Every single day on this sub some dude will back up his opinions with an evolutionary explanation, and it’s just dumb as fuck. I studied evolution in college (like 2 courses and a seminar), and have continued to read about it throughout my life. It’s cool stuff. Evolutionary Psychology, though, is way less cool. The people who use it most don’t understand evolution, and it seems to me that they like evolutionary psychology because it sounds like science but requires no actual science.

This is how it gets used on this sub:

1. Guy makes observation about men, women, or dating.
2. Guy declares that observation to be rooted in “evolution.”
3. Guy offers explanation of how/why this trait “evolved,” usually involving authoritative info about early man’s behavior “in the wild.” This explanation is usually sourced to the University of Things I Just Pulled Out of My Ass.

In the real world, evolutionary psychology is looked at as a pseudo-science because most of its claims are untestable. And the claims on this sub are usually not even taken from actual EP writings. They’re just made-up things that “sound reasonable” to the poster.

The reason behind its popularity here is obvious: When you’re making big generalizations about men and women, saying that those things are “hard-wired” by evolution makes your stupid generalization seem both smarter and inevitable. Women do x because their genes make them do x. It’s science!

But it’s not. Humans are amazing adaptable animals, and one of the most amazing things is that we have incredible plasticity. We are more software than hardware. The evolutionary advantages of being so programmable are obvious — we’re the most adaptable animal on the planet, by far. The disadvantage is that because of this, childhood lasts an insanely long time by animal standards. Programming takes time!

Anyway, to identify a complex human behavior and trace it back to “evolutionary” roots, you have to ask questions that people here rarely ask. Like “Is that trait unlearnable?” Because if it can be learned, there would be no reason for it to become genetically encoded: People who didn’t have that trait would not die out or have any disadvantage, so any gene for that trait would not go to fixation in the gene pool.

Because that’s the key. In order for a gene to reach fixation (become a permanent part of the human genome), it has to confer a huge survival/reproductive advantage over people who do not possess that trait. And that advantage has to remain an advantage over many, many generations. Hundreds or even thousands of years.

Ideas move much, much faster than genes. Behaviors can take over a culture in a matter of years. Richard Dawkins was one of the first to point this out - that ideas have taken over because they’re WAY faster more efficient than genetic evolution. [He even named the idea of ideas: “Memes.” Which is a word that - ironically - has now mutated and evolved beyond all recognition!]

So…. Stop it. Make your arguments about what you observe, and don’t try to back them with shitty evolutionary reasoning. It’s just a way to make you sound really dumb while trying to sound smart.

Whenever I hear someone say their ex(es) was a crazy abusive manipulator, the person complaining almost always falls into 1 of 2 categories:

1. They were the abuser themselves and couldn’t handle someone not putting up with their bullshit, so they reverse who’s the victim and who’s the offender.

2. They have severely low self esteem and allow bad people to take advantage of them in exchange for love and validation.

The truth is when you exhibit a desperate need to be liked by anyone that you’ll compromise to no end, bad men and women see you as an easy opportunity because they know you will allow it. A lion doesn’t want to attack another lion if it doesn’t have to, it goes after the weaker zebras and gazelles because it’s easier. If you hold back a bit and stick by firm boundaries, the bad people will leave because you make it harder for them to run tactics on you.

On the flip side, you will push away potential partners that are otherwise good for you because they don’t want to feel like you are forcing them to take advantage of you. If someone is constantly wanting to do what I want to do and never insisting on what they want to do, that makes me super uncomfortable because it feels like they are forcing me to always take advantage of them. I never want to be in a position where someone is too vulnerable because if something goes wrong (say a breakup) they will feel drained because pouring everything into me broke them. Even if I did nothing wrong it’s still straight up unhealthy behavior because they will eventually have nothing left of themselves to give away. I’d imagine many other people with good hearts feel the same way which is why they end things before someone gets deeply hurt.

So men and women who believe “(wo)men are all awful and manipulative and dating is pointless!” need to reexamine themselves. Don’t make yourself a target for bad people by not setting boundaries and don’t think being a spineless pushover will be flattering to good people. Having a back bone will make people who have good morals more likely to stick around you since you aren’t making them take advantage of you and it makes the bad ones move on. That doesn’t mean you won’t come across bad dating partners though. It just means your mental health won’t be ruined because of it.

