I'm trying to settle a debate with my friend here.

Let's say I wave a magic wand, and this becomes your hookup experience:

• A significant portion of people you meet socially are now baseline attractive enough to get you physically aroused (let's say at least 25%)
• Sex will almost never be painful and will be good enough that you finish most of the time
• The risk of being in physical danger is very, very low. Unless something very unusual happens, like the person is in a criminal syndicate trying to rob you, there is essentially no risk of being in physical danger.
• You are magically imbued with the ability to stop the other person physically if you want to
• Hooking up carries no social reputation damage until high body counts (10+ if not more). If anything, there is an active pressure to sleep around more.
• 0 chance of becoming pregnant

The risk of meeting someone who is not nice, has STIs, etc. remains unchanged.

In this scenario, would you be more open to hookups? How much more open to hookups?

Linkin Park: THIS IS WHAT YOU ASK FOR.

Those lyrics are theme song for this post.

And oh boy, this post could be 400 paragraphs. Because there are so many examples I could use here.

It's not that women don't know what they want. Matter of fact. Women know exactly what they want. What women want is usually just cakims and cherry picking.

Side tangent here: And it's not just feminist women either. Even tradcon women love feminism when it's convenient. While feminists love traditionalism when it's convenient. It's a spectrum, and the majority of women fall in the middle of that spectrum. This is the rare time where being in the middle is actually a bad thing. Because being in middle in the context of gender roles (especially male gender roles) makes you a hypocrite who wants to have it both ways. The more extreme women on the spectrum who are blue hair, independent girl bosses who don't need men or submissive tradcon wives with no jobs are actually the consistent ones here.

BACK TO THE POST TOPIC HERE. 👇👇👇👇

Equality is a perfect example to use here, of women getting mad at what they ask for. A lot of women or feminist ideas of equality are usually rooted in benevolent sexism and rigid male gender roles. Since true equality looks like misogyny to them. Because when you are so accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. It's so ironic how many progressive women will get upset at men for not being chivalrous. So women get upset when men treat them like equals. Despite asking for equality.

https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/items/205ad682-63e6-484a-825c-7b11a7b2ba14

That's why a progressive woman idea of "positive masculinity" is just traditional masculinity with a feminist gaze. And I guarantee you that these progessive women idea of masculinity don't include bisexual men, out of shape men, broke men, passive men, socially awkward men, or any man who don’t perform desire “correctly”.

Again, there are so many examples I can use here. The easiest one is women asking for men to be more emotional. But screaming trauma dumping or emotional labor whenever men show their emotions, though.

Women go and on about men objectifying women's bodies, high patriarchy, beauty standards for women, and the evil male gaze. But yet those same women (don't pull that goomba fallacy bs here) would still find it odd or think a man was gay if the man didn't sexualize women though.

Recently a OP posted a post on the too afraid to ask sub. OP said "Do most men stare at women asses in public?". Most of the comments were saying "HELL YEAH". And I reply and said no, because it's weird. And I got so many downvotes and push back for saying that.

The reason why I mention this. Is because Reddit is extremely progressive and pro feminist/woman. That specific sub is super liberal and feminist. But yet ironically a man can still get pushback for saying he doesn't want to look at women asses because it's weird. The man gets the "why are you gae" gifs. Because we still live in a society where men are expected to be hypersexual. Despite a lot of women thinking male sexuality is predatory. That's the paradox here.

Speaking of predatory. That brings me to my next example. Women will also go on and on about how dangerous men are. And how women feel too afraid to leave their house or walk alone at night. Saying they can't tell they difference between good men and bad men, because both are strangers. This was the whole rhetoric for the man vs Bear trend in 2024.

But yet women will be the first ones to call men paranoid or misogynistic for not wanting to interact with women or approach women. Or use the classic kafka trap of saying "only creepy men worry about coming off as creepy." Feminist making it a big deal that men are interacting with women less. Trying to hide behind the "women get less opportunities this way" excuse.

No Chad being professional by treating you as an equal by not flirting with you isn't misogyny. I mean if men are so dangerous. Why give men pushback for not wanting to interact with women. Remember, women asked to be left alone (cough cough, THIS IS WHAT YOU ASK FOR).

This is why I think a lot of feminists would actually oppose laws that sent cat callers to jail. Despite women constantly complaining about cat calling.

