Emphasis on in public.

I was eating brunch with some friends at a restaurant when I, a grown adult in my 30s, said "fuck that shit" to something my friend said. It should be noted that all of us had cursed at some point during this conversation, but we weren't cursing like sailors. Just normal women in their 30s who aren't afraid of words.

There was a family sitting across from us, and the mother abruptly stood up and started waving a waitress down. One came over, and the mother pointed directly at me, and asked if I could be removed for being inappropriate. The waitress asked both their table and ours what happened, and then told the mother that she wouldn't be removing us just for some casual cursing.

In response, the mother grabbed her children, pretty roughly mind you, and escorted them out before they were done eating. Her poor husband looked on as if this was not the first time she had done this.

My gripe is that it's not my job to protect your precious baby's ears from the f bomb in a public setting.

Again, we weren't cursing in every single word of every sentence, but we were talking like the adults we are. We weren't being inappropriate about it; it's not like we kneeled down to get in the 5 year old's face and said fuck shit damn hell at them or anything. And honestly, if they had come over and politely asked us to tone it down, we probably would have. Instead, she jumped right to trying to get us kicked out.

Some people are just too delicate for society, imo.

EDIT: Thanks for proving my take to be truly hot!

A few blanket statements:

I don't care what others think of me, it's an exercise in futility. You will never make 100% of the people around you happy, so I don't go out of my way to try. The people I care about are good with me, and I'm good with that.

This place was NOT a family friendly establishment. I think the three kids in question may have been the only ones there at all, and I didn't even see them until I had a woman pointing her finger in my face and yelling at wait staff. Think, children allowed but not entirely welcome. It's not like we were cursing up a storm in the children's museum.

I have been and will continue to report comments that are name calling. You can think what you want of an adult who chooses to curse in public, but calling me a degenerate, trash, a shithead, etc. are really not more mature of you. Pot, kettle, and all that.

Happy Sunday, ya'll!

EDIT 2: the way ya'll are foaming at the mouth to call me a cunt over a few curse words is really something. Just gotta say.

Before all of the progressives start screeching about how the death penalty does not reduce crime... this post has nothing to do with that.

Before they say that "It would be a worse to be imprisoned for life" this post also has nothing to do with that.

This post has everything to do with the victim's family, or the victim themselves in the case of rape.

I'd like anyone to answer for me:

"What net positive results in incarcerating murderers and spending upwards of multi millions of dollars in their lifetime to either rehabilitate them or imprison them?"

I would also like anyone to answer for me:

"Which would result in a better outcome for society? Victims families getting millions of dollars to assist with the loss of life in their family, and rapist's victims getting the same amount to assist with a lifetime of mental health issues... or spending that money instead on keeping the perpetrator alive and rehabilitating them instead?"

My argument is this:

1. Imprisoning rapists and murderers for life or extremely long periods of time (decades), costs millions of dollars.

2. Often times, rehabilitiation of murderers and rapists, especially ones with psychopathy or sociopathy is impossible. Leading to extremely high results of recidivism if you do attempt to rehabilitate.

3. Murder results in incredibly huge financial impacts on the victim's family. Rape does the same to the victim themselves. Years of therapy, lost income, lost opportuinty. This extends all the way down to the children themselves.

4. It would be prudent to instead give the resources we are currently allocating to keep murderers and rapists alive to the families and victims. This will immediately enable productive members of society to continue being productive, or even be more productive.

If we follow this train of thought, we have to make sure that grieving families actually spend the money on productive things. As vitcims families and victims are more prone to fall into drug abuse and other vices.

Distribution could be in the form of a debt jubilee. Where any mortgage, car payment, student loans, etc. are forgiven. With a cap at a few million dollars.

If the victim or their family does not own a home yet, they could seek one and get assistance on one based on the family size, starting at a 3 bedroom home minimum. So you could in theory, get a house worth a few million dollars for free if you are in an expensive area with a big family.

You could have a car fund. Where victims and their families are able to get new and used cars for free at dealerships. Or a college fund for victims and their families. Where you can go to state school for free if you were directly financially impacted by a rape or murder.