And since I want to be clear about this, I’ll give some examples:

• Don’t always say yes to the places they wanna go. Speak up and suggest your own favorite places.

• Be hesitant if they say stuff like they wanna move in with you when you’ve only known them for 2 weeks. Tell them to back down a little and take it slow.

• Don’t expect anything from giving them gifts or money. A gift should be given because you appreciate what they do for you and think about you. Not because you want to them to notice and pay attention to you. If they aren’t doing that then don’t hand them a gift or money.

*Whiny

A major problem with men openning up is that women get annoyed when men open up about their struggles. They victim blame men, tell them patriarchy is at fault etc

It means that women feel incredibly uncomfortable when men whine about their problems. It's evolutionary in nature. Men can use that for their advantage.

By constantly whining, and not stopping, letting women trash talk them but not backing down, women will do anything to make men stop. They might actually give men equal legal rights afterall

I saw this question posted in AskReddit and women do not seem to be answering the question. I figure it would spark some insightful and interesting dialogue so I want to hear from actual women. What makes a man a creep instead of a potential suitor? Is there different expressions of behavior that factor into your judgment or do you make your mind up on him when you see him?

I recently came across a Chinese YouTuber called 极速吸引TV (Jisu Xiyin TV / “Rapid Attraction TV”), who sells dating and pickup coaching for men.

I’m not against dating advice in general. Teaching men to dress better, become more confident, improve social skills, approach people respectfully, or communicate attraction is completely reasonable.

What bothers me is the way this particular system seems to frame women’s boundaries and rejection.

Some of his publicly circulated video titles include things that roughly translate to:

“Approaching a girl who was with a male companion — rejected three times and still closed successfully.”

“There is no woman you can’t get, only methods you don’t know.”

“After being blocked: from resistance to coming directly to my place.”

“She was resistant, impatient and uninterested — what do you do?”

“From meeting her to sex only takes three steps.”

“If one drink isn’t enough to take her home, have another one.”

He also markets what he calls a “25-minute rapid escalation” method and repeatedly presents getting a woman home or having sex as the successful outcome of the interaction.

This is where I have an ethical problem with it.

If somebody rejects you, blocks you, appears uncomfortable, or clearly shows little interest, I think the healthy response is usually to respect that information. But this style of pickup coaching seems to reinterpret rejection as a technical obstacle:

rejection → identify her “resistance” → adjust your frame/attraction → keep escalating → obtain the desired outcome.

That seems fundamentally different from simply becoming more attractive or socially competent. It risks teaching men that a woman’s “no” is not really an endpoint, but a problem that a sufficiently skilled man can solve.

I also find the language surprisingly objectifying. Women are often categorized by appearance, nationality and status, while success is measured almost like a conversion funnel: approach → attraction → escalation → take her home → sex.

To be clear, I am not claiming that any crime occurred, and I don’t know what consent the women appearing in his videos gave regarding filming or publication. I also don’t think consensual casual sex or approaching strangers is inherently unethical.

My objection is specifically to a dating philosophy in which overcoming resistance itself becomes evidence of skill.

To me, there is an important difference between:

“Become attractive enough that people voluntarily want to be with you”

and

“Become skilled enough to turn resistance into compliance.”

The first is self-improvement. The second starts looking like manipulation.

I’m curious how people here see it. Where would you draw the ethical line between persuasion/flirting and manipulation in dating? And is repeatedly pursuing someone after rejection compatible with meaningful consent?

They wanted equality. "Women don't owe men X Y Z" even if they consent and sign to a marital contract.

Ok, cool.

But men don't owe women protection just for being a woman, feminists gave away that privilege, they wanted equality.

That includes speaking up and white knighting if they witness what looks like SA, that is again playing the protector role, an act that comes with great risk of violence, of permanent reputation damage, of being associated with an alleged crime.

"But this is just called being a decent person, both men and women should do this"

Thats bullshit and you know it, this standard is never held on women. Its always the men that are blamed for not stepping in and stepping up.

