel like I am watching CSI Miami. None of this resonates with my life. I just was talking about more basic ass people. Not the 1%.
> 
> It is the verbiage for me.
> ...


Same, but this happens so often. Oh, I see, yeah, in cases of average people gold diggers, I agree that they are often not promiscous.

I wasn't looking for a debate, I wasn't asking you those questions to contradict you later on, you have a good train of thought and I was curious to know more.

I'm using the term 'hoe' because it's far easier to write, 3 letters, than promiscious woman, etc. And I understand that there's a huge gap between a promiscous woman and a hoe (a literal hoe). I also don't go around calling women 'hoes' in real life but here I was writing the word hoe for the sake of simplicity. If you've had 3 previous relationships I don't think you're a promiscous woman. If you've like slept around with 5 other guys and usually go to clubs to pick-up men to sleep with them I think you are a promiscous woman, you can probably see in her behavior how promiscuous she is/isn't, being a promiscous woman doesn't mean she would cheat, but she is far more likely to cheat than a non-promiscous woman. If you literally only care about sex I think you're a hoe, and don't have a big commitment or care about what it means to be in a relationship, that's totally unsafe for a relationship. There's probably a whole discussion where the line is but I was using that word for the sake of simplicity.


OrchidSugar said:


> Maybe we have a slightly different conception of "slut-shaming" because I have seen many general cases where the sexual status of a woman was unknown and she still got called a slut, simply for being desirable. Maybe she wore her clothes and did her makeup in a certain way to earn the label. And I've also seen it to where a woman's dating history was known to others, but her sexual history was not. Therefore, just by publicly courting men, she was deemed a slut. That goes for whether or not she dated them all at once or successively. This I don't fully understand.
> 
> Oh and I agree that regular dudes do not see Chads as competition. But we're not talking about regular dudes. Regular dudes mind their business and date who they want. The kind of guy who slut shames a woman is probably the same kind of guy who invented the term "Chad" to describe a particular type of man.


Yes, envy, there are cases like that where a man would call a woman a hoe for not wanting to sleep with him. There was this post once with a woman saying "I only want to date 6' guys" and the comment section was full of "I just dodged a red flag", like lol. Bro, you didn't dodge anything, you're not 6' she wouldn't want you. Meanwhile a minority of comments were 6' guys saying "I'm 6' " so yeah, she has options.

Yeah, it's usually assumed that dating history = sexual history more of less. It's hard to believe you were in a relationship with someone but didn't sleep with them these days. I don't think so, regular dudes use the word "Chad" very often too, it's just that they aren't bitter about Chad, they don't see Chad as a competition. At best, they would see Chad as someone they aspire to be like as well.

But they acknowledge that a "Chad" who gets all the women stereotype exists. Heck, I've had a university colleague like that, different night different woman. He was 6' tall and very handsome, looking like a model. He didn't care about no relationship, he just slept around. No man had any issue with him ever. And everybody jokes about him that he's a Chad, in a positive way. I have literally never heard 1 man, with him or without him around saying that "he's/you're taking all our women", literally nobody thought like that. But they totally called him a Chad and knew he was a Chad. He was probably the book definition of a Chad.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Dezir said:


> I don't think so, regular dudes use the word "Chad" very often too, it's just that they aren't bitter about Chad, they don't see Chad as a competition. At best, they would see Chad as someone they aspire to be like as well.


I'm not talking about who uses the word, I'm talking about who invented the term to describe them. There's a lot of words we all now use because they have been made common. But I would argue that if you aspire to be like Chad, that means Chad is on a higher level and *you cannot compete with him*, like I said. I don't think that any men would tear down Chad, but it's very sad how many see him as aspirational. They want to learn from him, while simultaneously denigrating the women who are attracted to him. It's sick. Therefore, no, you are not in a "competition" with him. *You are in a mentor-mentee hierarchical relationship with him.* It's in this way that many redpill content leaders were able to make their fortunes lol

But let's say you're the type of man who doesn't get girls. Are you going to go degrade Chad and call him a manwhore (even the term manwhore is very telling)? No you're not going to bother with Chad at all. You will just call the women that he sleeps with promiscuous. Their body count may be far lower than Chad's even, but you give them the term "slut." So this is where I agree with you about envy. If you're the kind of guy who isn't trying to learn from Chad, and isn't trying to sleep with the same women Chad has access to, then chances are you are will mind your business. *If you are Chad's fan or Chad's hater, you will likely find yourself calling a woman a slut at some point.*

The moral of my story is just everyone shut up and mind your own damned business. It's free!


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

Dezir said:


> And I can see how being weak&submissive can make you less attractive to most women. But this is again blew out of proportions. Just be a decent person who is able to stand up for itself, not take crap from anyone and burry your head in the sand like a dog and that's it. It's basically being reactive when bad things happen to you, being able to stand up for yourself. Because it implies you can stand up for others too. It doesn't mean you have to be an MMA fighter or something. Heck, even diplomatically standing up for yourself is still standing up for yourself and not being weak and submissive. So yeah, self-respect can be a thing/problem but I think this is seriously blew out of proportions.
> 
> Like don't be an ahole. You don't need to be an ahole to get women. Of course, it depends on what everyone's definition of ahole is. But I don't think your personality as in being: kind, supportive, funny, protective, lighten the mood, helping her, couch phychologist, etc; is a detrimental. But a lot of the people who follow the "bad boy" narrative think it is.
> 
> Girls don't like aholes for the sake of being aholes. Girls like aholes because they alraedy have other qualities that make them attracted to them. The ahole part is just a tolerated part of a side part of that.


I'm going to offer some push back here.

I think the main misunderstanding here, is that we've been told (at least I know I have), for like 30 years, to be nice and respectful to women, and the problem is that men take that crap literally. But the result is a bunch of men who are too nice and too respectful for their own good, and then get wrongfully misconstrued as manipulative. I've been that guy, probably still am, I have to make a conscious effort to repress that education because it doesn't offer any good result until I already am in a solid long-term relationship. But that's not being manipulative, that's following the instructions manual, we can't blame men for being that when the message that we've fed them _is_ that. We have to stop spreading the message that being "nice" is required, and that being "respectful" is required, because that's a lie. The traits that you mention in the second paragraph that I quoted, they don't have to be detrimental, true, but that's not how one becomes attractive most of the time. They're what makes you a _friend_, not a boyfriend or any kind of serious partner. That will work sometimes, don't get me wrong, but if there isn't also that a-holeness to balance it, that will also destroy the relationship because those are the traits that make someone boring, and women aren't aroused by boring.

From what I've seen both in my relationships and in other people's relationships, the one thing that's common to all of those relationships, is that "nice" and "respectful" are _clearly_ not required, and betting a good deal on those two traits will get you psychologically trampled. And all of those men that I know who are in successful long-term relationships, they don't just stand their ground. They do, but they're also dicks about it, because that's apparently the only way to get the point across. I don't understand why, but I'm sorry, women like the emotional roller coaster more than peace, and being an a-hole is how to do that, it is what it is, at this point it's demonstrably true. I've seen my best friend talk to his girlfriend in a way that was completely undeserved, and that if anyone talked to me like that, I would stop being around them. Yet, 10 years after, she's still there. And I insist, if my girlfriend talked to me like that, I would boot her immediately, no negotiation, because in the situations I witnessed, it was every time a case of him assuming bad faith/bad intentions on her part (her testing him for example), so a blatant lack of respect. That's not "not being an a-hole", to me, on the contrary it is exactly being an a-hole. Same with my parents' relationship, same with my cousin's, same with my sister's, same with a bunch of other friends', and I'm pretty sure I've seen that in my grandparents' relationship when I was a child. They're not just standing their ground, they're being a-holes about it. That seems to be the main factor in having a successful relationship. After that, I can agree that "good" traits go a long way, but they do come after ; before everything else, stand your ground, and don't be afraid of being a dick about it.

This is why I think the message needs to change. Mainly, I think the message needs to not come from women, but from other men. This is why having good male role models is so important for boys/men, because women will systematically send the wrong message to their boys.



OrchidSugar said:


> Maybe we have a slightly different conception of "slut-shaming" because I have seen many general cases where the sexual status of a woman was unknown and she still got called a slut, simply for being desirable. *Maybe she wore her clothes and did her makeup in a certain way to earn the label*. And I've also seen it to where a woman's dating history was known to others, but her sexual history was not. Therefore, just by publicly courting men, she was deemed a slut. That goes for whether or not she dated them all at once or successively. This I don't fully understand.


Yep, bolded is a thing. Dave Chapelle put it this way :







> "Fine, fine ! You are not a whore. But you are wearing a whore's uniform."


Regarding history, dating or sexual, it's all enough to make assumptions. In the case you're describing, if I know a woman's dating history but not her sexual history, it's enough for me to get a rough idea of what her behavior might be like, or how many dicks have been inside her (which is ultimately what it comes down to). It doesn't even have to be accurate or fair. Women would prefer if my idea was accurate so it's fair to them, but they're not having that standard, I am, the same way they will extrapolate a man's income based on what he does for work, and have a standard for that, or hell, even the way he dresses too. So if I know she's dated 4 guys in long term monogamous relationships, I can only extrapolate, there's no counting down. First of all that's 4 _failed_ serious relationships, so that means she's bad at serious relationships. But secondly, that's only her dating history. What if she's slept around ? Well, in that case good for her, but I don't want to take her seriously. I would probably have sex with her, sure (worsening her situation, yes, I'm aware), but I wouldn't present her to my parents. In that sense I like the way Dezir presents it because it seems pretty spot on : hoes are for sharing/passing around, a girlfriend is not, and is to be preserved from all that.

While I'm at it, the following thing you say is true too. I used to unilaterally prefer when women approached me. Now, it's a more mixed feeling. It is pleasant being approached, but there are enough women who flirt with either no intention at all behind it, or sometimes with very clear intentions behind it, for me to immediately doubt them. A woman who flirts because it's fun, I understand it, because flirting is fun, but I dislike it because she might not mean anything by it, and then if we ever get into a relationship, she'll keep flirting with people, not meaning anything by it, maybe, but sometimes meaning something by it, in any case I don't like it, if she's with me, she's with me. But for someone who is making it very clear that she wants me, then I have to wonder how many dudes she has been attracted to, has approached, and has had sex/been in a relationship with, and I'm not gonna lie, the older I grow, the more that repulses me. That number could be really low and I could be special, but generally I don't think I'm special, which means if she's doing it with me I'm flattered, but she's also done it with other men, there's no way she hasn't. I have really mixed feelings about being approached nowadays, and that's a stark contrast from before.
One girl I hooked up with did all the heavy lifting, all the initiating, all the flirting, and after having sex, she talked (within context) about one time when she shared a bed with a "strictly platonic friend", but the logistics didn't make sense. I point that out, she immediately gets defensive "oh no I haven't slept with him don't worry", and at the time that wasn't what I was implying, but nowadays, reminding myself of that anecdote, I'm like "oh no I don't believe you, you absolutely had sex with him", because there's literally no reason why they wouldn't have had sex with each other.
Currently there's another girl who's, I think, trying to flirt with me, and while I'd/I'll probably sleep with her if that was/is her intention, I am not interested in anything serious, with her for a couple of reasons, one of them being that she's the one flirting. Her flirting makes her appear a certain way, yes. Might not be the case for all men ; I know it's the case for me. It's not unpleasant to be flirted with, but I know she flirts with every man she finds attractive enough because she does it with me (which again, good for her). And so I don't like having to chase women as a man, but I understand why I have to and why it's been that way for most of history ; none of it being oppression by the way, before any idiot jumps at me.


