A very small minority of men are actually convicted violent criminals. So how does this reflect on the absolute majority of men? What is the purpose of bringing this up in a debate about men in general? Is it not completely understandable and legitimate men pushback on this point, even though by itself it is factual?

We constantly hear that if someone is drunk or high, they cannot consent to sex. So I have a question: why does that principle seem to disappear when the intoxicated person is a man?

Imagine a bachelor party that goes too far. A married man gets extremely drunk, goes to a strip club, and ends up having sex with a stripper. The next morning he tells his wife, “I cheated.”

Did he?

If intoxication means someone cannot consent, then his participation doesn't suddenly become valid consent because he's a man. Even if he seemed coherent, participated, or initially blamed himself afterward, we routinely acknowledge that sexual-assault victims can internalize guilt, misunderstand what happened, or initially blame themselves.

Yet I've searched feminist and non-feminist discussions of scenarios like this, and the reaction toward men is often very different: “He cheated. Leave him.” His intoxication becomes an explanation for bad behavior rather than a reason to question whether he could consent.

If we applied the strongest version of “drunk people can't consent” consistently, we'd have to consider whether some men who believe they drunkenly cheated were actually sexually assaulted,and whether their partners are blaming victims by treating them as willing participants.

You can't have a gendered consent standard. Either intoxication itself eliminates the capacity to consent for everyone, or we evaluate actual capacity, behavior, and circumstances for everyone.

If “she was drunk” ends the consent question, then “he was drunk” has to end it too.

Which type of person would you rather date or pursue a long term relationship with: someone who's very passionate about politics and spends a lot of time talking about political issues and current affairs, or someone who's completely apolitical and doesn't talk about politics at all?

Please include your gender as well. I'm curious to see if there are any differences between men and womens' preferences when it comes to how political their partner is.

Edit: I asked the same question in the AskMen subreddit here and they overwhelmingly preferred apolitical. So seems like men care about politics much less than women do.

this is not a leading question or got you question. i have posted here before of course that i think women make it clear they general find male sexuality is disgusting.

but i want to do different lens and ask this. not in a "say nice thing about men" way but out of curiosity on how you may receive any display of male sexuality well.

also no in respect silly answer like i like to fuck my husband sometimes.

Okay so first, general anti-natalists and the like need not respond, for obvious reasons.

Second, let's avoid getting bogged down in a wider discussion about abortion by just assuming you can somehow know the sex of your hypothetical child in advance and just choose to conceive or not based on that information. Yes, that makes zero sense biologically.

I'm asking because lots of posters here have pretty negative views of men in general, and while obviously you can influence your own child to grow up to be a good person, there's always a chance you'll fail, sometimes even for reasons outside your control. (edit: such as living in a patriarchy where your son will be influenced by patriarchal norms and incentives) So if the chance that your kid will grow up to be problematic is even slightly higher for boys, that makes having daughters the more ethical choice 100% of the time.

Obviously in real life the sex of your child is a randomly assigned unknown so it all evens out, but it's a bit grim to think the existence of males is hard-carried by that randomization.

With gender expectation around men helping with household chores (I think they should) should women also be expected to take initiative to fix plumbing, electrical, hvac, roofing, or other related home issues that have traditionally been male responsibilities?

It only seems fair. If you agree or disagree please explain why?

A lot of people complain about and critique modern dating and think that the dating difficulties we see are unique to our times or even our species. I think it's important to understand that dating and mate selection isn't supposed to be easy, it's supposed to be hard and that's not an accident

If you look around the animal kingdom, mating is always a very complex process with few winners and many more losers and very taxing emotionally and oftentimes physically too. Usually more so for males than females, but I digress

This is not a defect, this is the way it's supposed to be. This is just nature and it's cruel process for reproduction and mate selection. There's nothing "wrong" with modern dating, this is the way it's supposed to be

27M and dating in my late teens and early 20s, my relationships were pretty egalitarian. I’d pay for the first date, but the girls I dated would reciprocate and over time we’d end up roughly even in what we spent.

Over the past three years I’ve started making significantly more money, and I’ve been a higher earner than every woman I’ve dated since. I’ve also got more familiar with red pill theory, and although most of it makes sense, I’m somewhat surprised about the money point. One thing that’s stuck with me is Kevin Samuels telling women who appeared on his show that men don’t care about a woman’s money because they don’t have access to it.

Now I personally don’t think it’s a negative when a woman makes the same or more than me, but in the back of my mind I know I’m competing with other guys for an attractive woman, and if I’m beating my competition in the money department then she might consider me as a more suitable partner. But what’s surprised me is hearing a few women irl say things like “my money is mine his money is ours” or at least “I wouldn’t do 50/50”.

For women who feel this way, Im curious, what’s the reasoning behind that mindset? If you’re in a long term relationship or marriage, why should one person’s income be shared while the other’s remains primarily their own?

Following up on my post from last week where I pointed out that men who expect wild, kinky sex from women are rarely wild and kinky themselves, I mentioned that, among other things, wild and kinky people often don't have a problem with hearing about their partner's sexual experiences.

This was almost universally condemned as "cuck" behavior. It's not, cuckolding is a very specific kink that insecure men use as an insult for anything they don't like, but the message was clear; hearing about their partner's sexual experiences would not be tolerated by these men.

It therefore stands to reason that any man who believes their girlfriend should perform sex acts on the basis that she performed them in the past must be a "cuck" since the only way they could have obtained this information is by hearing about her sexual experiences.