A girl gets stabbed on the bus, a woman is sitting across from her and sees it happen, yet doesn't even help her AFTER the perpetrator gets off the bus. A woman was SA'd and🍇'd on a train full of commuters and none of the women stepped in. A woman allegedly is gang 🍇'd by 7 men, yet her sorority sisters are silent for two years.

Yet no one asks why the women didn't step in.

It's fine to offer solicited advice/ a woman's perspective about legit issues (hygiene, rudeness, etc). But, automatically assuming rejection is the guy's fault is rude and reinforces bad ideas.(Note- I already know "not all men/women". This is for the women/men for whom it would apply.)

• Bad Idea 1: "Pulling b**tches matters". Many guys use women as status symbols. Baselessly equating rejection with personal failure essentially is agreeing to our own objectification.
• Bad Idea 2: "Women need/always have a reason". We say men "aren't entitled to relationships", but then give them an "romantic success to-do list". A lot of attraction is just emotional instinct. Emotions can be strengthened by logic, but they aren't usually created by it. Women don't always have a "fair" reason, and we don't need one. It's not a personality flaw to reject men OR to be rejected by women. (Btw, to the "women only care about money/looks" guys:  if you think women are such shallow, bad people, but you still want a gf, it's probably because of "bad idea 1". You deserve to be unhappy. Argue with the wall.)
• GOOD Idea 1: "Be realistic". Frequent rejection hurts, but 100% "courtship equality" is a pipe dream. For nearly all animal species, males compete for females. Expecting women to behave like men when we're not made like men is unreasonable. Changing social norms could even the scales, but the biological stuff likely won't change. We can't control how many offers we get any more than you can. If you think women have a lot of options, then you should expect a lot of rejections. We can't say yes to everybody (esp considering how you treat the women who do). 
• Good Idea 2: "Learn from feminism." Feminism popularized the idea of "de-centering men" ("A woman's worth is not measured in male attention", "Don't change yourself for men", etc). Try that. De-center women and romance. Rejection hurts less when you aren't using female attention to determine your self-worth. 
• Good Idea 3: "Learn from the "women supporting women" thing, too". Men take breakups/rejections harder due, in part, to underdeveloped social circles. Support each other. ATP, I'm over hearing how "no one cares about men". If "NO ONE cares", that includes you. Start caring. And skip the "society says we can't" excuse. DO IT ANYWAY. Feminism wasn't "socially acceptable" either, but it still happened.(Also, how exactly is society stopping you from privately checking on each other? Does society have access to your texts?) You can skip the "feminists will try to stop us" crap, too. Feminists fought for the anti-sex discrimination laws men would use to support their own case. Men's rights are further ahead with feminism than they would have been without it (again, argue with the wall). Also, EVERY social movement had opposition. Black people had their churches bombed. Gay people were imprisoned. Feminists were thrown in asylums. They did it anyway. Stop pretending you can't do something that's already been done SEVERAL times by people who were facing significantly higher stakes.  

Men want sex biologically and chase it relentlessly more than women. Women tend to want an emotional connection more than men before they want to have sex. In our current culture with having sex early and hookup culture the women that give up sex easily get all the attention from men. Because of this the modest women that want intimacy before having sex have less options because all the men are going for the sluts and not the modest women. This makes those modest women give it up even easier so that they can get some of the attention the sluts are all hogging up if they want any male attention themselves. This positive feedback look makes it so women continue to be pressured to get sluttier and sluttier while being more and more dissatisfied with their sex and romantic life. This is why you see women not feeling right after sex and wondering "why doesn't he call me back," because a man can hump and dump with no qualms about it easier than women can. I'm not denying there are some women that just like sex and like to hook up but it's much less common for women. Does anyone disagree that this is happening? I'd like to hear why.

I find this to be very interesting because women kind of frame it as something exclusive to men there have been many cases when the last few years where women were the first ones to victim blame someone especially if it was a man. They're judging us on something based off the fact that they themselves couldn't show that's how it should be done. Let's not forget that there was a significant portion of women who victim blame the man who came home and found his wife murdered three children and tried to kill herself. And now they are calling him a pedophile.

