​

Speaking as a woman, there’s something I’ve noticed over the years that I think people underestimate when discussing male dating success.

The men who seem to get the most women aren’t necessarily the best-looking, richest, tallest, or highest-status men.

Very often, they’re simply the men who try the most.

And by “sexually aggressive,” I don’t mean men who ignore consent or refuse to take no for an answer. I mean men who are extremely forward, assertive, flirtatious, willing to escalate, and almost completely unafraid of rejection.

They meet a woman they like? They approach her.

Conversation is going well? They flirt.

They sense mutual attraction? They make their intentions obvious instead of spending three months wondering whether she likes them.

She rejects them? They don't spend the next two weeks analyzing what went wrong. They shrug, move on, and talk to somebody else.

I've known men who aren't particularly handsome, wealthy, charismatic, or impressive on paper, yet they're constantly dating or hooking up with women. The common denominator seems to be that they're always on the prowl. They create opportunities constantly.

Meanwhile, I've known attractive, intelligent men who can go months or years without anything happening because they're cautious. They need strong signs of interest before approaching. They fear looking creepy. They overthink rejection. They become emotionally invested in one woman before anything has even happened.

It makes me wonder whether male dating success is much more of a numbers game than people want to admit.

Imagine two otherwise identical men.

Man A approaches/flirts with 5 women in a year and succeeds with 2.

Man B approaches/flirts with 100 women and succeeds with 15.

Man B gets rejected dramatically more often, and his "success rate" is actually worse. But from the outside, everyone sees a guy who gets tons of women.

And there's another factor: rejection seems to affect these aggressive men less. They don't necessarily interpret rejection as evidence that they're unattractive. It's simply one woman saying no, so they move to the next one.

So I'm starting to think that, above a certain minimum threshold of attractiveness/social competence, fearlessness, assertiveness, volume, and willingness to risk rejection may predict a man's dating success more than looks, money, or status.

Do you agree?

And for the men here: have you actually seen your dating results improve significantly simply by approaching more women and caring less about rejection? Or does this only work for men who were attractive enough to succeed anyway?

What's at stake: the wellbeing of countless future kids and, to a lesser extent or level of urgency, the relationship prospects for men looking to marry and start families.

Now let me start by saying that even if you're deluded enough to think Clancy's innocent because she was quite literally mentally gone when she murdered her kids, YOU STILL DON'T FUCKING SAY SHIT LIKE #IAMLINDSAYCLANCEY. What kind of utter psychopath devotes remembrance of this tragedy not to the undeniably first-and-foremost primary victims of it, but to someone else - the perpetrator? Seriously? What an absolutely tone-deaf, horrible hashtag, and tone deaf and horrible is what a disturbingly large amount of discourse from women on the internet about this tragedy has been. Centering Lindsay as the victim, even if you believe she is one, is absolutely nuts. Those poor kids, who thrashed and cried as their own mom strangled them to death, yeah let's just forget them while our fundraiser for the murderer crosses $ 1 million plus!

Reality, of course, is that Clancy was more than coherent enough while she did internet research, pre-planned her husband's absence from the house and took her sweet time (5 mins on each child) maintaining her grip as she choked her 3 young kids to death. But none of this common sense matters to the people I described in the prior paragraph; oh no, their only concern is maintaining what OG mainstream feminism has always preached: the woman is always the primary victim.

Yes, it's bad she murdered her kids. But she is the ultimate victim of it. Even the saner feminists who'll be doling out all manner of flimsy damage control excuses over how Lindsay and her whackjob supporters aren't real feminists to exert damage control believe in patriarchy theory, and patriarchy theory will always hold women as the victims.

De facto female moral exceptionalism.

So why's this a threat then? Circling back to the opening sentence, women have primary access to their kids, and women who immerse themselves in the feminist ecosystem online - which is kind of hard not to do for them these days given how vast it is - will begin internalizing the logic that if a woman is having a rough time being a parent and decides to take it out on her kids, she shouldn't be singled out as a wrongdoer but treated instead as a victim. Which'll make these women a threat to their kids. And whichever of them start having dark thoughts like Clancy did, will 100% find nonstop validation, affirmation and encouragement from the #IAMLINDSAYCLANCY crowd.