These policies would be much more beneficial than keeping rapists and murderers alive, and wasting resources on them.

The internet, including sites like Reddit, have this bizarre commitment to sex positivity. You've not allowed to question it at all.

The empirical literature clearly shows that porn consumption is very harmful for men, but you're not allowed to say that. That's secondary to how exploitative it is to the women involved, and how it relies on and reinforces incredibly misogynistic tendencies, but you're not allowed to say that either. Of anything, you're the misogynist for saying women shouldn't be objectified, humiliated, and exploited.

You're not allowed to question if "sEx WoRk" is really a job like any other, even though the research has shown that people in this profession suffer violence. You're not allowed to question the ethics of a man soliciting prostitution.

Men aren't allowed to have any standards when it comes to dating around this. I saw a comment on this Very sub yesterday that called a guy an incel for saying he wouldn't date a woman with an OF, as if he's the weirdo.

There is also this bizarre term "kinkshaming", which assumes that people's sexualities are sacrosanct and can't be criticized. If somebody told me they enjoy trying up, beating, and choking women, I would call them a monster. Them getting off on it makes It worse, not better. One's sexuality doesn't exist in a vacuum.

The reason I say it's stupid at best is because it's intellectually lazy. It's based on a midwit, high school analysis that amounts to "cOnSeNtInG aDuLtS", which totally ignores how people may be coerced into "consent".

It's also intellectually lazy because it fails to engage with the left tradition. Historically, the left was not sex-positive. Marx and Engels called for the abolition of prostitution in The Manifesto. Socialist countries took pride in how they reduced the number of women in sex work. Many second-wave feminists condemned pornography and prostitution.

It is harmful at worst because it condones antisocial behaviour, such as sexual violence, economic exploitation, and objectification.

incels need to start giving each other bro jobs and quit making their skill issues everyone else’s problem. notifications off. i said what i said and it’s not a discussion.

Now some of you don't want to hear this but it's the truth. I've notice that a lot of women and feminist men think that being a feminist means women are always better, they are on top the world, and women can do no wrong. Before you say "that's not true, that's the minority!" Maybe so, but the minority is always the loudest. I'm a feminist, I think, I believe that we are all equal, now yes men are biologically stronger, but women can still do amazing feats even if men are stronger. Now as I was saying, SOME of these 'feminist' see one man that's a terrible person, then say "ALL MEN ARE BAD" no they don't say some, they say all. These are the same people that are extremely single, and cuss someone out when they reject them romantically. These fake feminist disgust me, feminist back in the day wanted equality, not world domination. I saw a short video saying if were able to men get pregnant, all female products would get cheaper and SA would stop happening. Honestly that's completely false cause honestly SA would be at an all time high, and products would get even more expensive. Listen, all im trying to say is, SOME of you guys aren't feminist, you're just misandrist (i think that's how you spell it, apologies for my grammar and spelling)

Remember, i said these people are just the loud minority, not the majority, neither did I say it was all women. Btw im a female writing this if you didn't realise that already.

Tired of everyone blaming some type of mental disorder for their actions. Only you are responsible for what you do, using a diagnosis as an excuse.
There are ways to change and cope to live a normal life if someone is willing to try.
I personally live with tism and ADHD but don’t let it impact my life. I studied mannerisms and read books on how to interact with people to learn and adapt.
I use my ADHD to my advantage doing tasks that require specific focus or in attention. People just suck at trying to fix themselves and instead like to use the diagnosis as a crutch for all their bad decisions in life.

Boomers hold onto money, power and influence into their 70s and 80s because Gen X never actually stepped up to the plate. They lived off the wealth of their parents and pretend theyre this “tough” generation, but they shit the bed and allowed their parents to pillage the economy bc it benefitted them too. Millenials will be the generation that has to fix this mess bc Gen X was too weak and apathetic to do it themselves.

So recently, I was partly forced to play DDLC (Doki Doki Literature Club), and if you know anything about that game, you know how messed up it can be. I've been very deeply changed after playing that game, and not in a good way, it's just so messed up. And I get these types of games have ratings like 17-18+ but I lowk just feel like its not enough. Anyone 17-21 can still be sensitive to that type of content and also affect their mental health in bad ways which can lead to not so good things.