----------



## Sarah J. (4 mo ago)

Maybe do not make blanket assumption about groups and analyze individuals instead? As fun as playing "us vs. them" might be for some, it's always unrealistic and unhelpful. Both men and women can be condemning of another's promiscuity. Both men and women can be accepting of another's promiscuity. It has nothing to do with gender. There's a reason personality tests exist and "a list of male/female exclusive behaviors" do not.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> Relationship Market Value. As opposed to Sexual Market Value. One is what makes you attractive for a relationship and the other... sex.


Well duhh, I should have been able to figure that out.


> Whatever happened, men would adopt. If overnight, being able to walk on your hands is what made women attracted to men (not all, just a general trend), men all over the world would learn to walk on their hands. I still remember back in 2011-12ish when some stupid youtube video was released of some guy dressing as a sailor pretending to be gay pulled some woman. Yeah for the next 3 weeks, every night out I had, I saw guys dressed as sailors pretending to be gay. And yeah the whole "If I wern't gay, you would so be mine" line does work, hey what can I say, blame the game, not the player.
> 
> But regardless, men do not set the rules, they just follow them. Improvise, adapt and overcome.


Ah that is such a weird example but I can think of something similarly unlikely happening unforch. lol we're fucked 



> I was being sarcastic at that point. In regards to the whole "Women love assholes", my next question is "Asshole to who", do you mean the nice guy who agree's to everything that see's any other behavior as being an asshole? That however is another thread for another day. The old me, would view the current me as an asshole. Is that because I really am an asshole, or maybe I do more than just supplicate? When people say "Women love assholes" what does that mean exactly? I am sure one of the PerC residents will write a dissertation on it at some point.


Pretty sure he already wrote it.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Lonewaer said:


> I'm going to offer some push back here.
> 
> I think the main misunderstanding here, is that we've been told (at least I know I have), for like 30 years, to be nice and respectful to women, and the problem is that men take that crap literally. But the result is a bunch of men who are too nice and too respectful for their own good, and then get wrongfully misconstrued as manipulative. I've been that guy, probably still am, I have to make a conscious effort to repress that education because it doesn't offer any good result until I already am in a solid long-term relationship. But that's not being manipulative, that's following the instructions manual, we can't blame men for being that when the message that we've fed them _is_ that. We have to stop spreading the message that being "nice" is required, and that being "respectful" is required, because that's a lie. The traits that you mention in the second paragraph that I quoted, they don't have to be detrimental, true, but that's not how one becomes attractive most of the time. They're what makes you a _friend_, not a boyfriend or any kind of serious partner. That will work sometimes, don't get me wrong, but if there isn't also that a-holeness to balance it, that will also destroy the relationship because those are the traits that make someone boring, and women aren't aroused by boring.
> 
> ...


Comedians are very smart. I'm sorry you got hurt.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

OrchidSugar said:


> Maybe we have a slightly different conception of "slut-shaming" because I have seen many general cases where the sexual status of a woman was unknown and she still got called a slut, simply for being desirable. Maybe she wore her clothes and did her makeup in a certain way to earn the label. And I've also seen it to where a woman's dating history was known to others, but her sexual history was not. Therefore, just by publicly courting men, she was deemed a slut. That goes for whether or not she dated them all at once or successively. This I don't fully understand.


I still believe a lot of the Male slut shaming, is a way of dealing with rejection. Or maybe its self-hatred at not being attractive to that woman becoming externalized. I tend to keep away from guys with that sort of attitude, as there are normally bigger issues than them just calling women sluts. There whole attitude will quite possibly stink, especially if there is an element of self-hatred and self-loathing. Even when I was younger and less mature than I am now, I never really jumped on the calling women sluts bandwagon. I was able to keep my self-hatred to myself when I had it.



> Oh and I agree that regular dudes do not see Chads as competition. But we're not talking about regular dudes. Regular dudes mind their business and date who they want. The kind of guy who slut shames a woman is probably the same kind of guy who invented the term "Chad" to describe a particular type of man.


Ahh, yes the Incel. Blame everything on women being attracted to "Chad" instead of looking at yourself. Following Incel logic (I do not promote this idea), every average guy must be a Chad. 



DOGSOUP said:


> Well duhh, I should have been able to figure that out.


I spent a lot of Lockdown looking down a dark rabbit hole, so I know too much of the terminology. Although, a lot of it is now becoming mainstream. Movies were a husband or boyfriend is named "Chad" and various other things.



> Ah that is such a weird example but I can think of something similarly unlikely happening unforch. lol we're fucked


The weirdness is on purpose, I do not believe it is any less true.



> Pretty sure he already wrote it.


I must of missed that bit.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

Lonewaer said:


> I'm going to offer some push back here.
> 
> I think the main misunderstanding here, is that we've been told (at least I know I have), for like 30 years, to be nice and respectful to women, and the problem is that men take that crap literally. But the result is a bunch of men who are too nice and too respectful for their own good, and then get wrongfully misconstrued as manipulative. I've been that guy, probably still am, I have to make a conscious effort to repress that education because it doesn't offer any good result until I already am in a solid long-term relationship. But that's not being manipulative, that's following the instructions manual, we can't blame men for being that when the message that we've fed them _is_ that. We have to stop spreading the message that being "nice" is required, and that being "respectful" is required, because that's a lie. The traits that you mention in the second paragraph that I quoted, they don't have to be detrimental, true, but that's not how one becomes attractive most of the time. They're what makes you a _friend_, not a boyfriend or any kind of serious partner. That will work sometimes, don't get me wrong, but if there isn't also that a-holeness to balance it, that will also destroy the relationship because those are the traits that make someone boring, and women aren't aroused by boring.
> 
> ...


I'm guessing you know about the Big5 and the agreeableness trait. Being somewhat disagreeable is a useful trait. It is attractive to women because a man who stands up to his wife is also a man who stands up to anyone who threatens his family. I don't think any woman wants to be treated disrespectfully, but a woman often tolerates an asshole if he has some traits that show he will protect the family. A disagreeable man may be an asshole but there are some who can be empathetic as well. It should be pretty obvious that women would prefer a man who is both disagreeable and empathetic.

Men, in general are more disagreeable than women. According to research on the Big5, the average man is more disagreeable than 68% of women. Research shows that women prefer a man who is more disagreeable than themselves. When dating, most men should be able to find a women who is more agreeable than he is. If an agreeable man is married to a disagreeable women, an agreeable man can become more assertive, but it is unlikely that an agreeable man is going to transform himself into a disagreeable asshole. Some agreeableness is just part of our nature like handedness or personality type. Other lack of assertiveness comes from dysfunctional sources. It comes from a society that has overfeminized men (as your post explains). It comes from insecurity or the desire to please everyone. Some progress can be made in becoming more assertive and overcoming (at least the part that comes from dysfunction).

Like anything, balance is the best. Men who are too agreeable and men who are too disagreeable both have difficulty in relationships. Very disagreeable people end up in prison.



Lonewaer said:


> Regarding history, dating or sexual, it's all enough to make assumptions. In the case you're describing, if I know a woman's dating history but not her sexual history, it's enough for me to get a rough idea of what her behavior might be like, or how many dicks have been inside her (which is ultimately what it comes down to). It doesn't even have to be accurate or fair. Women would prefer if my idea was accurate so it's fair to them, but they're not having that standard, I am, the same way they will extrapolate a man's income based on what he does for work, and have a standard for that, or hell, even the way he dresses too. So if I know she's dated 4 guys in long term monogamous relationships, I can only extrapolate, there's no counting down. First of all that's 4 _failed_ serious relationships, so that means she's bad at serious relationships. But secondly, that's only her dating history. What if she's slept around ? Well, in that case good for her, but I don't want to take her seriously. I would probably have sex with her, sure (worsening her situation, yes, I'm aware), but I wouldn't present her to my parents. In that sense I like the way Dezir presents it because it seems pretty spot on : hoes are for sharing/passing around, a girlfriend is not, and is to be preserved from all that.


Firstly, psychological literature suggests that number of partners regardless of sex is a predictor of marriage success (or failure). It also suggests that a weak willed person who has sex compulsively is very different from a person who shows good judgement according to her values, even with many partners. Is she open and vulnerable about it, or is she ashamed and contradicting her herself from conversation to conversation about her past? Body count isn't the whole story.

As far as the woman who has had four different long term relationships, context is also important. She did not choose to marry any of these partners. Maybe she has learned from each of these relationships and is prepared now. Maybe she keeps making the same mistake over and over again and has not learned.


Lonewaer said:


> While I'm at it, the following thing you say is true too. I used to unilaterally prefer when women approached me. Now, it's a more mixed feeling. It is pleasant being approached, but there are enough women who flirt with either no intention at all behind it, or sometimes with very clear intentions behind it, for me to immediately doubt them. A woman who flirts because it's fun, I understand it, because flirting is fun, but I dislike it because she might not mean anything by it, and then if we ever get into a relationship, she'll keep flirting with people, not meaning anything by it, maybe, but sometimes meaning something by it, in any case I don't like it, if she's with me, she's with me. But for someone who is making it very clear that she wants me, then I have to wonder how many dudes she has been attracted to, has approached, and has had sex/been in a relationship with, and I'm not gonna lie, the older I grow, the more that repulses me. That number could be really low and I could be special, but generally I don't think I'm special, which means if she's doing it with me I'm flattered, but she's also done it with other men, there's no way she hasn't. I have really mixed feelings about being approached nowadays, and that's a stark contrast from before.
> 
> One girl I hooked up with did all the heavy lifting, all the initiating, all the flirting, and after having sex, she talked (within context) about one time when she shared a bed with a "strictly platonic friend", but the logistics didn't make sense. I point that out, she immediately gets defensive "oh no I haven't slept with him don't worry", and at the time that wasn't what I was implying, but nowadays, reminding myself of that anecdote, I'm like "oh no I don't believe you, you absolutely had sex with him", because there's literally no reason why they wouldn't have had sex with each other.
> 
> Currently there's another girl who's, I think, trying to flirt with me, and while I'd/I'll probably sleep with her if that was/is her intention, I am not interested in anything serious, with her for a couple of reasons, one of them being that she's the one flirting. Her flirting makes her appear a certain way, yes. Might not be the case for all men ; I know it's the case for me. It's not unpleasant to be flirted with, but I know she flirts with every man she finds attractive enough because she does it with me (which again, good for her). And so I don't like having to chase women as a man, but I understand why I have to and why it's been that way for most of history ; none of it being oppression by the way, before any idiot jumps at me.