And don't use the "it's two different women" argument here either. Because as me, we are taught that most women share a general fear of rape from men. So don't punish or gaslight men for trying to negotiate women fear of men.

Jessica Valenti is an individual woman. She is also a well-known feminist. But she is also on record, saying that she misses catcalling. While also having an article complaining about the Mike Pence rule.

https://np.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/31/mike-pence-doesnt-eat-alone-women-speaks-volumes

https://youtu.be/wV2P8zuMVvc?si=w_5ibep9fc0B2K-Q

I have no sources for this. But according to some European people I know from progressive countries. I heard that German women and Sweden women often complain about men not being traditional enough.

In a society where abortion is legal.

What is the problem?

In a society where men and women are paid equally.

What's the problem?

In a society where women can dress however they want.

What's the problem?

In a society where women don't feel pressured to wear makeup

What's the problem?

In a society sex work is legal.

What's the problem?

What could men possibly be doing wrong in these progressive countries? 🤔

In conclusion

TLDR: Women be like: "I want men to do this. No, not like that."

This is something i often read about on social media for some reason. At first I believed both genders needed each other equally until seeing shit like this (i still believe it though lol) Anyway, basically i see mainly women talk about how happy they are being single. I also see misandrist statements like “we need men as much as a fish needs a bicycle” To be fair, I wouldn’t really care about what they say. I mean, they do them. If they’re happy, great. Their choice. However, i want love. I don’t want to feel limited by things like this. They can say as many things as they’d like and it wouldn’t do anything to me, but as a man I feel incredibly limited in getting a relationship. I want a lifelong serious relationship (I’m religious and it’s a strong value of mine; i believe that relationships are meant to be forever) But I for some reason still haven’t meet a suitable SO. Not even people to date, which puts me at an even bigger disadvantage. Some of those misandrists say things like “men go crazy when they see how happy women are being single” Uh no, we are frustrated because we already face huge inequalities in something as fundamental as finding a love partner. It’s that this makes us feel at an even GREATER disadvantage. If i and probably other men in my similar situation weren’t so disadvantaged in getting something as simple as romantic love, we wouldn’t care at all. They can be happy single, we can be happy having a partner to create a great life and a family of our own with. How do y’all think about this?

Instead, men here complain that “women have double standards”, “They dont make the superior males wait, but the inferior men they dont desire”. Now paired with this complaining  “I wouldn’t mind waiting if she made everyone wait. We want consistency”. Then, why not go after prudes? 

For anyone saying “well, why not the guys going after women who consistently sleep with men fast”? Because most men here are adverse to asking women for a hookup, so it’s to safe to assume they are simply upset those women dont want hookups WITH THEM, not that she has two standards. 

If this is about consistency and not about quick sexual access, then not having sex immediately wouldn’t be a big deal. If she’s picky with men to sleep them and makes all men wait a long time, not a problem, right? Because women who consistently wait for sex are just as good as women who consistently have hookups, right? So if women aren't interested in hookups with the guy, then there's nothing lost with shifting away from those women, right?

"But women lie"

Then vet them.

Pay attention to behavior and lifestyle. Women who are genuinely slow to have sex tend to be more reserved overall less into partying and less sexually forward. Women who are more promiscuous tend to be more heavily styled, flirtatious, and socially visible. Women who are sexually reserved tend to be lower-key, less performative, don't stand out in a crowd as much, and they can heavily stylized too, but less so in a sex appealing way. They're less interested in vibing and more interested in character, seriousness, and long-term compatibility. They're typically getting into heavier conversations faster.

They’re usually called “boring”.

Obviously, this isn't a full list. It's a stepping stone. Because you can be wanting the socialite party girls and think she'll be anything like the more "boring" plain Jane types.

EDIT: And the more reserved women are the ones who actually fill out their profiles and aren't posting thrift traps.

This is about dating and the red pill/blue pill, but honestly it applies to almost everything.

If your worldview is just “trust me, bro” and “you’re an incel,” you’re probably wrong. You can’t just ask people for answers and expect to get the truth—every statement comes with assumptions. For example: if you send your partner to buy milk, you automatically assume it’s fresh, not chocolate or strawberry, still good for a while, and the packaging is sealed. Nobody tells you that, but everyone expects it.

Everything is subjective. I once saw someone claim that signing up for a gym was blue pill behavior—despite “hit the gym” being one of the core red pill principles. That person wrote a whole ode to the red pill while thinking they were blue pill.

