Women, what do you think WE get wrong about you?
By - OneAngryBlutbad
Many good points were already raised, so I will just mention what I haven't seen mentioned yet:
Many men on this sub tend to be convinced that women have over-inflated egos and that they are delusional about what man they can get/what man is in their league looks-wise.
I don't see that happening around me. What I see is that women are very much aware of their flaws. Those who do not fit the current beauty standards are made aware of that since their teenage years - teens can be rather cunty to each other.
I really do not see the army of chubby girls being all convinced that they are entitled to a model-looking boyfriend.
What I see is that the vast majority of women are looking for a serious relationship and they are looking in the pool of men that are roughly their looksmatch. And I think the vast majority of women would not even want a much better looking boyfriend even if they could get one, because they know they would have to live with the constant insecurity that they are not good enough for him.
Yep. Women are in general happier when their partner is less attractive than them. We value stability and don’t like feeling inferior. For men, having a super hot partner is a status symbol.
I think some people confuse having high standards (for emotional treatment) with being confident in your looks. They think that an overweight, average looking woman having a long list of requirements for a partner must mean she overvalues herself and thinks she’s way hotter than she is. It’s not true. Most women are wildly insecure about their looks, but some would still rather be alone than settle for someone who is going to mistreat them, isn’t compatible with them, doesn’t share the same drive/goals etc.
>What I see is that women are very much aware of their flaws
Perhaps they just feel their flaws are more acceptable than flaws in men then. How many women on Tinder had "if you can't handle me at my worst you don't deserve me at best?" Now ponder how many women would accept that attitude from men.
Look, I am certainly not gonna deny that there are some people, women included, who are rather arrogant and full of themselves.
But when I look at the actual couples around me, what I see is that people are mostly with their looksmatch and in case they are not, it is almost always the woman who is the hotter of the pair. This is just the reality I see around me, but I am not saying it is the case everywhere around the world.
Perhaps in some places it can be the other way around. But where I am from, people are mostly looksmatched.
As for the famous "if you can't handle me at my worst..." quote, I am not sure it even was about looks in the first place, I think "the worst" could easily be "broke, mentally unstable with a messy past".
I actually agree with almost all the observations of the red pill and equally disagree with all your conclusions.
As in, when you go "women do this", you guys are pretty much right. Women actually do that. But then you go and add a "and they do this because" and that's always at least somewhat wrong. From a tiny bit to completely.
Y'all keep repeating that women and men are different over and over again, but then you keep giving women male motivations for what they are doing.
Red pill is a great observation into female sexual behavior (especially for dense autists who dont get it). Where they fail is when they try to explain female psychology through a male brain lens. They are too arrogant to admit that they dont have a clue what were thinking
I have asked women before, they also don't have a clue what they find attractive.
"what" is an observation. That's what the redPill has correct.
"Why" is where they go wrong.
I, an autistic person, prefers to know the Who, What, When, Where, Why but people hate understanding them self so getting more that two of those out of someone is like pulling teeth.
I agree RP gets a lot of things wrong, but *what* do they get wrong? You just said their reasons are wrong, so what are examples with the truth instead.
Hit me with a red pill.
An observation and a conclusion and I'll say what's wrong.
Thats complicated. A man who CAN have a lot of flings with hot girls is better than a guy who cant bc it means he has sought after qualities and social proof. But if he has such poor self control that he sleeps with every hot girl whos into him its a red flag and unattractive.
The most attractive guy would be a man who has hot girls interested in him but he brushes them off!
>The most attractive guy would be a man who has hot girls interested in him but he brushes them off!
RP Translation: An attractive guy to a female is the one who goes against his own biological imperative (which is to seek a large quantity of reproductive access, including being polygamous if possible) so she can be completely immersed in hers (i.e. hypergamy-- to secure exclusive access to the resources of a male who's been vetted as *relatively* high-value by other females pre-validating him), without having to walk certain lines to compete against (or share with) all those other females herself.
In other words: Traditionalism for he, but not for she.
Sleeping around has benefits for women too, it ensures a larger degree of genetic diversity for her offspring.
Men and women both have promiscuity in their evolutionary history.
Being a woman who isn't promiscuous and also wanting a man who isn't promiscuous isn't hypocrisy at all.
>Women feel great if their guy has had a lot flings with attractive women. It tells them their man is attractive.
Lack of impulse control, devaluing and disrespecting women, collecting STDS, devaluing intimacy.