Again, some context is important. Who is she now? What has she learned? Does she compulsively seek sex or has she been true to her values in her choices?


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

OrchidSugar said:


> Comedians are very smart. I'm sorry you got hurt.


We don't know each other, you have no reason to care. I'm not trying to garner sympathy, I'm just one example of a much wider demographic, so I have a hard time believing you're really sorry. It's ok though, that wasn't the point =p




Mark R said:


> I'm guessing you know about the Big5 and the agreeableness trait. Being somewhat disagreeable is a useful trait. It is attractive to women because a man who stands up to his wife is also a man who stands up to anyone who threatens his family. I don't think any woman wants to be treated disrespectfully, but a woman often tolerates an asshole if he has some traits that show he will protect the family. A disagreeable man may be an asshole but there are some who can be empathetic as well. It should be pretty obvious that women would prefer a man who is both disagreeable and empathetic.
> 
> Men, in general are more disagreeable than women. According to research on the Big5, the average man is more disagreeable than 68% of women. Research shows that women prefer a man who is more disagreeable than themselves. When dating, most men should be able to find a women who is more agreeable than he is. If an agreeable man is married to a disagreeable women, an agreeable man can become more assertive, but it is unlikely that an agreeable man is going to transform himself into a disagreeable asshole. Some agreeableness is just part of our nature like handedness or personality type. Other lack of assertiveness comes from dysfunctional sources. It comes from a society that has overfeminized men (as your post explains). It comes from insecurity or the desire to please everyone. Some progress can be made in becoming more assertive and overcoming (at least the part that comes from dysfunction).
> 
> Like anything, balance is the best. Men who are too agreeable and men who are too disagreeable both have difficulty in relationships. Very disagreeable people end up in prison.


I'm familiar, yes. I agree, and you touch on something important : the men who are, more than a-holes, criminals, who are like you say "very disagreeable", so much so that they end up in prison, have the exact same traits that make other men protectors. Which is another reason why even criminals are attractive to women. So if criminals are attractive to women, then a-holes are. I think extreme a-holes have less difficulties finding and maintaining relationships on average. They're not healthy relationships, but still.



Mark R said:


> Firstly, psychological literature suggests that number of partners regardless of sex is a predictor of marriage success (or failure). It also suggests that a weak willed person who has sex compulsively is very different from a person who shows good judgement according to her values, even with many partners. Is she open and vulnerable about it, or is she ashamed and contradicting her herself from conversation to conversation about her past? Body count isn't the whole story.
> 
> As far as the woman who has had four different long term relationships, context is also important. She did not choose to marry any of these partners. Maybe she has learned from each of these relationships and is prepared now. Maybe she keeps making the same mistake over and over again and has not learned.


It's not the whole story, but it's part of the story. Maybe she has learned, maybe she hasn't. Would you take the risk ? Do you think you can vet someone enough so that the risk becomes minimal ?
I know I'm not taking it, because I don't think there can be enough vetting. It's a huge gamble, even with extensive vetting. I can understand finding oneself in unfortunate circumstances, for example picking an abusive partner. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but two things I would say about that : the first one is that if one's partner is abusive, there is still part of the responsibility that's on the victim, which is sometimes a "victim", to leave or to stay. Because if a partner is abusive, that's a thing, but if the other person is staying in the premises, that's on the other. The second thing is that I'm already including that in the "4". I'm including that, I'm including situations where things are going well but the two people have different perspectives on things or different goals for the relationship, etc. To me, someone that I will consider taking seriously, will have to have had strictly below 4 relationships, serious or casual. 3 is giving some leeway already, 4 is proof to me that the person is already at least inapt at being actually competent at being serious. I'm aware that it's filtering a lot of women, but that's fine by me, currently at least.



Mark R said:


> Again, some context is important. Who is she now? What has she learned? Does she compulsively seek sex or has she been true to her values in her choices?


To me it doesn't really matter, because either way it displays behavior that I'm not interested in. Either playing with others in the worst way possible, or actually not playing, but then that means I'm probably far from the only one having been there, and that's where I have to go back to the number thing and try to figure out if she's been around or not. If I'm going to have to do that in order to find something serious, anyway, at least I would go for someone who doesn't overtly flirts with everyone/other people, because at least I'm removing that from the equation.
Then what if her values are to be fully "liberated" ? Well, she's been true to her values, and those values don't match with mine : don't want it. Will sex her with a much higher probability but never take her seriously.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

Lonewaer said:


> I'm familiar, yes. I agree, and you touch on something important : the men who are, more than a-holes, criminals, who are like you say "very disagreeable", so much so that they end up in prison, have the exact same traits that make other men protectors. Which is another reason why even criminals are attractive to women. So if criminals are attractive to women, then a-holes are. I think extreme a-holes have less difficulties finding and maintaining relationships on average. They're not healthy relationships, but still.


I think this is a bit of self-pity that isn't constructive. You are either saying, "wo is me. I'm not a disagreeable asshole, so no one will love me," or "I must become a disagreeable asshole to be loved." You do you. Be assertive enough to make a stand in the short term because you are aware backing down leads to long-term disrespect. Don't make compromises that will fester in you resentment. Be willing to walk away from a relationship that stresses you out and doesn't meet your needs. Do this consistently and you will become more aware of your power.

You said before that a woman who has had four relationships that ended is bad at relationships and her relationships are failures. Relationships are opportunities for growth. It takes a lot of wisdom to balance enduring through trouble (all relationships have trouble), and knowing when a relationship needs to end. A relationship where two people grow is a success even if it ends. A divorce isn't the end of the world. Sometimes, you don't know that a relationship won't work until you are years into it. If you are lucky, you might find someone you can grow together until you grow old together. A failure is a long relationship where one person dominates the other and no one grows. Yes, some are attracted to such relationships, but they are not worth maintaining.

My goal is to be in an awesome relationship, rather than be in a mediocre relationship and avoid divorce.

Date as many women as can. Try them on and see what works best.

I'd be interested in hearing a women's perspective on very disagreeable men.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Mark R said:


> I'd be interested in hearing a women's perspective on very disagreeable men.


The high conscientious ones are insufferable in the workplace. The low conscientious ones are terrifying in the streets. Ew.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Mark R said:


> I'd be interested in hearing a women's perspective on very disagreeable men.


I am not a fan. In my day to day life I usually just avoid such people. 

I score in the middle on agreeable vs disagreeable btw, maybe that is a factor to consider.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

OrchidSugar said:


> The high conscientious ones are insufferable in the workplace. The low conscientious ones are terrifying in the streets. Ew.





0.M.I.A.0 said:


> I am not a fan. In my day to day life I usually just avoid such people.
> 
> I score in the middle on agreeable vs disagreeable btw, maybe that is a factor to consider.


This was mostly in response to @Lonewaer 's assertion that they were attractive in romantic relationships. I think we all agree that they are a pain at work or streets. I just don't feel qualified to speak on the woman's perspective as a high-agreeableness man who has been forced to learn to stand my ground for my good and the good of others.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Mark R said:


> I'd be interested in hearing a women's perspective on very disagreeable men.


I find them cute in a way, like I want to pinch their cheeks like a grandmama, but not serious relationship potential.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

OrchidSugar said:


> I'm not talking about who uses the word, I'm talking about who invented the term to describe them. There's a lot of words we all now use because they have been made common. But I would argue that if you aspire to be like Chad, that means Chad is on a higher level and *you cannot compete with him*, like I said. I don't think that any men would tear down Chad, but it's very sad how many see him as aspirational. They want to learn from him, while simultaneously denigrating the women who are attracted to him. It's sick. Therefore, no, you are not in a "competition" with him. *You are in a mentor-mentee hierarchical relationship with him.* It's in this way that many redpill content leaders were able to make their fortunes lol
> 
> But let's say you're the type of man who doesn't get girls. Are you going to go degrade Chad and call him a manwhore (even the term manwhore is very telling)? No you're not going to bother with Chad at all. You will just call the women that he sleeps with promiscuous. Their body count may be far lower than Chad's even, but you give them the term "slut." So this is where I agree with you about envy. If you're the kind of guy who isn't trying to learn from Chad, and isn't trying to sleep with the same women Chad has access to, then chances are you are will mind your business. *If you are Chad's fan or Chad's hater, you will likely find yourself calling a woman a slut at some point.*
> 
> The moral of my story is just everyone shut up and mind your own damned business. It's free!


Well, if you ask an average man, the Chad is on a higher level and they are trying to compete with him.

I don't think there's denigration as in hate for the women who are attracted to him, rather than indifference. They can be like "ok, that's a hoe" and be in their head "no relationship". But they don't hate the woman, they just find her an easy woman. Sure, you can have some guys who "hate hoes" (promiscous women, but 'hoe' is just 3 letters so I'm going to stick to that, and yes I know there is a difference) but most of them are like "that's a hoe/not a safe woman, so I'm going to use her for sex if I can, if not I'm going to be on my way". They just don't see her as a relationship material, turn off from the possibility that she is a relationship material, because they wouldn't want to date someone who would go for a Chad, but at the same time there's no hate towards the woman (if there is, maybe there's a personal reason there).

No, I think even men who will mind their own business will call women with a high body count "sluts". Thing is, it's not something personal for men. They don't have to have something personal with her to consider her a slut, or even some deep sense of envy for some reason. There are cases like that too, but what I'm saying is that that's not the rule.

It depends on our personal definitions of a Chad, in my definition, a Chad is just a guy who is very attractive and is able to get all the women because of that. It doesn't necessarily mean that he is going to sleep with all the women he can, although I can see how a lot of Chads would do that simply because they have access to it and no stigma like women have. With that definition, I think every guy desires to be a guy who has an easier time getting a woman.