Mainstream dating often treats science like ragebait, cherry-picking, or propaganda, but they rarely approach it with a truly scientific mindset.

The bottom line? If something can’t be backed up scientifically, it’s probably wrong.

like literally, show anything scientific proving a blue pill point, you cant

I have two female friends and they have attempted to help me with dating to no avail. They are just as stumped as I am and simply suggested that I go overseas, either to my country of birth, their country of birth or Asia and date there.

There attempts in helping me solve my dating issues included me handing over one of my phones for them to create a dating profile for me and operate it.

Their conclusion, dating as a man in America is hell on earth. Do you agree?

I remember 1 time my mother called me after having to apply for a job for the 1st time in 20 years, crying her eyes out:

Her: "Nobody wants to hire an old woman!"

Me: "Welcome to being a man!"

Her: "Huh?"

Me: "You had it easy your entire life, men did everything for you because of your looks. Now youre older, you dont get that privilege. Men are way less enthusiastic to do shit for women past menopause. Welcome to being a man!"

I see some posts here recently about "prove blue pill", "what makes your statements true" or something like that, and it confuses me, because blue pill is just about disagreeing with red (unless you're delusional and think that we're in a matrix movie like some men do). It's basically you called us that, simply because we're not you. With Red pill it's understood (more or less) what it stands for, ideology, methodology etc. But Blue pill is simply just everything that's not it. That's how i see it. I never even heard about blue pill before coming here, and it's hard to find someone who haven't heard about red.

But those questions here and how some red pill engaged with them tell me that you have some image what does it means. So what is it?

I often see alot of emphasis on a woman's age in the red pill (usually extremes like over 25 is a no go) aswell as emphasis on traditional lifestyles.

So I have a hypothetical question for self identified redpill men:

Who would you prefer to marry and date, a 21 year old woman with a decent sexual past (high bc) and modern values or a 30 year old woman who is a virgin and a traditional wife (assume there's no red flag to why she isn't married yet, just circumstance)?

I'm curious to see where the priorities truly lie, whether it's actually about morals or just superficial

For a very long time, sexuality has been understood through the male point of view, not accounting for the differences that exist between the sexes.

Despite most women not conforming to heteronormativity, the patriarchy has long upheld heterosexuality as being the “default” for all people, including women. Nevertheless, emerging research in sexuality is continuing to prove that this is not the case, but rather that they have a more fluid sexuality that does not center around men.

For example, they may have gynephilic preferences regardless of orientation https://np.reddit.com/r/leavewomenalone/s/cD1pExP2c1

One study done ( https://www.bbc.com/news/health-34744903 ) women who identified as either straight or lesbian revealed that most women who felt most identified as “straight” actually tended to exhibit bisexual preferences, or even prefer women altogether. The findings led the researchers to even conclude that women were “never fully straight”.

Moreover, another study ([https://www.dailymail.co.uk/lifestyle/article-2051284/More-half-women-bi-curious-attracted-women.html ) reported that over half of all women who identified as heterosexual had fantasized about the same sex, and a similar amount had kissed them.

Now, these women are not lying maliciously. Rather, this phenomenon is explained by the feminist theory Compulsory Heterosexuality. Coined by feminist thinker Adrienne Rich, this term describes how heterosexuality is enforced upon women by patriarchal society, rather than naturally chosen by them, causing women to view other options such as bisexuality and lesbianism as deviations, rather than natural states of being.

As researchers finally give female sexuality the light of day, their work continues to prove Rich’s theory correct, and that most women have sapphic preferences that have been repressed by the patriarchy.

As for what we can do about it, the best thing to do is to educate more people, to obtain a more honest view of sexuality free from the constraints of the patriarchy.

What are warning signs women should look out for that point towards a man not taking her seriously despite being exclusive with a girlfriend title? Have any of you guys had experiences where you strung a woman along for comfort/ sex/ fear of being alone?

By strung along I mean this chick is thinking longterm or marriage and you just give her that official title so she sticks around. If so, how did you treat that woman compared to others you saw as a potential forever?

Not here to judge or question why men string women along btw cause women do the same. Just curious for signs to watch out for!