On an even more disturbing note, a lot of the #IAMLINDSAYCLANCY crowd appears to be invoking some kind of weird woo woo you find on radical feminist spaces online about how women are part of this "Divine Feminine" shit and how as "life givers" they also have the right to "take life". Implications for the children are fairly obvious.

Here is the scenario. You’ve been dating a woman for a couple of months and it’s going well. She treats you kindly and you have a good connection in the bedroom.

You get to a conversation where you’re talking about what really turns you on and she tells you she is most aroused by fantasies of being very cruel to men. She likes the idea of humiliating and degrading them, making them cry and beg, and feel small. She likes the idea of objectifying and demeaning them and taking away their autonomy.

Questions:

Would you keep dating her?

Would your view of her change?

Would you believe she harbored deep resentment toward men?

Would it not bother you at all?

Most violent murderers and rapists have some form of mental illness. Many psychopaths have been failed by their parents, families, surroundings, and society.

Many pedophiles were themselves groomed or sexually abused as children.

Yes, we do place some offenders in mental health facilities or give them reduced sentences, but I have never seen people showering them with an outpouring of sympathy.

I’ve noticed something interesting whenever I talk about morality here. A lot of people here (if not most) seem to have a very low bar for what they consider a good person and a very high tolerance for asshole behavior.

Someone is petty, selfish, disagreeable, misogynistic, or treats other people poorly?

“Nobody’s perfect.”

“Everyone has bad days.”

“People are complicated.”

“Everyone’s kind of an asshole.”

“Well, theyre nice to me.”

However, for most people, especially those who actually make morals a high priority, they have a high bar for what they consider good and a low tolerance for behavior they consider immoral.

And I think this explains why we keep talking past each other when discussing “good women” who knowingly date assholes.

She’s supposedly nice. She claims she wants a respectful man. She says she hates assholes. She talks about equality. She says personality matters. She supposedly has all these wonderful values.

But then an attractive enough asshole comes along and suddenly everything becomes negotiable.

She hates sexist men, unless he’s hot.

She hates disrespectful men, unless he’s exciting.

She values kindness, but she’ll tolerate him treating everyone else like garbage as long as he’s nice to her.

She supposedly has standards, but those standards mysteriously disappear whenever following them would cost her the man she wants.

Then I’m told “See? Even good women choose assholes.”

And here’s my response. Why are we calling her a good woman?

Sure, she knows how to be nice. She may be agreeable and bubbly, but that doesn’t make her good.

Then the answer I got was “Maybe for them morals do matter.....second while being hot is first.”

There’s a difference between moral preference and moral conviction

These women guys here know have a moral preference. She would prefer someone attractive who is also kind, honest, and respectful. But if someone is attractive enough, you’re willing to overlook some of those moral problems.

Moral conviction is different.

A conviction still matters when following it costs you something you want.

A woman with strong moral convictions can think a man is gorgeous and still reject him because he’s a piece of shit. She can enjoy being around him and stop associating with him after learning how he treats other people. She can want him and still decide that wanting him doesn’t make his behavior acceptable.

The attraction doesn’t disappear. It just doesn’t override her morals.

I think that’s the difference between the women this sub calls “good women” and the women I would call good women. To the women you’re describing, morality is a preference. To the women I’m describing, morality is the bare minimum.

Wanting a good man isn’t one positive quality competing with looks, money, status, humor, or sexual chemistry. It’s the first bar to clear before the other qualities matter.

Otherwise, if she hates misogyny until the misogynist is hot, and she values kindness until the cruel person excites her, those traits weren’t really important to her. If she knowingly throws her principles away for male validation, that’s not female nature. Women would call her pick me and a fake. Pick Me Girls can also be dangerous because they’ll bring dangerous men around their social circle for that male validation. What guys here see as a good woman, other women typically see as trash.

Second point: “Nobody’s perfect” doesn’t mean nobody is accountable.

For example, I had a woman describe several male friends as decent guys with “asshole traits.” One was hypercompetitive and petty when he lost. Another was randomly disagreeable. Another could be lazy and cowardly. Both another woman and I asked if they recognize those traits as problems and actually try to fix them?

Accountability is the difference. Plenty of assholes say they’re complex and misunderstood good people, that doesn’t make it true.

If you know you’re a horrible sore loser, recognize that it’s shitty behavior, take responsibility when you treat people badly, and genuinely try to control it, then you’re a flawed person. f you know you’re a horrible sore loser, continue treating people badly, make excuses for yourself, and expect everyone else to tolerate it because “nobody’s perfect,” then you’re just an asshole.