Being promiscuous is one of the least attractive things.
Some might, but I think it shows a lack of self control.
Does it, though? Sex for men doesn't fall out of the sky like it does for women, so a man who gets laid a LOT is obviously doing something right that other women find endearing.
If it was a self control thing, women would go after virgins and inexperienced males most of the time. Something activates in the female psyche that values experience and choice in men
If a man is having a bunch of sex, it’s almost always because he is trying to have thag much sex, idk if that’s a good thing or not
Yeah, no. If you’re focusing all your energies on just getting laid, I’m sure you’ll find many opportunities especially if you live in a society that’s more open minded towards sex.
Women absolutely value self control in a man- in all aspects, sex, love, life, smoking, drinking, whatever you wanna call it. A man in control is always hot. I’m not going to feel anymore attracted to a guy who’s in the habit of sleeping around on weekends because that shows a lack of clarity and instability. I’d prefer a man with ambition and grit.
You’re drawing a false equivalence between incels and men with self control. The reason why inexperienced males fare worse is probably because they have social anxiety or smth and women pick up on it. Women generally prefer confident men.
> Something activates in the female psyche that values experience and choice in men
No it doesn't, correlation does not equal causation.
Virgins and inexperienced men are not necessarily exhibiting self control though. In fact they are often quite bitter about their lack of experience, not proud of their self control.
If he's getting pussy thrown at him regularly, then yes, it is falling out of the sky.
Regardless, even if he only gets an offer once every 5 years, if he takes every single offer that's a lack of self control and discernment. You don't have to agree with me. The thing is I get to make the rules on who I'm interested in, and having zero standards for who you stick your dick in is unattractive to me.
Being a virgin isn't necessarily an indicator of good self control and discernment. It's possible no one is willing. There's a middle ground of you are both 1. capable of having healthy relationships and 2. you don't pant after literally every single 18+ woman on earth and drop trou the second someone says go.
I'm not entirely sure if that's correct, but if it's correct, it would be a status/desirable/wanting to feel better then the other women thing.
Eugh. No manwhores for me.
Yeah, I see this thought-process all the time, and it’s confounding to me. I’ve always wondered if maybe it’s because I’m bisexual so my attraction is a little different or if this is just a very incorrect assumption overall that men have made about women, but I am SO turned off knowing a guy who’s showing interest in me has been with a huge number of women (hot women included). I’m not jealous (he wants me now), and I’m threatened, I’m just like…ick, sir.
Honestly, a guy who has a bunch of exes who are model-level gorgeous is even more of a red flag, because I’m gonna assume his romantic motivations are largely shallow, which I find usually means he himself doesn’t have much depth to offer, and honestly those guys usually have very little ACTUAL personality or identity and are just…so boring to spend time with.
Thing is , wether you WANT this to be true or not, you consistently as a group pick men who do , over ones who don't. And then shame men for not knowing things they would largely only know if they had. So this is true. It's just uncomfortable.
Men and women, in my experience, have a weak preference against promiscuity. As in, all else being equal, they'd prefer a less promiscuous partner, but since *all else isn't equal* it's a trait they're likely to overlook/deal with.
A guy who gets a lot of girls isn't attractive *because* of this, more like in spite of it, he's just *that* appealing.
We don’t pick men as a group
If you dont know what he ment with that commet you wasting everyone time posting here.
Yes you do, you always have, it's called selective breeding. Every man alive right now is alive because a woman chose to have a baby by their father, (obviously excluding assaults)!
The question asks “what do we get wrong about women?”. I’m answering that question.
We don’t choose as a group. We are wildly divergent from each other. That is the biggest thing that red pill gets wrong about women.
No. It would make many women jealous and/or insecure. Men say this to justify their own promiscuity while still holding the position that it is wrong for women.
No, it tells us he isn’t partner material because either he or the women didn’t want a relationship.
That’s honestly the dumbest crap I’ve ever heard and I’ll never understand that thinking.
]When a man has a preference, it's a fetish; when a woman has one, it's a requirement.
That's putting it very lightly
When women have a preference it's just a personal preference
When men have a preference it's a fetish/abusive/predatory/upholding patriarchal values
Pretty sure that most of my preferences also get called fetishes.
I doubt it. For instance, if you desire a much taller partner it is preference. If a man desires a much younger woman it is a fetish.