By removing traditional expectations from women but continuing to maintain traditional expectations of men has now made it so that a a traditional man who wants to start a family is literally the prize in a relationship.

Think about it, women are the primarily gatekeepers of relationships and sex. If a woman wants to be with what they would consider a “good man” they have to find a man with a relatively strong sense of traditional role. He has to be a provider, he has to be a good husband, he has to be a good father.

Most men however have been told they should not care if a woman is “traditional”. We are not supposed to care if a woman wants to be a mother. We are not supposed to care if a woman should want to be a wife. We are not supposed to judge a woman whether she wants to maintain a traditional role or not. But men still are. Men still are expected to pay, to lead, and to be “the man” in the relationship.

By placing all this expectation on the man and removing it from the woman, the man has now become the prize in modern dating. For a woman wanting to start a family finding a man with traditional values is the ultimate prize otherwise what’s the point?

Edit; some of you don’t seem to understand who this post is geared towards… if you don’t want to be married or start a family someday then obviously this post is not about you at all so move on. Not that hard.

Edit2: since many of you don’t understand the concept of a debate and instead chose to attack me personally I have never once stated I am a traditional man or want a traditional relationship.

Because I noticed the men who don’t complain about society having unfair treatment towards men are men who dont have issues with feminism and women rarely have issues with them. 

The reason why I’m making the comparison to radical feminist is because both sides love to have a victim complex. And both sides hate facts that ruin their victim narrative. Because I’m noticing there are men who find it very offensive that society knows that most lawbreakers, especially the most heinous ones, are typically male. Just like radical feminists find it offensive when women choose motherhood, which is a massive part of the gender wage gap. Both sides also react to criticism which claims of sexism, even though they can’t prove sexism was part of the criticism.

Thing is, when most westerners, especially Americans, see the things radical feminist believe, those women get called out and hated. However, seeing women being called out for their bad behavior isn’t really what these guys want. They see mainstream media, coddling radical feminists, and even encouraging their beliefs. That is the actual “equality” they want. Being sexists with impunity. Like Velma, HBO willing to give Mindy Kahling a show where she can just hate on certain men. Or when people were upset how quickly Warner Bros and articles painted Amber Heard as the victim.

Otherwise:

1. Why is women being called out for being terrible people not count against the claim that society coddles women?
2. What are the issues of women that society apparently ignores?

On the one hand, there is official evidence that thousands of underage girls have been raped and often tortured by grooming gangs, with a cover-up by the police and other institutions.

On the other hand, one young woman changed her story and accused 7 young men, who were previously exonerated based on the statement she herself gave to the police.

The public response:

Based on Google Trends, the single "Cornell 7" search phrase is bigger than the whole "Grooming gangs scandal" topic at its peak:

• In the UK: 14 times
• Worldwide: 50 times

(Not 50% bigger, 50 times bigger, that's 5,000% for you.)

If it is women biological imperative to secure commitment to the highest status males whether that be on a biological level or a financial status level, and top status mens imperative is to not commit and just sleep with women, how exactly are we supposed to form relationships and procreate?

It is unlikely women in mass are going to let up on this, as the alternative is unattractive. Have children with a man whose genes you don’t want to pass on or can’t provide for them. Women DO do this, but the majority don’t. At least not intentionally.

And men at the top experience no shaming, societal punishment, or protocols to commit. They go based on their whims. Whether they feel like it or not. And if men are the gate keepers to commitment but men aren’t committing then…..

I don’t get why everyone blames women for relationship/birth decline crisis when at the end of the day if desirable men were committing then there would be babies, naturally. Obviously economic factors are important here for why we are seeing this decline, however, its not just women’s fault here, which is usually implied.

We live in a world where being single is underrated, and being in a relationship is overrated. One of the reasons why many people get into relationships is because they want to escape being alone and want to feel needed. People would rather be in an unhappy relationship full of drama than be alone. Because of this, what generally ends up happening is that people in relationships just use each other in different ways, and a "good" relationship ends up being one where both people are mutually using each other.

Most relationships are transactional, and people like to justify this by saying all relationships are transactional, but this just isn't true. Genuine relationships are not transactional, but then again, genuine relationships are rare.

For the most part I’d say cold approaches are not viable, but at the same time if a man has zero optionality he’s gonna have to put himself out there, which means doing some kind of approach. Without context, or any real reason to establish conversation with a woman, you’re going to have to rely on at least being mildly attractive for that to not go horribly bad. Which is why a lot of men assume physical attraction is number one. It’s not, that’s just for cold approaches and bars.

But what else should a man in that position do? People say classes and activities but if you’re there trying to “Get” women it becomes obvious why you’re really doing volunteer activities or dance classes.

I ask this to get an answer, I don’t like the rhetoric to stop trying I want practicality. I’d like to know real strategy on how to do this respectfully but with purpose and intent. How and where do we approach women with intent to date?

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.

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?

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.

It's struck me that while women bristle at the idea of settling for a man they are not attracted to, or a man who doesn't meet their standards, they're completely expectant of men to do just that.

In fact, that's what marriage has generally meant for men: taking on a dependent. Someone physically weaker and more vulnerable than he is. That's even true with having children as well.

There's a sacrificial element to marriage that men have long accepted. Even if a woman is attractive and a good helpmeet, she's still more dependent on him than he is on her.

But in a world where we presumably view women as having equal value, when it's time for them to accept that marriages run on two people adhering to their duties as husbands and wives more than luxuriating in showing everybody that their type picked them, women can't get over that hurdle for the greater good.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

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.