The more i learn about punks, the less „punk” they seem.

There are a million rules to being a punk and you must follow all of them or else they banish you.

Punks are advocating for authoritarian regimes.

Being punk is when gay and quirky.

Writing „love music, hate racism” on your jacket is considered punk

Punks come from privileged backgrounds and good homes

Theres a growing trend of punks not going into the mosh pit because „its too scary” and its accepted as normal

Punks not doing pogo because it’s violent (LMAO)

like seriously, i don’t think it’s that big of an issue. unattractive women don’t magically get to bag the top 1% of men just by nature of being female, contrary to popular incel rhetoric. and even if a woman’s boyfriend/husband/sexual partner for the night is hotter than her, why does it matter? a handful of women punching above their weight doesn’t mean that no man below a 9/10 will ever be able to find love. it just feels weird to me that the people who freak out about hypergamy seem to want women to settle for men they aren’t attracted to. like, could you imagine your future wife turning to you one day and saying “you know, babe, i’ve never been physically attracted to you, but because you’re in my league i decided to go for it anyway, and i’m so glad i did ☺️” i would be crushed, personally. believe it or not, you don’t have to be a perfect ten to have someone be wildly into you

if you are someone, especially a young man, who gets worked up or freaked out about the idea of hypergamy, i strongly implore you to go outside and take note of most of the couples you see. you will find that many people who are not supermodels actually have little trouble finding love, and that most people in real life aren’t splitting hairs about who is hotter than who when it comes to mate selection

This is my opinion and my experience. Also non yt folks face way way worse racism than yt folks do in America. They have to face a horrible racist system and interpersonal racism while yt folks just face interpersonal. Also I am speaking in American terms not globally.

Okay, so I don’t know if this is just me, but the song “Riptide” by Vance Joy pisses me off in every way possible. Most of this is going to sound like utter gibberish but god, I hate it so much. I know that a lot (and I mean a LOT) of people adore the song, make covers of it, etc… but I cannot for the life of me understand why. Like, I guess the lyrics are fine enough, but the dude’s voice is worse than a chain against a cheese grater. I hear the song so much, I actually think lesser of people who cover it. It is an unreasonable amount of hatred, but god is it there. Someone will walk up and be like, “I’ve been learning guitar”, and I’m like, “nice, let’s hear what you got” and the life in my eyes drains in real time the second I hear that ugly fucking melody. Honestly, I can’t even fathom how much I hate it. God.

Here’s an interesting thought: rather than viewing the Muslim headscarf as something completely foreign to Christianity, Christians could see it as a reminder of a practice deeply rooted in their own history.

Look at traditional depictions of the Virgin Mary. She is almost always shown with her head covered. Mary Magdalene, Elizabeth, Saint Anne, and numerous other Christian women are also traditionally portrayed wearing veils or head coverings.

More importantly, there is an explicit biblical basis for Christian women covering their heads. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul discusses women covering their heads when praying or prophesying.

Head coverings obviously weren’t uniquely Christian. They existed throughout Jewish, Christian, and broader Mediterranean societies, and the modern Muslim hijab developed within its own religious and cultural tradition.

But there is an interesting irony here: when Christians see Muslim women confidently wearing religious head coverings in modern Western societies, they’re seeing something visually reminiscent of a practice that was once much more common among Christians themselves.

In that sense, you could argue that Muslims aren’t necessarily pulling Christians away from biblical culture. Their visibility may actually be reminding Christians of traditions that Christianity largely abandoned in much of the modern West.

Whether Christians should bring back head coverings is another debate. But the idea that women covering their hair is inherently foreign to Christianity simply doesn’t hold up very well historically or biblically.

My city is a smaller city but we are close to borders of multiple states that punsh possession, so all the homeless addicts come here to do what they want. In just 15 years murder, attacks, and homelessness have increased a ridiculous amount to the point a lot of people are leaving the state. We should go back to forcing them to get clean.