Women give their best sex(and subsequently their unfiltered heart) to semi-monogamous boyfriends(usually unreliable men) in their 20’s and the man they settle with in their 30’s is expected to do far more than any of her previous boyfriends either regards to effort (meaning time and money) for far less output…
Women actually give better sex in their 20's and expect more in their 30's but the boyfriends themselves are not a part of the equation.
Men consider trying a lot and experimenting to be best sex and...yeah, that's how everyone starts out. Some quicker and faster then others. And they start out like that with good decent boyfriends or with assholes. Because the men are not part the equation. Starting off experimenting and then settling down is just normal regardless of the men. Its part of how women learn to have sex, because we can't learn by ourselves and that's just the normal tract: try a lot => find out what you like => only start doing that.
And yeah women expect more of men in their 30's. And that's the same for the woman that only had unreliable exes and the woman that only had reliable exes. It's again, not actually connected to the men they got involved with and just the natural process. A virgin who has never dated before will have stricter rules for men at 30. It's growing up and deciding what you want to do with your life, when you don't know what you want...a lot of doors are open. When you do know what you want, you can close a bunch of doors because they're not compatible with your wants. And that's what happens at 30.
So again the observation is correct: yes women actually do that, but the conclusion is wrong, although in this case I wouldn't call it wrong cuz it's masculine, because these same things also happen to men. Men in their 30s also know what they want and close doors and men in their 30s are also less wild then when they were in their 20s.
less wild like jumping off of cliffs? Yes but sexually fuck no lol. I'm into way freakier shit than 20 year old me
Actually yes I think this is where I land too
Women prefer taller men - true
Women prefer taller men because this is a sign of masculinity and taller men will protect her because evolution - lol whut?
Women like sex too - true
Therefore if she's not having sex with you immediately she's not into you and she is settling because you're not Chad and you're just beta -??????
Edit: people have been debating about whether evolutionary psychology is true about the height example. This was not the point was trying to make.
My point is that ascribing an evolution reason to everything without any evidence base is stupid
Example: i can literally shoe horn any reason for literally any sexual characteristic and need no evidence because "evolution".
Humans are attracted to tall, dark and handsome because dark skin shows better adaptibility and protection against absorbing uv light rays
Humans are attracted to fairer skin because it shows better resources (e.g. Don't need to work in the field more)
There's no basis for either of these statements other than I said so and "evolution"
The point whether these are wrong or right. The poi t is there is no evidence base for it except for people retroactively shoehorn ing an explanation that best fits their world view.
And because of that we end up with red pill arguments like:
women are all slutty whores for alphas because cock carousel monkey branch swinging whatever the fuck. Why? Because that's what I see obviously! What evidence? The evidence is evolution and you are just blind to women's faults because you're one of them hypergamous shlutty wahmen.
Why do I think this? Because evolution that's why. Because it makes sense by observation. ( ya know like the ancients observed the sun crossing the sky and seduces retroactively that the sun revolved around the earth). No other actual causal evidence needed
It's been pointed out that there may be a foundational basis for evolutionary psychology in legitimate scientific papers. But if it is its drowned out by all the men who screech "monkey branching slutty wahmens" theories.
>Women prefer taller men because this is a sign of masculinity and taller men will protect her because evolution - lol whut?
That one seems...reasonable. I'm not sure what other reason you think would better explain height in men being attractive aside from it being a *subconscious* indicator of strength and ability to protect/provide.
Even stuff like pure aesthetics and the utility of grabbing things off of high shelves has at least an evolutionary basis to it, conscious preference or not. And the reason women often give usually goes along the lines of "I want to feel protected and not tower over him."
Men aren’t taller then women for no reason. There’s a reason for it. Taller men are on average stronger. And when it comes to fighting, protecting, or subconscious things like picking the leader height matters.
Skinny vs fat can be cultural. But height is a universal sign of status and power.
Most CEOs are tall. Being taller leader to higher wages over time. There more likely to be put in leadership positions and so on.
There’s just something subconsciously seen as good by people when it comes to height. This is for both men and women.
Where I’m from (East African) tall women are also preferred. Because height is just itself a status symbol. It shows that you were able to get plenty food as a kid.
I think you don't understand evolution. Women who were attracted to tall men were more likely to have children who survived so the trait of finding taller man attractive stuck. Men who were interested in women with broader hips were more likely to have children who survived as those women were less likely to die during child birth so that trait stuck.
People aren't making logical choices about what to find attractive and what not to find attractive but what we find attractive makes sense when you look at evolution.