Lonewaer said:


> I'm going to offer some push back here.
> 
> I think the main misunderstanding here, is that we've been told (at least I know I have), for like 30 years, to be nice and respectful to women, and the problem is that men take that crap literally. But the result is a bunch of men who are too nice and too respectful for their own good, and then get wrongfully misconstrued as manipulative. I've been that guy, probably still am, I have to make a conscious effort to repress that education because it doesn't offer any good result until I already am in a solid long-term relationship. But that's not being manipulative, that's following the instructions manual, we can't blame men for being that when the message that we've fed them _is_ that. We have to stop spreading the message that being "nice" is required, and that being "respectful" is required, because that's a lie. The traits that you mention in the second paragraph that I quoted, they don't have to be detrimental, true, but that's not how one becomes attractive most of the time. They're what makes you a _friend_, not a boyfriend or any kind of serious partner. That will work sometimes, don't get me wrong, but if there isn't also that a-holeness to balance it, that will also destroy the relationship because those are the traits that make someone boring, and women aren't aroused by boring.
> 
> ...


When girls say “We just want a guy who’s kind and respectful” they’re actually NOT lying. It’s just that the word “GUY” for them carries a HUGE load of baggage which includes “hot, tall, funny, confident, young, and sexy”. It’s like someone saying “I just want a car that’s red” but they don’t ACTUALLY just want any old car as long as it’s red. By “car” they already MEAN a powerful, reliable, nice-looking vehicle with a strong engine. The red color is just a side-bonus. The same thing applies to these girls’ standards. For them, guy doesn’t just = “male” but a specific type of male with all these specific characteristics. That’s the key.

"women like the emotional roller coaster more than peace", yes, I agree with that.

"it was every time a case of him assuming bad faith/bad intentions on her part (her testing him for example), so a blatant lack of respect. That's not "not being an a-hole", to me, on the contrary it is exactly being an a-hole. Same with my parents' relationship, same with my cousin's, same with my sister's, same with a bunch of other friends', and I'm pretty sure I've seen that in my grandparents' relationship when I was a child. They're not just standing their ground, they're being a-holes about it. That seems to be the main factor in having a successful relationship. After that, I can agree that "good" traits go a long way, but they do come after ; before everything else, stand your ground, and don't be afraid of being a dick about it."

Can you offer some examples of what have you actually seen in your parents, cousin, sister, other friends and grandparents when you were a child? We're all strangers here. Chances are, we're never going to meet each other.

But I absolutely agree with your sentiment that women will say 1 thing and want 1 thing.

Dating advice from women is usually bad, ineffective. I don't know why that is, part of it may be women give advice to "keep creeps away" rather than a genuine interest to give you dating advice, but part of it is they are not lying but they just have no idea what they want or what works on them. If you're attracted to a man, you don't know why you're attracted to a man, you just find yourself attracted to a man and then try to rationalize it backwards, therefore the bad advice.

Women most of the time will tell you what you WANT to hear, not what you NEED to hear. Taking advantage mostly of hopeless and desperate men.

It's kinda like when you have no friends and people tell you to just "go out and socialize". Yeah right, imma go out alone and randomly introduce myself to groups of people minding their own business, see what happens. You can never trust someone that hasn't had your same struggles, and sometimes not even them.

There is no such thing as a woman who needs any "dating advice" other than: be clean and non-fat. Any of them who meets those two simple criteria will have literally thousands of men willing to say yes to them at any given moment. Therefore why they are so bad at giving advice.

Life is much simpler when you stop explaining yourself to people and just do what works for you.

And yes, looks, it's not all about looks, but it's mostly about looks. The vast majority of time it's about looks. When it comes to their own dating advice like "just respect us", the worst part is, most women truly believe this. They want to believe that they are not shallow and immature. They want to believe that they like a guy for his personality and not his looks. Ignore what a woman says, pay attention to what she does and you will learn all you need.

*Privilege is invisible to those who have it*. Don't expect anyone to understand your struggles, they are too focused on themselves to understand your point of view.

I don't think this is women-exclusive behavior, simply they are in a situation that makes women very likely to be wrong about their own dating advice. There was a study that I came across in early 2000s where Radio Stations asked listeners what they disliked about station programming. The #1 answer that came back was "lack of variety". Radio Stations adapted and tried adding more variety, but listenership dropped even further for those stations. They found that they got the best results by ADVERTISING that they had the most variety, but then actually offering NONE. The bottom line is that people often don't know what they want or what drives them. You have to look at what gets results and take what they say with a gallon of salt.

I remember this conversation between a man and a woman, the woman told him he was failing because he had no gratitude for life. Then he asked her, "when you fell head over heels for Joe and screwed him the night you met, was it his gratitude for life that made you wanna screw him?" She got real quiet after that.

In the same way as with women, ironically, when a very good looking guy says "just be yourself", he is not intentionally leading you astray. He is just being honest with his experience with women. With his good looks, he can treat women like absolute trash and still have a higher notch count than Ghandi could ever dream of.

Women will tell you what 'feels' good, not what gives results. Much of the time, women omit looks from attractive attributes to unconsciously disassociate themselves with negative feelings of shallowness and superficiality. It's all about the feelings / tingles. Dreams sell; perception is reality. Pay attention to their actions; don't trust their words.

Women say they want men to be submissive, “respect them”, putting their number on a piece of paper like it’s 5th grade, ect? But yet women time and time again respond to dominance in men? What’s the harm in being truthful? It doesen't sound good and it doesn't make tham look good.

Or because they will not get orbiters/simps or they will get way less orbiters if they told the truth. A lot of men are desperate, not crazy. It's a fine line. Telling men that you like dominance will not get you as many simps as telling men "just respect us". At the same time, if a man approaches you and you like him based on his looks, you don't want him to be submissive, but if a man approaches you and you don't like him based on his looks, you want him to be submissive, so it's the safest option for women in terms of choosing how they want to be attracted and approached, even if it means lying about it.

Women who like to have simps/orbiters to them don't even know what respect means most of the time. For most of the women who are like that, most of the guys giving them respect are guys they don't respect.

Would you rather take financial advice from a rich trust fund kid who inherited all his wealth and never did a thing in his life independently, or from a guy who used to be a nobody and got his wealth through marketable skills and smart investment decisions?

You should listen to their advice because if you apply it, it will work. But only if youre good looking. When the word men come out of their mouths when giving dating advice, best believe they aren't having a mental image of a normal looking guy, its a mental image of a 8+/10 guy. They're not talking about you, theyre talking about hot guys. They are giving you advice on someone they would already want to date regardless. It's basically "this Chad apporaches me, I want him to date me, what would I want him to do if I want him to date me?" kind of advice, this is the advice they give when they don't give the be submissive even though I like dominant guys so that I can feel safer when I'm being approached kind of advice.

She might give you advice but it will be for her benefit or the "sisterhood". Example, she will advise a normal looking guy, to be a nice guy, things will work out in the end etc, so that a female somewhere will have a nice little backup/settle down option at age 35 after she has had all the chads on rotation for 15-20 years.

Those who can accept reality have the best chance of making good decisions.

'Women would prefer if my idea was accurate so it's fair to them, but they're not having that standard, I am, the same way they will extrapolate a man's income based on what he does for work", lol, yes.

"Well, in that case good for her, but I don't want to take her seriously." - You have exactly nailed the sentiment I've been trying to describe in 20 paragraphs. Men don't hate promiscious women, they just won't take them seriously for a commited relationship.

This -> First of all that's 4 _failed_ serious relationships, so that means she's bad at serious relationships. But secondly, that's only her dating history. What if she's slept around ? Well, in that case good for her, but I don't want to take her seriously. I would probably have sex with her, sure (worsening her situation, yes, I'm aware), but I wouldn't present her to my parents. In that sense I like the way Dezir presents it because it seems pretty spot on : hoes are for sharing/passing around, a girlfriend is not, and is to be preserved from all that.

Perfectly describes the male experience. Women may not like it, but it is what it is, men don't like it that women judge them by status or by height either, but it is what it is, you can be mad about it or accept it, but being mad about it won't change it it will only make you more frustrated. Being upset that you have standards that you have to live up to usually doesn't change anything, you're much more benefited if you do acknolwdge those standards and do what you can do to pass those standards so you can actually get what you want, in the case if height you can't change it but you can defintely do stuff to improve your looks.

You don't appreciate/care how important this is for men, for their own protection not out of "hate", fine, but they won't stop caring/appreciating that thing simply because you don't care about it and are mad about it.

"But for someone who is making it very clear that she wants me, then I have to wonder how many dudes she has been attracted to, has approached, and has had sex/been in a relationship with, and I'm not gonna lie, the older I grow, the more that repulses me." -> I think that if she makes it very clear she wants you, she's way more likely to be a non-promiscous woman than otherwise, non-promiscous women usually don't commit like that.

Non-promiscous women don't make it very clear they want every man on the street. When they are focused on one guy they usually like one guy. They are safe.

"And so I don't like having to chase women as a man, but I understand why I have to and why it's been that way for most of history ; none of it being oppression by the way, before any idiot jumps at me." -> yep, same, when I was 15 I thought that it literally sucks that a man has to chase a woman, why can't it be otherwise, now I know why can't it be otherwise, it's promiscous behavior. I think that a woman can make a move towards a guy if they like them, they are allowed to do that, but a woman makes a move a move towards a guy if they like in the sense of going for a serious relationship. If she makes a move towards a guy if they like just for sleeping around, you can easily put her in the "share" box or "not for girlfriend use" box.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Sorry if this is moving away from the point a bit, but why would they even want to know? It doesn't make sense. I remember an acquaintance telling me about a girl I was seeing at the time. He was trying to tell me about her past, and I stopped him. I didn't wanna know. He looked at me like there was something wrong with me. He wasn't doing it out of malice, he genuinely thought that it's in my best interest to know. Why? I'm more interested in who people are now than in who they used to be. If he had an answer, he wasn't willing to share it. I'd love to know what purpose this would serve. Because I can think of a few reasons why it's a bad idea.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

I'm interested in if I will step on any landmines when I look at this response (you gave someone else).



Dezir said:


> Well, if you ask an average man, the Chad is on a higher level and they are trying to compete with him.


I would say as far as dating goes, all men are competing with each other. Not in a track and field style competition. But it is men who chase women and women select the best from these options. So in order to be selected, you need to stand out.



> It depends on our personal definitions of a Chad, in my definition, a Chad is just a guy who is very attractive and is able to get all the women because of that. It doesn't necessarily mean that he is going to sleep with all the women he can, although I can see how a lot of Chads would do that simply because they have access to it and no stigma like women have. With that definition, I think every guy desires to be a guy who has an easier time getting a woman.


I just hate the word Chad along with the Beck, Stacey and Tyrone slang as well. I guess it might be a generational thing. But I guess using words like Chad, Alpha. etc are quicker, simpler than saying "The man who is more likely to be selected by a woman". As much as I disagree with the 80/20 rule in the very literal sense that Incels use it, I do believe there is some truth to it. I do not believe it means that it is set in stone that there is only 20% of men who will ever attract women. But that at any given time in any given social venue/online dating app, on average about 20% of guys will attract 80% of the women. I am not sure on my views of the Tinder study. When reducing dating and attraction to just photo's and a wall of text, the game does change and it does rely heavily on looks. How can it not?