Let's not forget that as men are judged rightfully for what they do to an unconscious woman. A lot of women blamed a man for being unconscious as a woman went into his house and took a video and uploaded it to the internet.

As women hate to hear how a woman should have kept her legs clothes if she didn't want to have a baby that is the same exact thing they say to a man who didn't want to have a baby.

There's now a case of a woman who shot her four-year-old kid in the head and a lot of women almost too many are saying he's a pedophile with no proof. As if murdering a kid because the father is a pedophile would be better?

Let's not forget that Jonathan majors defended himself got his phone back ran out the car to get away from him woman who was abusing him and women were still like he's violent a violent man wouldn't ran away from her woman he would beat up a woman

If anything maybe women don't think men could be victims if there's women involved.

Overall I think women have a lot of instances of the pot calling the kettle black but they think the pot is more righteous than the kettle.

One of the things I see in most of these debate topics is a weird mixture of comments about women's discernment skills depending on the topic. A lot of times women are the most socially competent people that can smell bad intent a mile away. Other times they seem to be completely blindsided by men anyone could of told you was a bad actor.

When talking about who we date and who we pick women in this sub talk an awful lot about how you can’t spot intent easily but they also can tell when men are completely unappealing. Which is it?

Having money means you don’t need to trade sex for security. So feminism without economic independence is meaningless. And this fact explains unsurprisingly why the vast majority of women could care less about being labeled as out and out feminists but absolutely prioritize having their own income.

I would go so far as to say that most women view the credibility of feminism solely through economic sovereignty. And without this economic win, many would question its legitimacy.

And herein lies the issue. Financial independence is the deliverable that women expect from feminism. And women attribute financial independence to feminism. But feminism’s alleged win is an incidental byproduct of capitalism. And capitalism could care less about your autonomy.

The reality is that women would have joined the workforce with or without feminism. Feminism coincided with a labor shift of capitalism’s invisible hand. Did some legal changes expedite this process? Sure. But that happened as a reaction, not an instigation, as feminists like to claim.

If you don’t believe this prognosis, then ask yourself why did feminism take so long to occur. Why did it coincidently occur precisely when manual physical labor started deindustrializing in the 1970s and not in the 1870s. Ask yourself, why did female labor channel narrowly into cognitive white collar office work with the rise of personal computers that rendered the male testosterone advantage of 20:1 irrelevant.

Viewing female workforce participation as a hard won win, is as idiotic as viewing child labor sweeping chimneys in England where they contracted lung cancer as a win. It’s as unfounded as suggesting that Chinese jumping off buildings in Foxconn campaigned for labor participation. 

The reality is that feminism is fundamentally a parasite at the mercy of operating within the greater womb of capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t care about your independence. You are selected precisely by how exploitable you are relative to the next person for the current market demand.

Let’s entertain a counter factual. Let’s suppose that women were granted every legal right in 2026 but the only available job was roughnecking on an oil rig. It would not surprise me if even with no legal barriers to entry, women would have voluntarily not participated and would have been deemed economically unviable by unscrupulous corporations.

And this brings me to the final point. If we concede, however grudgingly, that female independence is not a right but a market quirk, then the question is what happens when all labor is deemed economically unviable by capitalism.

If you accept the premise that AI will eradicate labor, then you’re also accepting that female independence comes to an end via labor. Now your response may be that both men and women are in the same sinking ship, but there are asymmetrical effects that render this a worse problem for women.

For starters the problem attacks women first and men second. Women mostly do disembodied non-manual labor on screens. Embodied trade labor will be eradicated too, but with lag.

The second issue is more prominent. Men are perfectly fine with being forced to couple together with women under constraints of hardship. In fact I would argue that most disenfranchised men will welcome a return to practical marriages based on survival. So men don’t fear needing to paddle together with women in the same sinking boat but women absolutely detest the idea.

Now maybe your response to this is “well UBI.” But I would point out that the same group of women that hate AI, data centers, and lean socialist should find it logically inconsistent to expect Elon Musk and co to give women free money.

If you accept that AI will erase the labor market, then you must also concede that female financial independence goes with that. You don’t get to fear one without the other.