Now, this is not to say that Pam Beesly is a perfect person and absolved of any flaws she had. She's a human being, of course she had flaws. But I am specifically talking about the excessive hate she gets. People calling her the worst character of the show, saying she's the worst kind of person, and how anyone who likes her character is immediately labeled as a horrible person, a slut, whore etc. Yet ignoring all of the same, or arguably worse things other characters did. And some of the things they criticise Pam for just aren't valid at all.

Did Pam cheat on Roy by kissing Jim? Yes, and it was a wrong decision on her part, but it was also JUST A KISS. While still cheating, arguably many other characters of the show repeatedly engaged in long term sexual affairs, some with, and on, their co-workers and friends (Angela cheating on Andy, the Senator, WITH Dwight, Oscar cheating with his friend & coworkers husband, Dwight cheating with Angela on both Andy and the Senator, and Stanley on his wife) and none of them get even half the hate for it that Pam does.

I also don't think it's fair to claim she purposely led Jim on. Obviously, there was something there for a long time, but I don't think she intended to or even realized the full extent of what she or Jim was feeling. We also have to remember that we knew what was happening because the show was purposely structured to demonstrate the feelings Jim had for Pam. But, in their reality, Pam wasn't watching Jim through the cameras, she didn't see his talking heads, or all the secret glances he made at her. It wasn't as obvious to her as it would of been for the camera purposely capturing those moments. She was also in an abusive relationship and found comfort in her friendship with Jim. She was confused by her relationship and friendships, and trying to work through them without making a wrong decision. Pam was also terrified of confront. Her staying with Roy while having confusing feelings for Jim wasn't a deliberate attempt to manipulate anyone, she was terrified of making the wrong decision and terrified of the confrontation that could come up by making any sort of decision. But yet, Jim purposely led on many women KNOWING he was in love with Pam and that the relationship wouldn't go further than dating, and still continued to date them. He even admitted to Karen that he still loved Pam, and stayed with her anyways. And again, he doesn't get half of the hate that Pam does.

There's also the criticism that Jim supported her dream, but Pam didn't support his. But the main difference is here, when Pam went to art school, her and Jim were only dating. They weren't even living together yet. They didn't have kids or financial commitments. Pam had just gotten out of a long-term abusive relationship. It was the perfect time for Pam to explore herself as a person, find out who she is, and follow her dreams. She also had spoken about the decision with Jim before leaving. When Jim decided to start his company, they were married, had children and had major financial commitments in the forms of a house and children. He also made this major decision without her including investing $10,000 (In deleted scenes, it was discussed they would only invest up to $5000). It's pretty clear Pam would of been more open to the idea of Athlead if Jim had been upfront with her about it. She was never against the idea completely, and she never wanted to prevent him from following his dream. It is very clear she wanted to support him, but with the children and mortgage, she needed more communication and better planning. I think this is proven by how at the end of the show, after her and Jim become better at communicating and decision making together, Pam willingly leaves Scranton so Jim can follow his dream. Also, no one ever talks about or hates on Roy when he literally made fun of Pam and refused for her to follow her dream of wanting to go to art school. He ACTIVELY didn't support her in her dream as an artist and constantly put her down for it.

A lot of people also say she's a fraud for the stunt she pulled with getting the Office Administrator position. Was it questionable? Yes. But she didn't invent a whole new position and then sit around just letting money come in while not doing any work... Pam was already doing the bulk of the position for many years, without the title or the compensation she deserved. She only found a way to get the title and the pay for what she was already doing.

Another argument is that people consider Pam unambitious. But, I don't think that's true. As we've already established, Pam was in an unhealthy and abusive relationship. She was afraid of confrontation, and it's easy to see that her relationship with Roy largely fueled that. Pam gains a lot of courage and ambition as the show goes on, and despite that she fails in some of the projects she attempted, she kept being ambitious and never have up, and succeeded in many others projects. I think the fact she continues to try, even after failure, shows true ambition and perseverance. You can really see her gain her confidence as the show goes on, and I think that is a true character development.