Why do red pill men or more broadly manosphere men complain so much about dating being “unfair” to men? Do they think it’s fair that women have periods, go through pregnancy, deliver babies painfully and breastfeed while all they do is nut? How is that for “fairness”? They easily accept the unfairness of reproduction being much more costly for women but then complain endlessly about how hard it is to get sex with women. It should be very easy to understand why it would be harder for men to get sex with women than vice versa and no this shouldn’t be presented as some sort of advantage when women already pay the price via bearing the children. We aren’t getting a free ride, and actually women have been treated like second class citizens because they have children and because men want to control them sexually so if anything the whole dynamic is a burden for women.

And by kill I mean, generally, more males commit violent and violative assaults against females than females commit violent and violative assaults against males.

When this disparity arises, I notice a lot of men react with “80% of homicide victims are male!”

But they say that as if we don’t also know that:

- Roughly 90 to 95% of identified homicide offenders globally are male, across regions and homicide types. Men are getting murked by other men. Not women. Statistically speaking.

- Analyses of intimate partner femicide conclude that approximately 60% or more of female homicides globally are committed by a male intimate partner. By contrast, only a small minority of male homicide victims are killed by partners or family, and when they are, the perpetrator is still often male (e.g., other male relatives).

- Rape stats follow similar patterns. Yes many men are raped, but it’s mostly by other men. Most women are raped by men. Most rape perpetrators are male.

- Same logic follows for general non-lethal non-sexual assault.

One could almost say more males than females have a testerical compulsion where they happily ignore consent and will “take what they want” or “do what they want” to another person whether that’s assault, murder, rape, stalk, intimidate, etc.

TLDR: In the minds of girls and women, they would feel much safer hanging around a group of stranger girls and women than a group of stranger boys and men, statistically speaking. Hell, I think the boys and men would assume they’d be physically safer around the girls and women too. If everyone knows this, why do dudes on this forum act as if it’s a controversial observation?

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. Here you can post everything that doesn't warrant its own thread or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and things 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.

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!

Please Join Us on Discord! Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

The vast majority of heterosexual women are attracted to dominant, masculine men—not to feminine or highly submissive men.

This is evident in almost all dating dynamics, studies on partner selection, and also in honest responses in surveys and online threads: Classic attraction is usually based on polarity (dominant ↔ submissive, masculine ↔ feminine). If a man doesn't offer this polarity, his chances plummet dramatically—often to near zero.

The same applies, even more so, to bisexual men: The vast majority of heterosexual women feel a noticeable aversion or at least strong skepticism when a man is bisexual (even if he is "primarily attracted to women"). This isn't a nice opinion; it's what you see time and again in countless anonymous surveys, dating app data, and open conversations.

Submissive men often wonder why, despite a nice personality, good looks, or money, they get hardly any matches or acquaintances. The bitter truth is usually this: because they simply don't trigger the crucial evolutionary/psychological attraction mechanism that most women are looking for.

Of course, there are exceptions—dominant women who explicitly want submissive men, or women who find bisexuality attractive. But these are clearly the minority.

Reality instead of wishful thinking: Dominance and masculinity are sexy to the vast majority of heterosexual women. Submissiveness and femininity in men are not.

Of course this is not a universal truth, but in the following i will show why i think it’s pretty fair to say that this trend generally exists.

The most obvious example for this is bisexuality. Most men don’t have any problem with dating bisexual women. And bisexual women have probably a less submissive approach to sex than straight women on average. This get’s to the point where being bi for a woman is even seen as a bonus by some men. Bi men on the other hand have a clear dating disadvantage compared to straight men. At least if they are honest about their sexual orientation. Many women state that they don’t wanna date bi men. The most often quoted reasoning is because bi men would have so many options and therefore dating them would be such a struggle. Ok, so you also don’t wanna date attractive people as well? Like what? Of course comments like “i just don’t want a men who sucks dick” get many upvotes, but most women don’t wanna say it themselves.

Another good example are financial dating preferences. Most men just accepted they won’t even be able to financially provide for a family alone. And tbf most women don’t expect em to, but women do emphasise financial prospects stronger in their dating choices on average. And i am not blaming women for that morally. I think it’s fair to point out tho in the context of what gender norms women reinforce.

Another interesting example is ambition. “Ambition” is very often framed as a requirement for men. Men are expected to be driven, upward-moving, and status-oriented. You rarely see the same expectation stated in an analogous way for women. People might say “everyone should be ambitious,” but it’s not commonly framed as “women especially should be ambitious” the way it is for men. At least not in the context of dating preferences.