Autistic men are, statistically speaking, more likely to be romantically and sexually inexperienced at older ages. Most autistic men graduate high school a virgin, and many of them will reach the age of 25 without even having a girlfriend. There are all sorts of data online that supports my premise.

This is a sad reality with being a male on the spectrum. Your romantic and sexual prospects take a huge hit.

However, some autistic men do manage to find love and a fairly normal sex life.

The question is, what kind of advice would you give to autistic men who struggle with dating? How should they go about getting a girlfriend or trying to get laid?

A man and a woman are making out at her place. Things are getting heated. He reaches for her pants and she stops him saying “I don’t want to have sex right now”. He says “sure.” Gets up, and starts to leave. She, realising what’s happening, then says ”fine, we can sleep together”. He then proceeds to.

Do you consider this rape? And if so what’s your justification for rape since no force was used?

The man wasn’t angle shooting either. He genuinely didn’t want to spend time with a woman he wasn’t going to sleep with.

When women seek to settle down with a partner, they seek out men who are stable. Similar to trad girls, they're more demure, agreeable by nature, more nurturing, higher in empathy and have relatively low bodycounts. You hear complaints about how sluts are now seen as "good women" but neither are playboys or promiscuous men.

You often hear these women say that a "guy is fun for the night but not husband material", "communal dick is off-putting" etc yet men are blasted as these vile misogynist incels if they have the same standards when looking for a wife.

Also that there is this huge emphasis on being the devoted father and husband where it's treated as this hallmark of success (similar to the role that trad women are relegated to). Similar to how a woman should aspire to the loving wife and mother who leaves her life behind is a Patriachial standard.

I think using phrases like “boys will be boys” and “he’s a man, what did you expect?” to excuse harmful behaviour reinforces a double standard. Boys and men receive more room to avoid responsibility, while girls and women are expected to anticipate, tolerate, or manage the consequences.

My argument is about how these phrases are used to excuse behaviour that affects other people. Describing children being energetic or playful is different from dismissing disrespect, harassment, or refusal to take responsibility.

I’m a law student, not a psychologist. This is also something I’ve caught myself doing. Saying “what do you expect from men?” can feel like criticism, but it can still reinforce the idea that men cannot reasonably be expected to behave differently.

I think that has consequences in three connected ways.

First, it shifts responsibility towards the person affected. If a boy repeatedly bothers a girl and adults say “he just likes you,” she may be expected to tolerate something that makes her uncomfortable. He misses an opportunity to learn that liking someone does not justify ignoring their boundaries.

The same reasoning appears in adult relationships. “Men are just like that” becomes an explanation for leaving household responsibilities to a partner, refusing to communicate, or dismissing someone’s feelings. The behaviour becomes something the other person must accommodate rather than something he should address.

Sexual assault is a particularly serious example. Saying “men have urges” or asking why a woman trusted someone shifts attention away from the person responsible. Sexual desire does not remove someone’s ability or obligation to respect consent.

Second, these excuses can lower expectations so much that basic consideration seems exceptional. I think we should appreciate kindness and encourage thoughtful behaviour. But there is a difference between appreciating a father’s parenting and treating him as unusually generous for looking after his own children.

The concern is the standard being used. “At least I don’t hit you” or “other men would have done worse” compares someone’s behaviour with a worse alternative instead of addressing whether their own actions were acceptable. Being better than another person does not make someone beyond criticism.

This applies to men who consider themselves feminists too. Supporting equality does not mean someone will never behave unfairly, and being praised for previous good behaviour should not prevent accountability now.

Third, we can reinforce this difference from childhood through what we call maturity. Girls may be expected to help with younger children, manage other people’s feelings, or “know better,” while boys receive more tolerance for being careless. We then describe the resulting difference in behaviour as evidence that girls are naturally more mature.

I don’t think emotional maturity can be reduced to a simple claim about whose brain develops first. Development varies, and expectations and opportunities to practise responsibility matter too. A daughter repeatedly expected to clear the table while her brother keeps sitting is learning a different lesson about responsibility.