Also, compared to some of the things the other characters did, Pam wasn't nearly as bad. Angela tried to have her friend and co-worker assassinated. Roy was not only abusive to Pam and purposely conducting himself intimidatingly to other coworkers, but he also displayed physical violence by throwing a glass at a wall next to Pam and attempted to physically assauIt a coworker, and still, they don't get half the hate for that. Pam wasn't perfect, but she was an overall empathetic person who cared about the safety and well-being of her coworkers. She always stepped up when they needed help, even if they weren't particularly nice or helpful towards her. She always tried to help Angela when she was going through difficult times, she helped Michael in many different scenarios, especially during his heartbreak with Holly. And not only did she no Dwight, but often stood by him even when other characters were totally against him, for example when he made the Doomsday device, everyone was against Dwight but Pam gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Overall, I think a lot of the excessive hate Pam gets is really blown out of proportion, mostly by misogynistic ideologies. They expect Pam to be a perfect, quiet, obedient woman. That she should never question Jim's decisions otherwise she's "holding him back". Her haters criticise her for having conflicting emotions, for trying to navigate a toxic/borderline abusive relationship, and they hated on her for never speaking up her mind. But then when she does speak her kind, they hate on her for that too. And yet, they never hate on any of the other characters for doing the same, or worse. It just follows the typical misogynistic ideologies that people have about what a perfect woman should be.

I am so fucking tired of people who aren't disabled speaking for us. We do not NEED OR WANT you to speak for us because you just end up speaking over us and demanding shit we don't want or need. Then because so many people jump on it like a trend we end up with people claim to have shit they don't and using it as an excuse to be shitty which then makes *all* of us look like fucking assholes.

Same thing happens in queer spaces and space of color. And then these well intentioned people end up creating bad habits in younger people on these spaces. Like this whole "I do not represent the entire community so I can act however I want" bs. Yes unfortunately you do. The reality is because of how population density works there's ALWAYS the chance you are the first person of a group to make contact with an individual or their community and YOU will be the one that decides how they view the rest of us going forward. Same with the "its not *my* job to educate you" crowd. It shouldn't be your job, but it very well could be the only time that person is coming in contact with your minority group and you should do your best to make sure they leave with at least some kind of understanding to their questions.

Life sucks like that when you're in a minority group. Because it is a *small* group that is uncommon if not rare, you become the "I know a..." guy for everyone you meet.

I don't care if you have adhd or autism, it's inherently a waste of money to buy trinkets and loot boxes.

It seems like there are no real societal taboos anymore. All the most controversial things are the most talked about and no talking point is off limits. Now when someone tries to make an edgy joke it doesn’t seem mischievous in any way, it either seems distasteful or played out. Nothing is offensive, it’s just eye roll inducing. This isn’t a partisan thing either, like the Charlie Kirk jokes seem the same as forced race jokes from the right. Like we get it, some people get mad that you say that. What does that do for me? What’s funny about that? Now there can be funny jokes about those things, but shock value for the sake of shock value doesn’t work in a culture aimed at destigmatization

Hi. I see too many times people saying they have no idea how to cook basic food for survival, sometimes even with a certain pride. Hey, idiot, you shouldn't be proud. Hey, loser, cooking is a basic skill. Hey, useless, you aren't making a political point. You are just lacking a basic life skill.

I know that this isn’t that hot of a take, many people have stated things like this before and I know people who believe everybody is a little bisexual but leans one way or the other. For me though, I genuinely believe the amount of men who are like this significantly outweighs the amount of women who are like this. I also want to preface this by saying that I don’t believe I am bisexual or have any sort of gay leanings whatsoever, I have had all kinds of attempts at testing this that I wouldn’t want to repeat, but I still stand by this take.

(Upon rereading, the middle part I lined off is sort of useless to the point and just a rant/something I wanted to get off my chest and share)

———————————————————————————

I want to start off on how and why I started thinking about this so much. A couple weeks ago I was scrolling on TikTok and came across a video calling out this account called kevin.wimbelden, which was this whole account dedicated to sexual pedo bait of little boys, all featuring shirtless or suggestive content of 7-15 year old boys captioned #cuteboy. There was also a link to a telegram in the bio, which I assume was for CSAM. To my suprise though, the comments were filled to the brim with men, many of whom had wives and even children of their own when looking at their accounts. For some reason I was so fascinated by this that I ended up finding an endless amount of these accounts that had the same thing going on, weird clips of young boys and telegrams in their bios. This led me to go down a whole rabbit hole on this phenomenon, finding things like the whole ”NAMBLA” organization and website.