> When girls say “We just want a guy who’s kind and respectful” they’re actually NOT lying. It’s just that the word “GUY” for them carries a HUGE load of baggage which includes “hot, tall, funny, confident, young, and sexy”. It’s like someone saying “I just want a car that’s red” but they don’t ACTUALLY just want any old car as long as it’s red. By “car” they already MEAN a powerful, reliable, nice-looking vehicle with a strong engine. The red color is just a side-bonus. The same thing applies to these girls’ standards. For them, guy doesn’t just = “male” but a specific type of male with all these specific characteristics. That’s the key.


I am going to agree here. I believe everyone has a looks threshold (well, a lot of people anyway, after the Pig Woman experiment, it is clear some guys have no/low standards). But I also don't find it controversial (maybe this comes with age) that women are adding an invisible "that I find physically attractive", this just means that passing the looks threshold is not the be all/end all. In honesty if anything, I would say this says more about guys. In that they will place all importance on looks alone and overlook red flags just due to a womans looks. In that sense, well no surprise various communities started up. 

Like I have said somewhere previously, if guys (as a whole) started focusing on quality not quantity (don't get me wrong, I have been there), I believe the whole dynamic of the dating market would change almost overnight. However, who knows, maybe we can also stop the Scorpion from stinging the Frog whilst we are at it.



> "it was every time a case of him assuming bad faith/bad intentions on her part (her testing him for example), so a blatant lack of respect. That's not "not being an a-hole", to me, on the contrary it is exactly being an a-hole. Same with my parents' relationship, same with my cousin's, same with my sister's, same with a bunch of other friends', and I'm pretty sure I've seen that in my grandparents' relationship when I was a child. They're not just standing their ground, they're being a-holes about it. That seems to be the main factor in having a successful relationship. After that, I can agree that "good" traits go a long way, but they do come after ; before everything else, stand your ground, and don't be afraid of being a dick about it."


I think the thing is, the asshole makes an emotional impact/reaction. Where as someone who takes advice on being nice too literally, just becomes bland boring and forgettable. I know I tend to say some outrageous stuff in RL, that does raise a few eyebrows. Then I chill out and become normal again. Yeah, it gets me remembered, why the hell would I want to be bland, boring and forgettable. 



> But I absolutely agree with your sentiment that women will say 1 thing and want 1 thing.


Whilst I agree here, from a womans dating perspective, I am going to imagine that men are probably the same. However as a man looking to date women, I am not really that interested in what its like to date a man, so I guess i never mention stuff like that as it is irrelevent. Maybe communities like Female Dating Strategy deal with this, I dunno, I don't really care to be honest.



> Dating advice from women is usually bad, ineffective. I don't know why that is, part of it may be women give advice to "keep creeps away" rather than a genuine interest to give you dating advice, but part of it is they are not lying but they just have no idea what they want or what works on them. If you're attracted to a man, you don't know why you're attracted to a man, you just find yourself attracted to a man and then try to rationalize it backwards, therefore the bad advice.


I think men asking dating advice from women needs to stop. Also, in regards to men wanting advice on getting laid. Why the hell is a woman going to help a guy achieve that. The BlackPill weirdo's who blame their mums for their lack of sexual prowess, well I am sure when women give birth, they look at a baby boy and think "One day I want you to become GigaChad and bang lots of women, helping spread diseases and creating bastard children", yeah.... just no.

And.... women asking advice from men. Sorry I just think men and women face totally difference issues generally in the dating market. As a guy, if my issue was how to filter out from loads of avaliable men and choose one that wants something serious and not just use me. I wouldn't have a f**king clue. I'm a dude, I don't live in that level of abundance. Most mens dating problems from what I have seen, are how to attract a woman. Hence men giving stupid advice to women like "Put on some lipstick and just be nice". Its Solapism from both parties.



> Women most of the time will tell you what you WANT to hear, not what you NEED to hear. Taking advantage mostly of hopeless and desperate men.


Although I do agree here, there is still Crab Bucket mentality so male friends are not neccesarily that helpful either. I find random internet strangers generally more helpful than friends and family. They do not feel compelled to tell me I am fine just the way I am. 



> It's kinda like when you have no friends and people tell you to just "go out and socialize". Yeah right, imma go out alone and randomly introduce myself to groups of people minding their own business, see what happens. You can never trust someone that hasn't had your same struggles, and sometimes not even them.


Why not, thats what I do when I move cities. 



> There is no such thing as a woman who needs any "dating advice" other than: be clean and non-fat. Any of them who meets those two simple criteria will have literally thousands of men willing to say yes to them at any given moment. Therefore why they are so bad at giving advice.


See one of my above comments in regards to this. If a woman is just looking to attractive, sure "be clean and non-fat" works. However when it comes down to filtering literrally thousands of men, to find the highest quality, that advice serves no purpose.



> Life is much simpler when you stop explaining yourself to people and just do what works for you.


The rules of Fight Club.



> And yes, looks, it's not all about looks, but it's mostly about looks. The vast majority of time it's about looks. When it comes to their own dating advice like "just respect us", the worst part is, most women truly believe this. They want to believe that they are not shallow and immature. They want to believe that they like a guy for his personality and not his looks. Ignore what a woman says, pay attention to what she does and you will learn all you need.


It only seems like its about looks to people who do not have the looks. Once people are above the looks threshold, its a different game.



> Would you rather take financial advice from a rich trust fund kid who inherited all his wealth and never did a thing in his life independently, or from a guy who used to be a nobody and got his wealth through marketable skills and smart investment decisions?


Why not listen to both, take what you need and add something of your own.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

ENFPathetic said:


> Sorry if this is moving away from the point a bit, but why would they even want to know? It doesn't make sense. I remember an acquaintance telling me about a girl I was seeing at the time. He was trying to tell me about her past, and I stopped him. I didn't wanna know. He looked at me like there was something wrong with me. He wasn't doing it out of malice, he genuinely thought that it's in my best interest to know. Why? I'm more interested in who people are now than in who they used to be. If he had an answer, he wasn't willing to share it. I'd love to know what purpose this would serve. Because I can think of a few reasons why it's a bad idea.


It seems to be a taboo topic, at least in the United States. I was married 17 years and we never spoke with my wife about her past sexual experiences with men. When I lived in Europe, women seemed more open about their sexual pasts.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

I have always treated it like 'don't as, don't tell'

I never present myself as a pure person with a lower body count. I present myself more so as someone who at some points has a colorful or wild past. I usually leave it at that. I think that is a fair way of letting someone know I am not 'pure'. And being respectful of alerting them in case it offends their values etc. Outside of that I really do not think it is my obligation to sit with a partner and give them head counts or play by plays of my entire life. Nor do I expect that of them. I think there is a way to tactfully give an overview of yourself while also still preserving privacy. I do not consider that lying. I also do not consider it laying every single detail out on a table.

I would imagine women who do lie would do it because this thread is representation that clearly there is a bias. If the woman is shady and has something to hide it makes sense they would not lead with this. Given alotta the perspectives even revealed here. I would assume also if the person is ashamed or something or no longer is promiscuous they could be motivated to avoid not sharing that side of their life, because some people grow and change. 🤷‍♀️

But I would agree with the title on why men would be to partial blame on why some women would not be open with their history. Makes sense to me.

Personally I learned a long while ago I do not match up with guys that put heavy emphasis on head counts anyways. Even if I had never been promiscuous in my life I still do not pair with this kinda guy who does THAT much. So I would rather tell them so they can be put off or disgusted and move on anyways. So we can both avoid each other.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

ENFPathetic said:


> Sorry if this is moving away from the point a bit, but why would they even want to know? It doesn't make sense. I remember an acquaintance telling me about a girl I was seeing at the time. He was trying to tell me about her past, and I stopped him. I didn't wanna know. He looked at me like there was something wrong with me. He wasn't doing it out of malice, he genuinely thought that it's in my best interest to know. Why? I'm more interested in who people are now than in who they used to be. If he had an answer, he wasn't willing to share it. I'd love to know what purpose this would serve. Because I can think of a few reasons why it's a bad idea.


The examples I saw of this on Reddit and also a few cases I have seen where it happened in RL, the guy always found out by accident. One reddit post was where it was discovered that Fiancee starred in a few porn videos (his friends made sure he saw them). And as far as RL goes, its more of a "Oh your getting married to so and so, I remember when she my dick, my friends dick and some other guys dick all at the same time". 

But then when questioned the fiancee denies it at first, then goes into the good ole "the past is the past". Then "But you said you were gonna marry me", to which the guy responses "well the past is the past",

The Reddit ones, some of them I think are just vengence pron and not even real, they seem a bit far fetched. As for stuff in RL, well there is no escaping our past I guess.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

> I never present myself as a pure person with a lower body count. I present myself more so as someone who at some points has a colorful or wild past. I usually leave it at that. I think that is a fair way of letting someone know I am not 'pure'. And being respectful of alerting them in case it offends their values etc. Outside of that I really do not think it is my obligation to sit with a partner and give them head counts or play by plays of my entire life. Nor do I expect that of them. I think there is a way to tactfully give an overview of yourself while also still preserving privacy. I do not consider that lying. I also do not consider it laying every single detail out on a table.


Thats different though from saying your are pure and innocent which you mention next.



> Personally I learned a long while ago I do not match up with guys that put heavy emphasis on head counts anyways. So I would rather tell them so they can be put off or disgusted and move on anyways. So we can both avoid each other.


That seems the best course of action to me at least. For example religious women, I know my past would not be conductive with their beliefs so I would not entertain the thought of even just dating one, nevermind going any further.[/QUOTE]


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> The examples I saw of this on Reddit and also a few cases I have seen where it happened in RL, the guy always found out by accident. One reddit post was where it was discovered that Fiancee starred in a few porn videos (his friends made sure he saw them). And as far as RL goes, its more of a "Oh your getting married to so and so, I remember when she my dick, my friends dick and some other guys dick all at the same time".
> 
> But then when questioned the fiancee denies it at first, then goes into the good ole "the past is the past". Then "But you said you were gonna marry me", to which the guy responses "well the past is the past",
> 
> The Reddit ones, some of them I think are just vengence pron and not even real, they seem a bit far fetched. As for stuff in RL, well there is no escaping our past I guess.


Eh yeah that goes into another territory. Even me saying I have been promiscuous does not relate to this extreme story.