See: the Sexy Son Hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis
Men and women both suffer from the idea that we have free will. Like 100% of the time. And that's simply not the case. But women, holy, they will defend the idea that they have free will like they're fighting for their lives... Well, until they get in trouble with some real authority...then accountability and free will go right out the window... Then it's all mental illness and PTSD and a man's fault.
Except, there has been research done to support this
Yes this is my beef too! They give women male motivations! We aren’t men
More important is what actions I should take from those 'women do this' observations'
What action highly depends on the motivations/reasons of the women and that's the bit that the red pill gets wrong.
The thing is that even if the reasons are wrong Often times the Actions can end up being helpful
Yes, but not for a lot of prevention. For most prevention, you need to know the cause/origine so that you can stop it from escalating to the disliked action.
It can be helpfull for awareness/acceptance reasons though.
What do you mean by prevention?
Let's say hypergamy.
If you want to prevent your wife from doing what red pill considers hypergamy: then you need the right cause to stop it from happening.
If you don't have the correct cause...then you are just making wild attempts to try and prevent it.
This is what I always say! The observations are correct, it's when they try to explain the psychology behind the observations that it starts to go off the rails.
Its cause men think like men. And many poeple here can not compromed a woman mind. But this is equily true for woman two. Both genders have to accept that both side are so different that with the same info both will have complete different end conclusion.
Elaborate. This lacks any substance
I'd say that if you agree that the action is true the reason doesn't matter.
Meaning it doesn't matter if the reason is true for any individual woman.
The reason only exists in order that the men can make a rule of thumb if they wish.
And they go out and test that rule of thumb and see if that rule of thumb works.
Taller , fit , wealthier men do better with women than others.
Action - get fit and get better with money.
Now one person may argue that women are gold diggers even if the women in question didn't even really think about it.
But it doesn't matter what the women thought in this case. What matters is that for this example the guy learned that he should be able to show evidence of having at least decent income.
It can matter, because that gives you alternate ways to reach the goal. For instance...the gold digger. Let's say that's because gold is stable and women value stability.
Now you can choose to chase gold or alternate ways to provide stability or even both.
More options, very valueble, especially because not everyone has the ability to become rich.
Men here tend to seriously overestimate how promiscuous the average woman is and how much access she has to “Chad.” Like laughably so. There’s going to be quite a bit of variation between women’s sexual behavior, but the narrative that gets told is far from normal. Most women also cannot and do not “marry up” as much as the men here seem to think. Reality for most people is assortive mating and serial monogamy, even if a woman may “want” to do better or a man may “want” multiple partners, it’s irrelevant in most cases.
The idea that a woman’s hypothetical “Chad” college bf or hookup got her “best sex” and you are getting “starfish sex” because you’re not as hot is also bs. Sex tends to be “best” and most exciting near the beginning of a relationship, not with a hookup and also not after being married for ten years. You probably got her “best sex” at the beginning when she got your best treatment.
They also project their shallowness about looks onto women. Not saying women don’t care about looks, but if it were the big thing men here claim, straight men would put in the same effort as gay men tend to because it would be needed to get a partner. And yet they wear the same stained tshirt for a week straight and can barely be bothered to wipe the Cheeto dust off their face. It is no coincidence that gay/bi men and straight/bi women are the ones who put in the aesthetic effort... to catch *men.*
TRP also tends to project overly nefarious or even just male-typical motivations onto women even when they get the behavior patterns right. The biggest one I see is this idea that women are “depriving average men of sex” when it’s really just that there is a sex drive discrepancy between the average man and woman. Despite all the autistic theorizing about women, RP men tend to be pretty clueless about the actual differences between men and women. They assume women weaponize sex a lot more than we really do (not saying it doesn’t happen) because that’s what THEY would do. They also act as if everything is a game because that’s how THEY view life.
>Most women also cannot and do not “marry up” as much as the men here seem to think. Reality for most people is assortive mating and serial monogamy, even if a woman may “want” to do better or a man may “want” multiple partners, it’s irrelevant in most cases.
There's a third option you're not considering: Women are becoming more and more content to not pair up at all rather than marry across or even slightly up.
>Not saying women don’t care about looks, but if it were the big thing men here claim, straight men would put in the same effort as gay men tend to because it would be needed to get a partner.
Idk how you haven't noticed, but we're seeing that with younger men now.