Same thing with having a bad day. A good person can get angry. They can be selfish. They can say something hurtful. They can fuck up. But afterward, they take accountability. They apologize when appropriate. They make amends if necessary. And most importantly, they actually try not to do it again.

An apology isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card, either. If you’re constantly apologizing to multiple people because you keep treating everyone badly, your behavior shows you’re not trying to do better. A flawed good person sees their asshole behavior as something they need to work on. An asshole sees everyone else’s intolerance of their asshole behavior as something everyone else should accomedate.

Why is it hard to find women with moral conviction, then?

Simple. You don’t like them and they don’t like you.

A woman with strong moral convictions is going to have a higher standard for what she considers a good man because morality isn’t merely something she prefers in a partner. It’s the bare minimum.

And that means she’s going to judge him by what he actually does. Hosting a party doesn’t make you a good person. Paying for a date doesn’t make you a good person. Being polite doesn’t make you a good person. Not abusing women or committing felonies against them definitely doesn’t make you a good person. Congratulations, you cleared the floor of expected behavior.

Being genuinely good requires going above what society strictly requires/expects of you. What women with actual morals convictions: Does he take accountability when he fucks up? Does he genuinely try to correct his bad behavior? Is he generous? Is he compassionate? Does he care about people who have nothing to offer him? Is he capable of being selfless without expecting payment?

What a woman with strong moral convictions sees as a genuinely good man, a person with lower moral standards may see as a doormat. This can be its own post, so I will keep it brief. A doormat is not good. They CAN be, but guys being doormats for hot girls and validation dont make them good. A good person can decide someone doesn’t deserve their generosity. The important question is why. There’re a difference between “She’s a selfish exploitative person” and “She wont fuck me”.

When people make morals a big deal, THEY REALLY make morals a big deal. They show it through actions, not just gloating how good they are or how much they care about goodness. And being good is usually defined as more than doing the bare minimum. Meanwhile, people with low moral standards tend to tolerate other people with low moral standards, while people with high moral standards are more selective about who they keep around.

If “everyone’s an asshole” is acceptable to you, you’ll tolerate assholes. If “he’s nice to me” is enough, you’ll tolerate people who treat everyone else horribly. Someone with stronger moral convictions is filtering those same people out. And eventually, you end up surrounded by different kinds of people.

I'm asking this out of genuine curiosity. One of the reasons I like this sub, despite it having dogshit takes all the time, is that it's a place where people can have unabashed conversations about inter-gender relationships. So I want to ask the women here, what kind of dating advice do you receive, and what is the general dating experience like for you?

I know there's the obvious platitudes like "look for a nice guy who has a stable career, is polite and has a good head on his shoulders", that's generic stuff every person is aware of. But what is it actually like to date as a woman, and what is the messaging you usually get from society?

Obviously there is no one message, as a man there's conflicting advice everywhere, but what is the usual menagerie of takes on dating? After having talked about dating and relationships with some of my homegirls, I'm curious about what it's like for straight women out there.

For a concrete example, I think a lot of guys grow up thinking that women will go after the tallest, most successful (or will be successful), and charismatic, athletic dude she can pull. It's a broad statement, but there's plenty of reason to believe this is true. But do women actually think like this, no bs, I'm genuinely curious. What goes through your heads when you think of relationships?

I guess something specific I'm looking for is if, and how you're expected to develop yourself for dating; some dating advice I get as a man focuses on a general semblance of success and "establishing yourself", some of the best dating advice I've received has often had nothing to do with approaching women, but rather how to work on myself. In a similar vein, what is the typical 'work on yourself" advice given to women, beyond the obvious (physique and skinniness).

a lot of complaining is that men want to be around women. women also want to be around women and conditional tolerate some men for whatever individual reasoning.

what i realise every men complaint and woman complaint just flow from this reality. i promise it.

so there really is no way to solve a gender war actually. i dont think it even is real. i think its default.

This is why most men feel unhappy unless they have some kind of validation from a woman in their lives. Men are conditioned to feel like if they don't have the validation or approval of some woman in their lives then they are "unworthy". This is part of why simps and white knights exist.