I mean even I am like wtf. Lol I think there is a difference between promiscuous, and previous gang bang porn star. WTF man  . You equate someone who had a wild period in like college with someone who got paid to have 5 dicks in their mouth? Shit


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

0.M.I.A.0 said:


> Eh yeah that goes into another territory. Even me saying I have been promiscuous does not relate to this extreme story.
> 
> I mean even I am like wtf. Lol I think there is a difference between promiscuous, and previous gang bang porn star. WTF man  . You equate someone who had a wild period in like college with someone who got paid to have 5 dicks in their mouth? Shit


My other issue with the Promiscious past thing is. The guys who do complain, apart from extreme circumstances, how do they find out? Do they turn up on a first date with a polygraph or something.

But again, my other point, even if shaming a man who does not want to be with you, into being with you works (he says he wants someone without a promiscious past, so he gets shamed for having preferences), would it be a good start to a relationship? Someone who is only with you, because he was shamed to do so.

As much as I am not a fan of slut-shaming. I also do not see the point of shaming guys into relationships either. Guy dosn't wanna be with someone with a promiscious past, cool leave him be.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

@Dezir and @recycled_lube_oil 
I haven't replied to your most recent posts. Mostly, I agree with what you both have been saying.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

0.M.I.A.0 said:


> I.e. I do not go around referring to disgruntled men who appear to have angry man complex and say things like the 'limp dick' over there. If you prefer to refer to promiscuous women as Hoes that is your prerogative. To each their own. I will read if ya respond but also going to respectfully bow out.


Why not, its funny? I don't mean to their faces, but when with friends, relevant nicknames sometimes gets the point across easier than long drawn out descriptions.


----------



## NIHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Mark R said:


> I think this is a bit of self-pity that isn't constructive. You are either saying, "wo is me. I'm not a disagreeable asshole, so no one will love me," or "I must become a disagreeable asshole to be loved." You do you. Be assertive enough to make a stand in the short term because you are aware backing down leads to long-term disrespect. Don't make compromises that will fester in you resentment. Be willing to walk away from a relationship that stresses you out and doesn't meet your needs. Do this consistently and you will become more aware of your power.
> 
> You said before that a woman who has had four relationships that ended is bad at relationships and her relationships are failures. Relationships are opportunities for growth. It takes a lot of wisdom to balance enduring through trouble (all relationships have trouble), and knowing when a relationship needs to end. A relationship where two people grow is a success even if it ends. A divorce isn't the end of the world. Sometimes, you don't know that a relationship won't work until you are years into it. If you are lucky, you might find someone you can grow together until you grow old together. A failure is a long relationship where one person dominates
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing a women's perspective on very disagreeable men.





0.M.I.A.0 said:


> I am not a fan. In my day to day life I usually just avoid such people.
> 
> I score in the middle on agreeable vs disagreeable btw, maybe that is a factor to consider.


I think I had to learn what was agreeable and disagreeable to me. I had to be in a relationship with a gaslighter to now understand it and recognize the behavior that I now react very badly to it. It made me wise but I still lived it and grew from that pain. Being in a healthy relationship now has made me realize how bad it was. Growing up is a learning curve.

I still think I enjoy certain traits and dislike certain traits in a mate. I do know compromising is highly important for both individuals to realize and that human beings are not perfect. I have recognized because I'm oblivious to flirting that a more assertive mate needs to let me know they like me. Submissive males just bounce off, not because I wouldn't be interested but simply I didn't know about them even wanting me. I have a weird brain some how it stays on neutral territory more often than not when I know someone isn't interested. I go through most of my day thinking 99% not interested. Also the attraction I would feel for another person doesn't get flipped on if I'm already in a stable relationship. But that might not be a girl or guy brain, just mine. Assertive also does not mean that they're assholes. Someone in the middle and balanced.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> My other issue with the Promiscious past thing is. The guys who do complain, apart from extreme circumstances, how do they find out? Do they turn up on a first date with a polygraph or something.
> 
> But again, my other point, even if shaming a man who does not want to be with you, into being with you works (he says he wants someone without a promiscious past, so he gets shamed for having preferences), would it be a good start to a relationship? Someone who is only with you, because he was shamed to do so.
> 
> As much as I am not a fan of slut-shaming. I also do not see the point of shaming guys into relationships either. Guy dosn't wanna be with someone with a promiscious past, cool leave him be.


I do not think I personally suggested or said that. I do not do that. 

I am obviously questioning opinions here in general. But I certainly do think people should be with their preferences.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

0.M.I.A.0 said:


> I do not think I personally suggested or said that. I do not do that.
> 
> I am obviously questioning opinions here in general. But I certainly do think people should be with their preferences.


that wasn’t really related to anything you said tbh.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> I would say as far as dating goes, all men are competing with each other. Not in a track and field style competition. But it is men who chase women and women select the best from these options. So in order to be selected, you need to stand out.


I don't see it that way, I see it as men competing with themselves, sure there are other men out there that the woman could be attracted to, but if you're a 7/10 women will be attracted to you regardless of whether you live in a city with 10.000 other men or 1.000.000 other men. You could call it a competition when 2 or more men actively compete for the same woman (I've been there) but not when it's just you and the women around.



recycled_lube_oil said:


> I just hate the word Chad along with the Beck, Stacey and Tyrone slang as well. I guess it might be a generational thing. But I guess using words like Chad, Alpha. etc are quicker, simpler than saying "The man who is more likely to be selected by a woman". As much as I disagree with the 80/20 rule in the very literal sense that Incels use it, I do believe there is some truth to it. I do not believe it means that it is set in stone that there is only 20% of men who will ever attract women. But that at any given time in any given social venue/online dating app, on average about 20% of guys will attract 80% of the women. I am not sure on my views of the Tinder study. When reducing dating and attraction to just photo's and a wall of text, the game does change and it does rely heavily on looks. How can it not?


I don't know the stereotypes between Beck, Stacey and Tyrone but I find the use of word Chad very convenient exactly for the reasons you described. Yes, I agree that Tinder is not at all like real life, you don't get to know the person there, you just like the looks swipe right otherwise swipe left. Tinder is toxic in my opinion.



recycled_lube_oil said:


> I am going to agree here. I believe everyone has a looks threshold (well, a lot of people anyway, after the Pig Woman experiment, it is clear some guys have no/low standards). But I also don't find it controversial (maybe this comes with age) that women are adding an invisible "that I find physically attractive", this just means that passing the looks threshold is not the be all/end all. In honesty if anything, I would say this says more about guys. In that they will place all importance on looks alone and overlook red flags just due to a womans looks. In that sense, well no surprise various communities started up.


Absolutely, there are men out there who look at looks and overlook anything else about the woman, including red flags. But I think women are guily of the same thing when it comes to men, this is why the Chad stereotype exists.

While yes looks are important, at least in the very start they carry you, but even afterwards are important, if you don't pass a certain looks threshold you are a no-name. People want to know you care about them, people want to be cared for, that's what love is and how they know you're a keeper. People looking for deep connections want someone to be in it for them, not their looks and cars.

Women being loved for their looks is the equivalent of men being loved for their money. Sure, they would appreciate being liked for their looks, but that's not enough, it's superficial. They want to be loved for the person they are, not for the body they have. Not caring about your looks, but caring about the person you are, caring that you feel good, wanting the best for you.

To get to that "deep connection" you have to look wholly at her. Looking at how she behaves, and appreciate her for something about her personality rather than anything else. Heck, that's how I got my current relationship. She was definetly there in terms of looks, but that didn't make me attracted to her, I didn't even try to 'hit on her' ever, we just happened to cross roads a few times a day and naturally we would talk. I got to know the person she is, I got to know her personality, and I liked it. That's when I started to be attracted to her enough to want to go on a date with her.



recycled_lube_oil said:


> Like I have said somewhere previously, if guys (as a whole) started focusing on quality not quantity (don't get me wrong, I have been there), I believe the whole dynamic of the dating market would change almost overnight. However, who knows, maybe we can also stop the Scorpion from stinging the Frog whilst we are at it.


If this is about simping I agree. I can't believe there are guys out there paying for OnlyFans. No matter how desperate you are.



recycled_lube_oil said:


> I think the thing is, the asshole makes an emotional impact/reaction. Where as someone who takes advice on being nice too literally, just becomes bland boring and forgettable. I know I tend to say some outrageous stuff in RL, that does raise a few eyebrows. Then I chill out and become normal again. Yeah, it gets me remembered, why the hell would I want to be bland, boring and forgettable.


You can do those emotional spikes with simply being funny. Obviously, jokes are an important part of having fun with each other. The more fun she has the better she feels and the more likely she is to say yes to you, to accept your requests for a date or other things. There was saying "if you want her to like you, make her laugh", that's the short way to put it.

You can do any kind of joke, everything is okay as long as you two laugh and have a good time. It's important to be able to be each other around each other, to be able to express yourselves, to not feel restricted or controlled, for this someone has to make the first step, a small step, and maybe the other will follow, when he does, keep going and so on.

You can make any kind of jokes: self-humor as in dissing yourself in a fun way with a tone that gives it away that I'm joking, absurdity as in making fun of things that make no sense, sarcasm as in implying the opposite of what is obvious.

Some girls like to be made fun of, to have a bit of negative emotional spikes in the conversation as well. If you want to tease them, make sure you already are familiar enough with each other when you do and keep it respectful, do not be offensive, you can be touchy and stingy but not offensive. It's very important to be funny not insulting.

In teasing, you make fun of something is not so deranging. But you do push some bundaries, you give some negative spikes. And you create some challenge there. You say something they don't like, but it's not bad enough to be offensive. And you can even "cover it up" with good behavior, compliments or self-humor, dissing yourself so they know it's a joke.

How far you can go? well you can say: "look, even animals run away from you" (making fun that they aren't liked), "don't worry about failing in life, you can always work as a janitor" (making fun that they are not good enough). Or if they are right about something: "even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while" (making fun that they are often wrong), "you are such a backstabber, I expected more from you" or "I knew I shouldn't trust you" (making fun that they aren't trustworthy) with the light tonality that gives it away that it's a joke. Or use their own words against them, change the narrative (turn something good for them or bad for you, in something good for you or bad for them). When someone challenges you, you need to learn to give good replies so that you win the talk fight, to have good comebacks. Not because it's a competition, but because it makes everything more fun.

You can say: "you're so skinny that if someone tries to shoot me and you stand in front of me, I get shot and you don't" (making fun that they are slim), or "you look like a zombie" (if they have something on their face or are very tired, don't say this about their general face, that's offensive, it's not making fun of their looks, it's temporray looks), or "I literally grew a beard waiting for you" (making fun that they take long to prepare),

Making scare jokes can be a form of teasing. Teasing can also imply pushing some boundaries: "you can stop [doing something inconvenient] now, it's okay", "but you didn't stay for [something else]", so you push some boundaries, but you have to make sure the other person is cool with it based on their tone and general attitude. If they laugh when saying "you can stop [doing something inconvenient] now, it's okay" it means they are going with the joke, if they are serious do actually stop. Most of communication is non-verbal.