>And yet they wear the same stained tshirt for a week straight and can barely be bothered to wipe the Cheeto dust off their face.
Women love to say this shit, I don't think I've ever seen anything remotely like it in real life. Are guys always the best dressed every where I go? No, but they're almost never look like slobs like you describe. I see way more revolting obese women in tight pants with their rolls overflowing out of their clothes.
You are right bit the cognitive dissonance will have you attacked for it.
> even if a woman may “want” to do better or a man may “want” multiple partners, it’s irrelevant in most cases.
Why is that irrelevant?
Because most people don't act on those desires. A man may fantasize about having multiple partners and still don't do anything about it because they are comfortable in their marriage.
It’s not completely irrelevant in theory, but when it comes to what they will actually do, it is. Maybe you’d like to be a professional football player for example, but are you going to leave a job you’re happy with to try and do that?
We're all individual people. We're not clones.
Most sane people would want a partner who can engage in basic life skills such as cooking, cleaning, bathing themselves, and economically supporting themselves. Including women.
Wanting an emotionally available and socially intelligent partner is normal.
Every woman isn't engaged in hookup culture and it's ridiculous to assume every stranger you meet should or would hop into bed after a few hours or dates.
Stranger danger exists. Women are smart for not immediately trusting any tom, dick, and harry that smiles in their general direction.
The problem with what you wrote is that it fits 80-90% of people. I mean really, cooking and bathing? I don't know 1 single person who can't throw some potatoes in the oven or who hasn't taken a shower in weeks.
There's no way selection can be that loose. If this type of view was accurate, all women would date the first man that they met on the street. Maybe the second man once in a while.
And we're not that individual, people are extremely similar in most regards, the differences are tiny.
80-90% of who?
There are men who don't cook at all or stop cooking once they date a woman expecting his girlfriend or wife to feed him.
Many women complain about their boyfriend or husbands lack of hygiene.
There is also a popular narrative with some men that wiping or washing their asshole is gay. No it's not a joke.
I'm reffering to the stream of complaints in this sub about women who shouldn't care that their husbands leave trash over flowing for weeks. There is a level of slobbery that many men will claim that All men are filthy hoarders.
The logical thing to do would focus on the wants and needs of the individual person that you're attracted to. If we want to use statistics and data to judge everyone, then sane women would barricade themselves from all men to protect themselves from violence.
No one close to you is going to appreciate being called a sterotype or statistic. Especially if it isn't true to their person or nature at all.
"Some men". Some women shoot porn movies with horses and dogs. Doesn't mean anything.
You can't be seriously thinking that women don't date the majority of men because they didn't take a shower.
What's more likely, that the vast majority of men are disgusting human beings that live like Gollum, or that sexual selection is relative and people pick from the top down?
Is it more likely you're a very unique and different snowflake or that you like mostly the same things that other men/women do?
Let's say you build a man generator V1. 6'4, male model, 130 iq, normal life, i.e. decent education, no mental illness.
This man would never ever struggle attracting women in any country on the planet.
I find it hilarious and very telling of this sub and TRP that you think women only want a 6’4” intelligent model. That intelligent model might do absolutely jack shit around the house which becomes an even bigger issue when children arrive.
I would argue the majority of women I know want to be mothers. No woman wants to be in a relationship where they do the majority of housework, parenting, and mental labor, but in A LOT of cases this is true. There’s a holdover from when the majority of women were SAHMs to now when the majority work but the
men never learned or were taught to be equal partners.
I said some men because I don't hive mind all people as this sub is generally used to doing.
I do know that when there is a seemingly general collective complaint about men from women, men are quick to immediately dismiss it and say it isn't true.
There are articles and dissertations written about men who don't carry their weight in a relationship. How these men will let dishes stay in the sink for weeks or months if the wife goes on a "strike".
I've had plenty of men argue with me in this community or cosign being filthy as the norm for "all men".
Being a woman who has gone on date with men who show up in unwashed clothes and food stuck in their beards. I can say that yes, a disturbing amount of men are dirty and nasty.
Many men argue that it's femine to clean themselves, groom themselves, and dress nicely.
It seems to be a common enough theme to take into consideration.
So the reason that guys under 6ft or average-looking guys struggle is because the women at bars/parties/online dating apps can tell that they don't wash their beards and don't put their dishes in the sink? But the tall chiseled guys are better at household chores so they get sex and relationships?
This is taking "just shower bro" to the next level.
Life exists outside of an app. I go outside and see men shorter than me with wives and girlfriends.