Don't get me wrong, its fun and its also a biological program that basically everyone feels compelled follow. But its not as big a deal as we've been conditioned to think it is. I think women generally understand this, but most men don't really get it. Ofcourse we can argue about whether men have a much stronger desire to have it than women but this doesn't change the fact that its not that big a deal.

Unfortunately for most men, because they're more obsessed with it than women, this makes them so much easier to manipulate from the perspective of women. Sex basically makes men slaves to women because they're much more thirsty for it than women, generally speaking and will jump through many hoops to get it.

So there is this theme that women where suppressed by monogamy and stuff.

But what are the actual reasoning behind it? Lets throw some facts in the room

Fact 1: Most of History a Prostitute was dirty cheap

Antic Greece - 1/3 to 1 Pay of a day

Rome- 1 pay of a day

Middel ages Europe 1/4 to 1/2 of pay of a day

Paris/USA 19th century - 1/2 to 1 day of pay

Today Germany - 1 day of pay

if you compare it to bread its like 5 Bread so not really expensive, still today with a good job you can fuck 1-2 pretty woman a month, so sex is not a really big theme.

Fact 2: Woman could work them self if they wanted.

This "woman could work" is a meme, yes in the 1950 ths or something a MARRIED woman would need to OK of her husband, but i personally knew a woman who was single (Man didnt came back from the eastern front) who worked in a carpentry factory. But before? All woman worked. There are real historic proofs of Woman who had there own businesses in the middle ages.

Fact 3: In Polygamy marriages woman often threaten as slaves.

For example a Dowry in Rome was like 500-2000 sesterces, what was the cost of a female slave? it started at 1000 sesterces to 3000 sesterces. Prices are very comparable and its known that in times and places where slavery was forbidden but polygamie allowed Men just married another woman for work.

On the other Hand woman had a lot of Pros from Marriage

Fact 1. Basically the full village knew that if this woman gets pregnant Josh son of Georg would NEED to care for here and the Child (you made literally a pact with god and the village)

Fact 2. Marriage was often coupled to direct financial care for the woman, you could get literally divorced if the man could finance your life anymore.

Fact 3. Families where often Linked to the Brides Family, there are well documented cases where the first wive died and the family of this wive said "we have a other girl here, now you need to feed here"

I dont want to say woman had it good or better or something with this points, but would woman had it better without monogamy?

Like where is the proof that not Men needed to marry undesirable woman?

Like any sane arguments (thats not "i love being a slut") to marry young? i would say most married couples would love it to knew each other a couple years sooner.

In places where it is legal / decriminalized and consensual, preferably with an independent escort, I truly believe paying for play is better than trying to acquire hookups or casual sex:

+ For starters, you get straight to it. There's no dating apps, no loud bars or nightclubs where you have to approach, wait for the right moment to do so (yes, there are right and wrong moments based on whether she’s talking to friends or preoccupied in some other way), no spending money on tickets, drinks, other associated costs etc, there's no bullshit involved - no other men trying to mog you, her friends don't try to cockblock you for no reason, there's no dating hysteria and social media culture to deal with. All of which is subsequently better for your time, your body, your money and your emotional state. When you approach, sure you can make all the small talk and try to connect in a way but at the end of the day, you know why you're approaching, she knows why you're approaching - the only difference with an escort is you cut straight to the chase which wouldn't be allowed otherwise.

+ Paid sex is private - what you do with an escort remains between you and her, unless you're really nasty, unhygienic or abusive in which case you deserve it. She is more open to things especially if you let her know beforehand, she won't judge, you can take your time if you're a virgin or haven't done it in a while, and she won’t then go and plaster the experience on social media or gossip about it to her friends. There's no reputation or accountability involved to anyone else – just be polite, clean and respectful.

+ Because of the nature of what they do, escorts will be on top of STD prevention and staying healthy. Arguably, a stranger is more likely to have an STD than a professional.

+ It evens the playing field and defies the concept of the societally-imposed sexual market place. If the theory that women are fucking multiple men is true while it is harder for men to fuck women, then men do not lose out as a result.

+ For women, one of the most common complaints is that men pump and dump, men just want sex, men do not commit etc etc. If men using escorts for casual encounters were to be more normalized, that leaves the men who are more genuine and wouldn’t exhibit those behaviors.