You can also tease by exaggerating various things about them or the enviroment. For example, if they are very cold you can say: "we are here in Siberia, there is no snow yet but it's very cold, as you can see (making fun of them for being cold), keep freezing, we are going to equip ourselves for this very cold weather [gives her your jacket]" (still caring about her at the end). And she says "goodbye" or "leave me alone" but laughs, keep doing it, you push some boundaries and show defiance but it's actually in good spirit because she laughs. As I said, most of communication is non-verbal.

Or if it's raining outside and they are very wet, you can say "how are you doing [her name], are you coming here again? / do you want to come here again? / do you like it here?" (making fun of them because clearly they don't enjoy the experience and won't want to come there again) and now she could banter by teasing you back "no, not with you" (making it personal) and you can reply "but it's my fault that it started raining?" (denying that it's personal). And then be like "go, go, go". Just say what you think and see what it comes to mind, find your style and see what works best with it. If you have an opinion about something, say what it comes to mind, as restricting yourself too much might actually be the reason why you can't pull it off and are closed up in yourself.

You can also tease them by challenging them. Like literally challenging them to a game to decide which person is going to do or not do a certain thing you don't want. Or by pretending to give them something then slowly pull it off away.

Or sarcastically say "thank you for the support" (clearly you don't appreciate it) when it's clearly not the case, and if they tell that to you "always, you know that you can always count on me", "I appreciate it" (again, clearly meaning the opposite of what you say).

Or you can roleplay by continuing the tease pretending to be upset like "no, you are like that", "you have block" (pretending to be upset). Or twist their words into something negative for them/positive for you leading to a back and forth exchange: "will you buy it for me?", "buy it and I will pay it for you when I remember" (pretending to trick them into buying it).

Someone once said "my love language is telling jokes at your expense that are so progressively more inappropiate until I cross a line and have to apologize", so don't worry about being too offensive, worry about being not entertaining or engaging enough, worry about being boring. And also have moments of realness, of being honest, of speaking from the heart, of seeking closure and telling how you feel.

Pretty much...

We remember things that are surprising out of the ordinary, emotional spikes if you may. That's why things such as talking about what she likes, smiling and laughing, goofy humor, helping her, showing her that you're being there for her or being romantic work. They cause very positive emotional spikes. If you do something on the extreme positive emotional spike, it will be remembered.

If you do something on the extreme negative spike, down below the normal threshold it will also be remembered. But that's not always a bad thing. Yes, if you are remembered for being cruel with others, lacking empathy for the suffering of others or lacking a moral code and completely disconsidering other people, that is bad. Being remembered for not being nice is bad, don't be that. All those "nice guys finish last" vs "bad boys get the girls" are superficial ways of looking at things that ignore a lot of details, both about the men, who need to be nice but have to have other qualities to make them attractive as well, and women who are not all interested in a brute or a strongman or a bodyguard, but a partner, which is why it's essential to be nice. However, you can create the good type of extreme negative spike by: giving your honest opinion, teasing, not texting daily.

I can't tell for sure, but I think teasing works best with a mindset. And I think the mindset for it is don't be serious, a light feeling of superiority, a willingness to make fun of them and contradict them, to be honest whether something was amazing or lame, and the desire to be caring, to be attentive. Like: even if I have this great sense of independence, I'm still very attentive towards you. But you are not above making fun of them. And remember that most of communication is non-verbal. It's all good natured, good spirits, that how affective teasing is supposed to be.

You can also tease by jokingly prasing yourself, not saying "I'm so great" but "that's what it means to be a boss", praising yourself in some indirect way. And of course, praising yourself about non-serious minor things, so that they won't think you're an arrogant or bragger.

If you're too worried about coming across as offensive you may close yourself and never actually speak as in state your mind. And if you never do that, you will never get feedback whether what you did was right or wrong, so you're stuck in that cyrcle of uncertainity or fear. But if you do speak your mind, even with the risk of being offensive at times, you will eventually learn what is funny and isn't and adapt. As the old saying goes, practice makes perfect, so don't be too worried about coming across as offensive. But at the same time, look for the social clues as most of communication is non-verbal so you can actually learn from your mistakes if there are any. The 1st time you do it you might fell, the 24th time you do it, you may have already learned something.

Probably the most telling in teasing is the attitude. A good smiling and dynamic attitude can get the point across that you are joking. But the more serious and rigid you are, the more people won't be able to pick up on sarcasm. And for good reason, you gave no tell. So even if teasing is by it's nature offensive, because you're saying something apparently mean about a person, it has to be good natured, good spirits, that how affective teasing is supposed to be.

As for how not to cross the line between playful teasing and offensive teasing. While you should just say what you think and see what it comes to mind. You have to remember to keep the teasing light, nothing too offensive that the other person would be insecure about. And you have to remember that the most funny thing is the narrative. How is said and what is said, rather than the most devastating insult possible, it's teasing not a roast. That's why things like when it's raining outside and she's cold asking her "how are you doing [her name], do you want to come here again?/do you like it here?" can be so funny, you're not saying anything offensive or insulting, you're poking fun at her for being cold.

It's about building a frame, not stating it outright but letting the conclusion be formed, the conclusion in that case being that you're poking fun at her for being too cold, but you don't outright say "haha, haha, you're too cold". Teasing is basically playing with them.

Teasing is delicious when done at appropriate times, and with the right person. Don't worry about going too far and hurting someone's feelings with this because it happens at times, ideally not to, but no one is perfect with teasing. It's loving to jokingly tease and being teased in return, as long as it doesn't go too far, often times it's during light-hearted teasing when one accidentally ends up actually hurting the other's feelings.

Teasing is a way of expressing your comfort with someone. For example, say you were verbally teasing your boyfriend or girlfriend by saying that you were cheating on them. If the trust between the two of you wasn't very large yet, or your partner actually does occasionally worry of the possibility that you might cheat on them, they may not find it even the slightest bit funny. But if you're absolutely secure with each other and you know that your partner would never cheat on you, then you might find it very funny. The key words being: does, know, never.

You can get a little bit competitive with banter, regular teasing on a 2-way street. Beside being affectionate, teasing can be a form of courage, it shows that a guy has the guts enough to tease you. But only if it's done right. You make fun of a trait that is not so bothersome. And you know when you've done right if you've pissed them off but they still like it. When someone teases you, you can try to chase him to "get him back".

Essentially...

Not only women, but people in general, men too, like to have emotional spikes. To feel either extremely positive or extremely negative for a short duration of time. It's right there in your definition, extremely negative: playfully teasing; extremely positive: interesting, make them laugh.

You can't be all like a deflated balloon, all agreeing with her, you can't just be there and be nice and expect girls will like you. You got to push some boundaries, but in a respectful way.

The issue with be nice, non-threatening, and therefore boring is not that there is a problem with being nice. It's that everyone is nice with the person they like. You're not special. You're literally doing what absolutely everyone else is doing expecting different results. Yes, it's a perk to be nice, it's better to be nice than not to be nice, to be attentive and helpful towards her, even romantic and tender, but, and this is a big but, you also have to have other things going on for you in order to make yourself attractive and make her fall in love with you.

You got to feel the person, to establish an emotional connection, you got to understand and be aware of the emotions of other people. And based on their reactions adjust or change your behavior. It's all about those emotional spikes.

You can be a bit insistent in teasing as long as the insisting is playful and the other person also laughs. Make jokes about having an proper/improper, normal/abnormal or moral/immoral behavior.

However, teasing has to be non-hurtful. You can be offensive yet respectful. The purpose is to entertain the other person and make them laugh, not make them feel bad. There is a slight superiority in teasing. Or implication of lack of importance for them.

You can make fun of them in an indirect way by waiting for them to make a mistake. Don't say anything, just let them make a mistake, waiting for them to make the mistake, and then laugh at it. Again, all of this is in a playful way, I don't mean a mistake that has consequences.

On the other side of the coin, you could jokingly praise yourself on non-important stuff. It's not bragging because (a) you're not saying _"look how great I am"_ but are rather indirect and jokingly _"that's what it means to be a boss"_ and (b) it's not about something important, it's not about something that says _"I'm superior to others"_.

You can make scare jokes, or show defiance in little but respectful ways, and if they show insistance to your defiance, show more defiance, of course I mean all of this in a playful respectful way, not when it comes to serious things.

You could also mix doing little things for them with not doing things for them and challenging them to be the ones that go and do those little things. Notice that I said little, because it's all in a playful atmosphere, I don't mean _"no, I'm not going to pick you up with my car from the train station"_, but rather _"nah, I won't turn off the light because I'm too far, you go ahead and do it"_.

The point of these defiances is that they make the interaction a little bit spicy, it's a lot better than having someone who always agrees with you and always does what he is asked of.

The "not always does what he is asked of" was discussed above with a mix of doing and not doing little things, show defiance, jokingly praise yourself on non-important stuff, make fun of them in an indirect way by waiting for them to make a mistake, make jokes about having an proper/improper, normal/abnormal or moral/immoral behavior, push some boundaries but in a respectful way. None of these are for real, in a serious situation with consequences don't do any of these, but they are just jokes for the moment in a casual way that keeps the conversation and interaction spicy.

So it's not really "bad boy" as a "ahole", more like defiance and simulating bad that makes the emotional spikes.

That can absolutely work with being a bad boy/ahole too, but in my experinece, women who fall for bad boys/aholes have their own set of issues and are not that safe generally speaking. It's not naivity that they fall for bad boys/aholes, they want something in that bad boy-ish, ahole-ness, they like and admire that bad by-ish, ahole-ness.



recycled_lube_oil said:


> I think men asking dating advice from women needs to stop. Also, in regards to men wanting advice on getting laid. Why the hell is a woman going to help a guy achieve that. The BlackPill weirdo's who blame their mums for their lack of sexual prowess, well I am sure when women give birth, they look at a baby boy and think "One day I want you to become GigaChad and bang lots of women, helping spread diseases and creating bastard children", yeah.... just no.
> 
> And.... women asking advice from men. Sorry I just think men and women face totally difference issues generally in the dating market. As a guy, if my issue was how to filter out from loads of avaliable men and choose one that wants something serious and not just use me. I wouldn't have a f**king clue. I'm a dude, I don't live in that level of abundance. Most mens dating problems from what I have seen, are how to attract a woman. Hence men giving stupid advice to women like "Put on some lipstick and just be nice". Its Solapism from both parties.


I have actually been there. Once you have no issue with attraction the issue becomes "how to filer out the bad ones" just like the women do.

My terrible man-made dating advice for women would be - You just have to select the quality one, by that I mean morally.