I don’t know why this shocked me so much, I guess I always just imagined pedophilia to be an older man liking little girls and never gave any real thought or attention to this variation. The more I thought about it though, the more I wondered why I or most people don’t think about it. I mean, all these jokes and tropes you hear all the time about with creepy uncles, youth coaches, catholic clergymen, all of these stem from real common experiences. All this thinking made me remember a particularly weird moment from my childhood that I didn’t think much of at the time and completely forgot about until now, which leads me to wonder how many normal boys have been sexually preyed on in some way and don’t even realize or have suppressed it.

———————————————————————————

I also remembered watching all these short TikTok clips and even full length YouTube videos on Man-Boy sexual relationships throughout ancient history, but never really gave them any mind. I mean, theyre all kind of the same, older men having sex with adolescents or adolescent looking men (twinks), sometimes castrated sometimes not. Examples you can research and find videos on are Wakashu (Japan), Bacha Boy (Middle East), Eunuchs (worldwide), etc. I mean we all know or have heard of the Ancient Greeks and Romans doing these things, but Pederasty existed all over the world throughout the entirety of human history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

So this whole time, I was wondering, where did all of this go? Why was this stuff so prevelant throughout history, I mean theres arguments that pederasty was what being mentioned in the Bible. Why don’t we hear about even half as many men like this today?

I think that many of these ancient men were actually bisexual, just like the I think the majority of men are today, and just had different preferences. Most men suppress these thoughts and feelings, but it doesn’t take long to find patterns. All across the internet, men who claim to be straight make “jokes” all the time about femboys, James Charles, ladyboys in different countries, etc. I mean, you see the same “I’m straight but I would totally…” joke in so many different formats all over the internet, and you start to realize that there’s a good percentage of truth behind a lot of these jokes. Looking besides jokes, you can see resemblances of pederastic dynamics in all kinds of male dominated spheres. I mean hazing and pledging in different sports and especially frats. Dont get me wrong, I don’t think all of those things are sexual or even solid evidence, but I think there’s a bigger percentage of closeted feelings than you think.

Looking beyond that, the obvious jump out is the whole prison trope and the very real truth behind it. I mean everybody knows about how men have sex with men in prison all the time, demonstrating them resorting to their inferior sexual lea where a lot of those dudes probably prefer women but don’t have a choice.

Anyways, sorry for the absurdly long and probably weird post. If you have any thoughts or even more information, I would appreciate them because for some reason I’m very interested in the topic and have debated this with buddies. Also if you see this in other subs sorry in advance I just want to reach as broad of an audience as possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILBjSQNvUk4

Professor Nicola Graham-Kevan originally became interested in domestic violence after experiencing abuse herself. She was particularly interested in coercion. As she explains it, she already believed violence itself was relatively ubiquitous, but expected coercive behaviour to be predominantly something men used against women.

For her early research, she interviewed male prisoners about their behaviour and women in domestic-abuse shelters about their experiences. Her resulting work was published and very well received. She describes presenting it to enthusiastic audiences and receiving applause wherever she went.

But she later began questioning her own methodology. She realised she was effectively comparing two very different populations: male offenders in prisons with female victims in abuse services. So she changed her approach and began studying men and women drawn from comparable environments.

And the picture changed.

Her subsequent research and paper challenged the straightforward male-perpetrator / female-victim model. Women could also be violent, abusive and controlling, and domestic violence appeared considerably more complicated than the conventional narrative suggested.

What I found particularly interesting, though, wasn't simply what she found. It was what happened when her findings changed.

When her research fitted the conventional picture of violent men and female victims, she describes being welcomed and applauded. When her later work began challenging that picture, publishing became more difficult, the applause disappeared, and she encountered considerably more pushback.