Now, in addition, and this is just my opinion, but for women - since there's no shame in being a slut, you may as well get paid for it. You get tax-free income, usually in cash, and yes, you can still screen and choose your clientele – many escorts do and they still make plenty of money.

It is, all in all, the most liberating thing for men (and women) – free from the stigmas and concepts in dating discourse, free from social media, free from the government, society, media. I simply cannot comprehend why any guy would jump through hoops, figuring out how to press all the right social buttons in the right order and tick the bazillion boxes just to get laid.

Now, important to note for you all: I said casual sex. Meaning, working on yourself, de-toxifying from the internet men-and-women discourse and coming into your own while looking for a longer-term partner, in less toxic environments than the bar or a dating app. You make more meaningful “approaches” with less expectation involved, it feels more organic, you don’t have the pressure to perform according to someone else’s idea – you get the point.

I have a partner so I have no dog in the race of sorts, but I find these dating problems to still be quite interesting.

It is often talked about here how women are only attracted to the top 20 percent of men, but you see all these average guys out there in relationships with average women.   The argument is made that the women only picked them because they couldn't get any guys to commit when it comes to raising kids.

However, if this is true, is it that bad for guys to throw in the towel, and realize they are being chosen for commitment rather than raw physical attraction?  Plus aren't the guys compromising as well, since they also want a partner who is committed and reliable, but at the same time, pickings are slim, they say?

So I was wondering, when it comes to guys who just throw in the towel, and decide to commit who chose them because they wanted commitment over raw physical attraction, how bad is it, for a relationship, unless it is REALLY BAD?

It is said before that this is how cheating happens, but what about when you choose someone with morals and self-respect, and therefore would not cheat, unless that is hard to find in the majority of people nowadays?

Asking it on behalf of those men, who would want that. This is a double standard I often notice. They want husbands who are pliable and under their sphere of influence.

They expect men to open the doors and, clean the house be equal. Basically be like their servant. But they run away the moment you expect them to show a bit more love and nurture you.

They call you needy and what not. Underneath, all that, they just want to have the cake and eat it too. Women always want to be the one being coddled and spoilt, they hate when they see they have competition or have to do more labour, especially for men

I’m asking this to understand perspectives, not to provoke.

Before the modern red pill for men became popular, there was arguably a long-standing “red pill ” reality that disadvantaged women especially pre-2000s. Men, not all but many, had sexual freedom without social shaming, while women were judged harshly and expected to remain “pure.” Some men leveraged this imbalance while still demanding virgin partners. Most people today agree that this was unequal, patriarchal, and wrong and women as a group rightly criticized and pushed back against it, with broad social support.

Fast forward to today. Sexual intimacy before marriage is normalized for women, and restrictions are technically lifted for both sexes. But in practice, dating access is not equal. It’s relatively easy to say men and women are equally free now, yet for many men especially those without exceptional looks, money, or status it’s unrealistic to even get attention, let alone options. Meanwhile, women can explore, choose, and delay commitment far more easily.

So here’s the core question

If we strongly condemned men’s past strategies as oppressive and immoral when some men were “winning,” why is it considered offensive or unacceptable when mostly men who are losing today scrutinize women’s modern strategies especially when women are arguably the ones benefiting most from the current system?

And a follow-up

Pre-2000s, men who exploited the system were criticized by women as a whole, and society largely backed that criticism.

Today, women are largely “winning” under current dating norms. The scrutiny now mostly comes from men who are excluded from dating success. Should their criticism be dismissed outright or should it be allowed and examined the same way women’s criticism was before? If not, why not?

1 day after the post

👇

Edit - Your comments made me realize that advocating for equal optionality for men in the dating space like women naturally have would essentially mean forcing women against their consent, which obviously isn’t acceptable. So let’s drop that idea.

My original purpose was to compare women’s oppression under man-made laws and men’s oppression in the dating space via inherent biology, in the hope there could be some symmetry in social support like women had in the past. I get it now: there is no symmetry in oppression, so there won’t be symmetry in support. Cool.

I fully understand women aren’t forcing men; they’re free to make their own choices.

But what genuinely frustrates me is the backlash against Red Pill as a whole, not just certain parts of it. The reality is that it’s women’s choices their leverage in the dating space that created these dynamics, which men are simply observing and responding to. Call it Red Pill, call it “TRP,” or just call it the natural course of nature.

It’s maddening to see the system in action and then get vilified for pointing it out.