By that I mean, you have to select a man who is moral. Look how they treat others he has nothing to gain from. Heck, even look how they treat animals, especially the animals they don't like. Speaking of animals they don't like, I don't like children, I don't enjoy being in their presence or talking to them, I'm not that 'nurturing' in this regard, or so I think. Because on a few occasions I've been around children and my girlfriend she was like "dude, if that's your I don't like kids version, I really want to see how you behave with kids you like", she was basically saying that even though I say that 'I don't like kids' I don't behave at all like someone who doesn't like kids, so I guess everyone having different ranges around this can also be a thing.

And I think men do that too, men select too, this whole topic is proof of that, with men selecting for permiscous and non-permiscous women. This is also a way of separating "the good from the bad".



recycled_lube_oil said:


> It only seems like its about looks to people who do not have the looks. Once people are above the looks threshold, its a different game.


While I agree with that, I think at the same time understates how important looks are. Yesterday, I was at a supermarket at a very late hour, and I literally remained the last client inside the supermarket, the boss of the supermarket was a woman, and I was clearly in a situation where I would put her and everyone else to stay over the program, when I realised it's pass the closing time I rushed and told her "sorry, I just need to find some spinach and I'll be on my way", I was at the frige looking for frozen spinach, she actually suggested me that I should take raw spinach or bottled spinach instead, and then took me to those particular parts of the store to show me where the raw spinach and bottled spinach are, while the store was already above closing hours. I took the bottled one even though I wanted the frozen one not to look like an ass. She actually went to the cashier with me (was the last client so this could be explained) and kept making jokes, one of the jokes was like "now I want some spinach, lol", after everything was checked out, before I left, she told me "maybe next time you could offer me a bottle of spinach too" and I was like "yeah, if I come here again I'll make sure to leave you one on the table". You can take this as "she was just being nice", but how nice do you have to be, really?

She slowed everybody down to help me find the perfect spinach, despite me wanting the frozen spinach. And what do you think attracted her to me? It clearly wasn't my personality, she just met me.

If I wanted to date, I think this would have been an easy date, a flawlessly easy date, all because of looks.


recycled_lube_oil said:


> Why not listen to both, take what you need and add something of your own.


Yes, listen to both, but which one is more likely to give you the right advice?


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

Mark R said:


> I think this is a bit of self-pity that isn't constructive. You are either saying, "wo is me. I'm not a disagreeable asshole, so no one will love me," or "I must become a disagreeable asshole to be loved." You do you. Be assertive enough to make a stand in the short term because you are aware backing down leads to long-term disrespect. Don't make compromises that will fester in you resentment. Be willing to walk away from a relationship that stresses you out and doesn't meet your needs. Do this consistently and you will become more aware of your power.


So if I'm broke, do you think it's self-pity for me to say : "I need to change that, and start fixing my financial situation, or else no one will love me ?" I don't think that's self-pity. The only people that women love unconditionally are their own children, but men are not within that demographic. As a man if you date a woman, she doesn't love you for you, unconditionally, that doesn't, and won't, happen. I know people like to fight against that idea, but if it wasn't the case, the majority of relationships wouldn't be initiated by women like they currently are. This is simply an acknowledgement of that, rather than self-pity. I won't get that fairytale of being loved for who I am, so I must improve, it's as simple as that.

It's the same here. I used to be overly agreeable, and it didn't do any good for me. Sure I was a "reliable friend", but listen, when your hormones scream at you that you want to smash, being a reliable friend doesn't help. I started to stop giving a crap, and to be a dick from time to time, in reasonable situations, and the results were immediately positive. I don't think it has to be overboard, but maybe I'm wrong, because clearly I'm being shown that maybe I do need to go overboard. For now I'm getting positive by not going too far into it, so that's good, but what's certain is that if I do it less, I get more negative than positive.



Mark R said:


> You said before that a woman who has had four relationships that ended is bad at relationships and her relationships are failures. Relationships are opportunities for growth. It takes a lot of wisdom to balance enduring through trouble (all relationships have trouble), and knowing when a relationship needs to end. A relationship where two people grow is a success even if it ends. A divorce isn't the end of the world. Sometimes, you don't know that a relationship won't work until you are years into it. If you are lucky, you might find someone you can grow together until you grow old together. A failure is a long relationship where one person dominates the other and no one grows. Yes, some are attracted to such relationships, but they are not worth maintaining.
> 
> My goal is to be in an awesome relationship, rather than be in a mediocre relationship and avoid divorce.
> 
> Date as many women as can. Try them on and see what works best.


That sounds lovely actually. Growing together. Do you really think women who say they want to "grow together" actually go for that ? Haven't seen that crap happen. Maybe sometimes. But that sure as heck is not a generalized thing. What happens is that men improve themselves, and women wait at the finish line.
I sincerely do think that it's a lovely thought and genuinely something that I would prefer, but that's a fairytale. In general, that doesn't exist. It will exist in isolated cases, but that's very unlikely to happen, and so I shouldn't rely on that happening. If it does, good, but I don't trust that it will happen.




Mark R said:


> I'd be interested in hearing a women's perspective on very disagreeable men.


I don't think that what women say publicly is a valuable piece of information, as a face-value kind of thing. Those people who are highly disagreeable are objectively disagreeable in the non-big5 sense in the eyes of pretty much everyone. It just so happens that they still get more action from (probably mentally ill) women than men who are overly agreeable, that's my point.




Dezir said:


> When girls say “We just want a guy who’s kind and respectful” they’re actually NOT lying. It’s just that the word “GUY” for them carries a HUGE load of baggage which includes “hot, tall, funny, confident, young, and sexy”. It’s like someone saying “I just want a car that’s red” but they don’t ACTUALLY just want any old car as long as it’s red. By “car” they already MEAN a powerful, reliable, nice-looking vehicle with a strong engine. The red color is just a side-bonus. The same thing applies to these girls’ standards. For them, guy doesn’t just = “male” but a specific type of male with all these specific characteristics. That’s the key.


I understand that it's not ultimately lying, but that's 1) misunderstanding the question, 2) heavily misleading, because at that point, men have to be fluent in womanese to really understand what it means, and if they don't they take it literally, and 3) that's ultimately a proof that women are terribly bad at communicating, and specifically at communicating with men. It's been years now that I break into laughter when I hear women say they think communicating is super important.

But my point is that the first step for a man to become what such a girl wants, is *not* to be kind and respectful. It's not the most important thing either. I don't care if that's ultimately a lie or not, or if she will eventually want that in the next episode of Dragon Ball, because that's not the first step, nor the most important thing. That's why it's a lie, it's not good or relevant information. The first step is to understand what the heck this girl is implying by "guy" and go for that first instead. So, from a guy's perspective, I'm sorry, but she's lying. And this is exactly why men should absolutely never listen to female advice for relationships. Because the first step is always to find out what she actually means, the second one is to find out if she's actually ultimately lying. And if what she means is not exactly what she says, I'm considering that to be a lie, and it doesn't matter that it will eventually be true once the guy has jumped through 3 hoops already, because what he needed to do, he's already done it, and now what she said she wanted is not actually relevant anymore.



Dezir said:


> Can you offer some examples of what have you actually seen in your parents, cousin, sister, other friends and grandparents when you were a child? We're all strangers here. Chances are, we're never going to meet each other.


Yes we're strangers, I'm going to politely decline. I'm sure you've seen such situations yourself, I trust that you know what I'm talking about, and we're in agreement for most things on this thread. The internet doesn't need to know about those details. Just, it exists it's very common, and every one can see it.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

Lonewaer said:


> So if I'm broke, do you think it's self-pity for me to say : "I need to change that, and start fixing my financial situation, or else no one will love me ?" I don't think that's self-pity. The only people that women love unconditionally are their own children, but men are not within that demographic. As a man if you date a woman, she doesn't love you for you, unconditionally, that doesn't, and won't, happen. I know people like to fight against that idea, but if it wasn't the case, the majority of relationships wouldn't be initiated by women like they currently are. This is simply an acknowledgement of that, rather than self-pity. I won't get that fairytale of being loved for who I am, so I must improve, it's as simple as that.
> 
> It's the same here. I used to be overly agreeable, and it didn't do any good for me. Sure I was a "reliable friend", but listen, when your hormones scream at you that you want to smash, being a reliable friend doesn't help. I started to stop giving a crap, and to be a dick from time to time, in reasonable situations, and the results were immediately positive. I don't think it has to be overboard, but maybe I'm wrong, because clearly I'm being shown that maybe I do need to go overboard. For now I'm getting positive by not going too far into it, so that's good, but what's certain is that if I do it less, I get more negative than positive.


I think the difference is that any man can get a job and improve his financial situation. Introverts can become more sociable, but they aren't going to become extroverts. Agreeable people can become more assertive, but they aren't going to become disagreeable assholes. Assertiveness is a skill and women do respect that. It sounds like you are working on it. You might even become fierce in your assertiveness, but you will always be empathetic. There is someone who will love you as you are. It sounds like you are envious of someone that has a completely different nature from you. I'm an ENTP, but I'm not going to become an ESTJ, just because I think life is easier for them.

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

Some cultures, such as fundamentalist Islam, have some men that are very disagreeable with women. I don't see women in Afghanistan loving that kind of life. Some incel terrorists seem very disagreeable, but they aren't getting women. Probably, American men in general are too feminized, but balance is probably best.


Lonewaer said:


> That sounds lovely actually. Growing together. Do you really think women who say they want to "grow together" actually go for that ? Haven't seen that crap happen. Maybe sometimes. But that sure as heck is not a generalized thing. What happens is that men improve themselves, and women wait at the finish line.
> I sincerely do think that it's a lovely thought and genuinely something that I would prefer, but that's a fairytale. In general, that doesn't exist. It will exist in isolated cases, but that's very unlikely to happen, and so I shouldn't rely on that happening. If it does, good, but I don't trust that it will happen.


I had a relationship like that while I was in grad school in Europe. She moved on with her studies elsewhere. I moved back to the United States. I thought at the time that I could find other women like that. They are rare though. The solution is to date many women before you find the right one (only you might increase your body-count along the way). Inexperience (low body count) may lead certain people to settle more easy for a mediocre marriage and not leave it. That isn't the best though.


Lonewaer said:


> I don't think that what women say publicly is a valuable piece of information, as a face-value kind of thing. Those people who are highly disagreeable are objectively disagreeable in the non-big5 sense in the eyes of pretty much everyone. It just so happens that they still get more action from (probably mentally ill) women than men who are overly agreeable, that's my point.


Even if women are lying, you can advance much more becoming more assertive, rather than trying to be someone you are not. Women do want to look good. Men want to look good. I want to look good. It may be possible that people may be more honest on the internet to people they never expect to meet, than a woman who wants to spare the feelings of a friend-zoned friend. One woman here admitted to a high body count even though it may show her in a bad light considering the topic. I'm not saying I believe everything I read on the Internet. Still, context means a little.


----------