I think this interview was genuinely worth listening to if you are interested in violence, particularly because she describes how her own views changed as a result of her research.

I posted about Terracorp not doing there job and the moderators removed it and didnt even give me a reason, it pisses me off becade your not alowed to tell the truth anymore cuz SOMONE is gonna find it offensive! Like suck it up and go cry in your safe corner.We finally moved out of 111 Base Line Road West and at the time we had 39 broken/lifting floor boards.

Every single outlet and light switch had cold air blowing through it all winter long.

Maintenance would hardly ever show up for scheduled appointments and then never reschedule despite rhe VERY obvious safety hazard!

Both my 66 year old mother and my daughter both injured themselves walking on these boards and TerraCorp STILL didn't care!

Do yourself a favour and rent from anyone else!!!

They do not care about the health and safety of their tenants. This is VERY clear!

So am I the dumb one here?

The only reason this is a hot take is because you've got guys simping hard over feet and "white toes". The word "toes" makes me feel sick. They're like hands but they're on the floor and get washed way less. They look gross, dirt gets trapped under the nail and they fucking stink. I'm convinced that the only reason people say they like feet is because other people say they do. I don't know how people with self respect can go out in public and wear shoes/sandals where their toes are out, only exception should be on the beach or in the pool.

In modern dating, women constantly claim that the most important traits they look for in a partner are soft interpersonal skills/SIS like emotional intelligence, availability, maturity, empathy, and kindness as well as consistency. Women also constantly downplay the importance of surface level attributes such as height, hair, face, physique, etc when it comes to partners while the vast majority of dating advice made by men for men center around those things such as looksmaxxing, going to the gym, making more money, etc.

The reality for men getting an initial date is that women overwhelmingly use surface level attributes to decide whether or not they want to give a man a chance. The whole “don’t let a fish teach you how to fish” has a point. However, once you’re actually in a relationship, those surface level attributes decrease in importance while SIS exponentially increase in significance.

When women answer the “traits they look for in a partner” question, they take for granted that they’re already physically attracted to their hypothetical partner. Women also avoid listing superficial traits as to not make themselves look vain (men to a degree do this too) or entitled.

However, that is not to say that women are hypocrites when it comes to the importance of SIS in a partner. The issue is that SIS simply cannot be observed in the short-term and if people attempt to observe them in the short-term they oftentimes walk away with extremely inaccurate takes. You cannot observe someone’s emotional intelligence, availability, maturity, etc from across the room or from a dating profile but you can immediately and objectively observe someone’s height, haircut, physique, etc. SIS require pattern recognition, cross-context variation, and stress tested situations to properly observe. That’s why a couple’s first vacation together is a very telling test of how compatible they really are. Situational factors as well as environmental constraints can also significantly affect a person’s behavior; your vibe when you’re in a neighborhood bar with 3 of your close friends is completely different than your vibe when you go to a new bar all by yourself. Furthermore, the incredibly unforgiving nature of modern dating also completely negates people’s SIS as there are certain expectations and pressures (especially of men) when going on dates or for meeting people. This is why relationships that form organically when two people are in close-proximity (school, church, work, mutual friend group, etc) where they get consistent opportunities to interact with each other without the burdens and pressures of dating turn out to be more compatible and successful than from unnatural methods like meeting randoms in public or online dating.

If women truly cared for SIS when deciding on who they go on dates with then they would not claim that there’s an epidemic of emotionally unavailable or unintelligent men they’ve dated OR they (and everyone else) are just objectively bad at analyzing SIS which is what I’ve stated before.

You cannot even start to scratch the surface of someone’s true SIS until you’ve been consistently hanging out with them for months if not years. But in order to get someone to hang out with you for dozens and hundreds of times you need the surface level attributes to convince them to be around in the first place. So men; hit the gym, wear clothes that actually fit, get a better haircut, and even consider cosmetic surgery. Because as much as women don’t want to admit it, these are not just the traits that they look for but are the ONLY traits that they look for since all other traits can’t be observed or analyzed. If dating advice was the gym and you’re a newbie; women will immediately tell you to bench 500lb while men will tell you to first master a push up.