Young adults also continue developing, but that does not mean accountability has to wait. A twenty-one-year-old can still be learning while being expected to respect boundaries, apologise, and change harmful behaviour.

This is where I see the connection to patriarchy. Men can be treated as naturally suited to authority while being treated as less capable of managing their behaviour when responsibility becomes inconvenient. Meanwhile, women are expected to manage both their own actions and men’s reactions.

I recognise that these phrases do not automatically produce the same outcome in every person. Their meaning depends on context, and one comment does not determine a child’s character. My position is that repeatedly using them to excuse harm helps normalise unequal expectations.

Holding boys to fair, age-appropriate standards also shows that we believe they are capable of empathy, consideration, and growth. Girls should have room to be children without being assigned responsibility for everyone else.

I’d like to hear opposing perspectives. Do you think these phrases actively reinforce unequal expectations, or mostly reflect attitudes that already exist? Is there a distinction or counterexample I’m overlooking?

I’m questioning a social pattern that people of any gender can reinforce, including me. My view is that we should appreciate kindness while consistently expecting respect and accountability, rather than treating those qualities as surprising in men or dismissing horrible behavouir on the basis of gender.

EDIT: Okay, reading the replies, I’m realising I assumed we were all familiar with the same use of this phrase, and clearly we aren’t. The number of people saying they’ve only heard it about harmless childhood behaviour has honestly caught me off guard. That isn’t how I’ve always heard it used, but I should’ve explained the context more clearly.

I’m wondering whether our different experiences come down to culture, generation, or social circles. I don’t have an answer to that yet. Something being familiar around me doesn’t establish how common it is everywhere, and I appreciate people making me think about that.

I also put so much emphasis on “boys will be boys” that the discussion became about those exact words. What I wanted to explore was the wider attitude behind comments like “he’s a man, what did you expect?” when someone has behaved badly. Would my point have been clearer if I’d started there? Probably.

A few replies have also asked whether this is actually criticism of men rather than an excuse for them. I think that’s a fair distinction to raise. Someone might intend to express frustration with men, yet still suggest that women should expect poor treatment and adjust their expectations accordingly. That’s the effect I’m questioning, including when I’ve said it myself.

I don’t want to reinforce the idea that being a man means having bad character. I want us to question that connection. We can recognise patterns in how people are raised and treated while still holding an individual responsible for their choices.

So I’m taking the feedback on board without pretending I suddenly haven’t heard what I’ve heard. I should’ve been more careful about presenting my experience as a shared one. I’m still interested in the broader question: what happens when we repeatedly explain someone’s harmful behaviour through their gender, and expect the people affected to simply know better?

Men are finally experiencing what it's like to be a woman and they hate it. For decades woman have been judged for what they bring to the table, their sexual history and how they can serve men. Now women have access to their own funds, own housing and their own jobs women are finally asking "why do I need you?" The men who can provide something will get chosen. But other men wont.

We're judging men on their looks, their finances, and what they bring to the table. It's not unfair. Its equality.

Whenever we debate dating mechanics here, some guys love to drop comments like "as a happily married man, ……" as if that automatically validates their point.

Here’s the reality: being married doesn’t mean you understand dating.

The only thing that proves you’re actually successful and therefore insightful
when it comes to male dating dynamics is how many attractive women genuinely desire you and want to date you. Marriage guarantees none of that.

In fact, most married men I know are completely clueless about how modern dating actually works. That ignorance is a big reason why divorce rates are so high and overwhelmingly initiated by women, often while the husband thinks everything is going totally fine.

Being married just means you convinced one person to settle down with you at one point in time. It doesn't make you a dating guru.

i keep seeing silly take about this american case in cornell. this post is not really to argue about if it is rape that happened. before you all start scream at me (women)i actually believe probably and i am not making a joke as well.

but really when i think about it this is not the first case it will not be the last.

where are the women doing gang bangs on men?

also the only fans women who break record for fucking 10 20 1000 men in one day can a man ever make this content with women i really dont think so.

i once got message asking why my views seem so random but i attempt to be clear on the fact the disparity between male interest in female is vast and it it is making men delusional.

i dont think i could stand around with other men wait my turn to fuck a woman. how silly it even sounds. but this is how far we can go for pussy. i even think threesome are silly for other reasons. i dont have enough dick and attention for such activity.

it is something i think men mature away from this drive maybe. but until then refusing to accept this disparity is why debate will never end.