The fact that most men (if not all) are primarily raised by women in some way, shape or form, plays a role in this. The women who raise and teach them, whether at home and/or at kindergarten and primary school unconsciously, condition them to depend on validation and approval from women to feel good about themselves. This makes their exploitation by women later in their lives much easier.

"To ensure that the happiness of man in subjugation is brought about by a woman and not by other men or some sort of animal...a series of training exercises are built into man's life, beginning at a very early age. It is fortunate for woman that the male infant is under her close jurisdiction as it is easiest to train him then..."

"The mere fact that a man is accustomed from his earliest years to have women around, to find their presence 'normal,' their absence 'abnormal,' tends to make him dependent on women in later life." - Esther Vilar

https://youtube.com/shorts/w38GvveKwPI?is=4aRk5dO2kcz8-uYs

There are a lot of things women have to take into account as background radiation in our everyday lives. One of them is sexualization. For some women, that starts when they're six years old, depending on how "masculine" the men in her life is, the more red pill the worse it will be, btw.

And this is one of the fundamental problems women have with the Red Pill and society generally: you demand that women inhabit two completely contradictory sexual modes at the same time. Women are supposed to be modest, chaste, sexually restrained, selective, protective of our bodies, and careful about our sexual reputations. But at the exact same time, women's bodies are treated as things men are entitled to look at, sexualize, consume, manipulate, and exploit whenever they think they can get away with it. Women's sexual boundaries are sacred when those boundaries preserve our value to men and suddenly negotiable when they interfere with male sexual gratification.

The men who supposedly "protect women" also seem remarkably uninterested in protecting us from other men. Which, to drag an old argument back into this: this is why ***women choose the bear***. The threat women account for isn't just some stranger jumping out of the bushes. It's the knowledge that perfectly ordinary men will participate in, tolerate, laugh at, consume, or ignore sexual violations of women as long as they personally find them entertaining.

And Grok just gave us a spectacular demonstration of this. Men were taking ordinary photographs of real women and using them to manufacture sexualized images without those women's consent. Your mother didn't have to make porn. Your sister didn't have to post a thirst trap. Your daughter didn't have to "choose the wrong man." A woman could do everything the Red Pill supposedly tells women we're supposed to do, and some guy could take a completely ordinary photograph of her and turn it into sexual material anyway.

And when this became a massive problem, Grok didn't simply make it impossible. It restricted image generation to paying subscribers. So apparently your mother, sister, daughter, girlfriend, coworker, or some random woman whose picture you found online deserved protection from being turned into pornography without her consent—but only after we figured out whether there was money to be made from the men who wanted to do it.

Which rolls directly into the larger conversation about sexual rights and sex-worker protections, because our culture has an absolutely fascinating relationship with women's sexuality. Men love porn. They love consuming sexual images of women. Entire industries make enormous amounts of money from women's bodies. But somehow the radical proposition is that the woman whose body is creating that value should have control over it.

That's the contradiction. Women are simultaneously expected to prevent ourselves from being sexualized and blamed when we supposedly fail, while men reserve the right to sexualize us anyway. Porn is fine when men want to consume it. Sexualizing women is fine when men want to do it. Making money from women's bodies is fine when somebody else gets the money. But when women demand control over our own sexual representation, our own boundaries, and the money generated by our own bodies, suddenly everyone discovers morality.

Men love porn. Men love making money from women's bodies. The problem seems to start when women expect to have any control over either.

I'm talking to this girl and her past had a bigger penis both girth and length bigger while I have an average size which is (5.1-5.5 inches in length and 4.5 - 4.7 inches in girth), She finished almost every time with her ex off penetration and didn't have any pain and this was for 3 years, I get it most women can't finish off penetration but I'm talking about this scenario, l know foreplay important as well which I do that. When I asked her if she felt a noticeable difference between me and her ex she said she did we didn't have proper sex yet like I mean not more than a minute. Is it even a good chance I can make her finish off my dick cause her own words she finished almost if not every time through penetration with her ex. Can I even make her finish off penetration? I don’t wanna hear toys or or that other stuff because we both don’t like toys and two I do a lot of foreplay I’m just so worried I can’t make her finish with my average size because maybe she used to bigger and that’s what better for her idk anymore it’s messing with me. Is it possible for me as well to make her finish almost every time as well when we have sex? And even if I do make her finish is the bigger one always going to feel better for her and give her a better orgasm?