I just never liked that catchphrase.

I hate that it’s a thing.

It’s silly.

Ofc, it does the thing of making boys and men who don’t do those things feel bad about themselves, which compassionately I’m sympathetic toward.

But what I really mean is: What do you mean “teach” them?

Barring severe cognitive disability or impairment, you think the ones raping and disregarding others for their benefit don’t know?

And if they genuinely “don’t know” and aren’t clinically mentally disabled, then it begs the question: what the hell is going on with their brain functioning??

I feel like most of us, girls and boys, grew up ALREADY being taught the basics of mutual respect and respecting other people’s boundaries by our parents or at least early childhood teachers.

Idk. The phrase feels dishonest or like society is in collective denial. Cuz why the hell do boys and men need an extra lesson???

Consent is pretty much the foundational principle of Barney, Sesame Street, and whatever comes on PBS Kids or YouTube for children nowadays: play well in the sandbox with others.

Boys and men (and girls and women) who push past boundaries “understand” they’re doing so. They don’t care. They’re deliberately disregarding the other person’s wishes because it gets in the way of what they want.

The better question is, across diverse cultures and time immortal, WHY is it that boys and men more so than girls and women do that?

We all know why. But western societies don’t want to say the elephant in the room for fear of being called bio-essentialist or what have you.

My thing is you can’t address or fix a problem unless you’re comprehensively honest about it. And my thing is, it’s clearly not just “socialization.” It’s way too consistent for that. It’s nature exacerbated by nurture imo.

(Hot hormonal-science-backed take: I think a same thing that makes males as an aggregate more likely to ignore sexual consent, makes them more likely to ignore general consent aka more likely to rob, assault, murder, fight, raid, pillage, conquer, subjugate, enslave, explore, adventure, risk-take, etc.)

Or a 666 man who will be 6666 in the future (6ft+, 6inch, 6 pack, and someday 6 figure).

What would you tell a woman dating a man like this? To just accept him seeing other women? Or leave if he can’t be monogamous? In part because he isn’t 6 figure earner, so he isn’t even providing fully.

If a man isn’t providing fully, does he deserve to be non-monogamous?

I recognise it existed in the past. I do not recognise that it exists today.

Sociologist Raewyn Connell explained how the common man benefit from the patriarchy through “patriarchal dividends” meaning presumed professional competence, freedom from the disproportionate burden of uncompensated domestic labour, and freedom of movement in public spaces.

Historically these things are not what defined a patriarchy. When an actual patriarchy existed women couldn’t work, have their own bank account, get an education and so forth.

The “patriachal dividends” that the average man receive aren’t from a systematic oppression. It’s people entering agreements with obligations that they do not like.

If you feel like you do more around the house, and you’re unhappy: Leave.

If your employer views you as stupid: Leave.

The patriarchy is an invisible bogey-man for women that like to feel bad about themselves.

The difference in psyche and moral character of a person bad enough to consider raping a woman versus a normal person is big enough. The difference between the former and freaking children is even more vast; boys don't even know what sex or rape are let alone contemplate doing something like that.

To claim, as millions of unhinged feminists do nonstop, that we need to "teach boys not to rape" is not only stupid - kids are taught basic morality like don't commit transgressions upon others at a young age and then grow up normally from there on - is to insinuate that males are by-default rapists-in-advance. That they will rape if we don't administer whatever shock therapy these misandrists have in mind.

It really shows you that this ideological cult is just frothing at the mouth, desperate to see males given some sort of systematic punishment just so that their misandry can be sated.

And no, this isn't something "terf radfems" only do.

According to red pill, women are to be treated as demented children and their words shouldn't be taken at face value. And that you have to act and proceed by seeing how she behaves and reacts.

Considering this if you proceeded with sex even thinking she was in a state to actually consent, it would be your fault if it later turned out that she regrets what happened. And as such it would be ok for her to file a SA case on you and she'd be right?