Did you ever consider that perhaps online dating apps skews to people who may have more selective or unattractive personality traits that doesn't allow them to be successful with men or women IRL?
Maybe the demographic that uses dating apps to hook up doesn't want to have sex with random men outside of their sexual fetishes.
Maybe women who are interested in short men aren't on dating apps considering that leass than 30% of adults use dating apps, and less than 21% are women.
Many of us, most of the women I know in fact, are actually still pretty successful at getting men to settle down with after 30. The wall is a myth.
The wall is a myth. All women are saying this here and men refuse to listen. Of course, the revenge fantasy needs to materialize!
My mother is 55 and you should see the men she gets on dating sites. Doctors, professional hunters, well off and good looking foreigners coming just to meet her. She looks fine for her age. And yes most of those men are divorced and so is she. But in her late 30s she would get even bigger dream boats exiting their relationship.
Bottom line is there's always plenty of great men who want a partner. From 14 to 114. And the quality men by definition don't want to date teenagers. They want an equal woman to build a life with.
Absolutely right. But how dare you, the wall is the only tool these men have to get 20 year olds scared enough to settle with them.
Nailed it. It's insecurity that men have converted into an attempt to fomo young women.
‘The Wall’ only exists to make men feel better and manipulate younger women. I have seen far more attractive and high value older women than men.
That's been my experience, too, but I also don't want kids. And I think that's the difference of "the wall". I got married at 30, so a bit older than average, and had 0 issues finding a quality guy. But I'm also not fat, financially stable, and take care of myself. Like most things, there's a kernel of truth that it gets harder as you age, but you can stack the deck in your favor
At 43 I had 9,999+ tinder matches in a month. I was more successful in my 40s than my 30s or even 20s. There is no wall for women. The wall is a cope for men to try to scare young women into relationships before they age out of the ability to attract love.
Oh and I picked a 5'10 guy despite all the taller dudes who were interested.
You missing the point: you're not going to get the same man to settle down with you at 24 than at 34. The fact that you can find A man was never in doubt and it's not what the wall is about.
No, you're missing the point, women don't want the same men in our 20s as we do in our 30s. So from our perspective it's completely irrelevant and a bit laughable. The truth is, we have some relationships in our 20s and mess about a little, we get our heart broken, we experience life and get an education and make sure we're stable ourselves, we learn not to be needy and we grow out of childish drama-mongering.... and then we find an amazing guy who loves life as much as we do and we start a family/travel together/build a life etc. That is the narrative I actually see playing out around me. Your wall analogy is just a tool to make people scared.
Totally nailed it. This was my experience as well. 20s were for learning who we are and what we want in life.
100% you are spot on.
Hard disagree. I dated a guy who's now become fat and very weird, different personality. We were planning to marry and I thought I had it made at 18-24 because his family were millionaires. I understand now at 31 that rich parents can actually be a liability in the quality of a man.
Ergo, a woman under 30 doesn't know what's a quality man and quality men themselves usually don't want to settle that young either. I married recently to a true dream man and he was not interested in settling down at that age and himself was very insecure and took a while to grow into himself.
The person I was willing to marry in my 20s no joke was going to be a sub optimal partner. They’re religious and I’m atheist? I’ll make it work. They’re conservative and I’m a “flaming liberal” according to them? I’ll make it work. They think it’s ok to police what I wear? They just have low self-esteem, I’ll make it work. They literally don’t do any household chores? They’ll change because they love me. They can’t communicate effectively because of a fucked up childhood? They’ll grow. Etc.
As a person who started dating again in their 30s those were all things I no longer accepted as something I could deal with in a partner. I realized through personal growth that I deserve a partner who meets all of my supposedly narrow needs, and possessed the happiness in my own life as a single person to not want to settle. Which was actually hard because I wanted to be a mother and felt the clock ticking. But having kids with a shitty partner is not only worse than just being happy as a single person, but is actually pretty terrible to the children.
I am glad you grew to hold your boundaries. Good on you.
The wall is real and slowly closes in but I don’t doubt the women can’t find somebody. But that somebody is increasingly not the chad the older you get.
Red pill gets wrong the motivations of women. Did I turn that guy down because of market value or because he is simply not my type?
I also notice when women reject or avoid men who present themselves as abusive that’s criticized as well, there’s overlap between Red Pillers doing it and the more Black Pill leaning ones. Which makes zero sense to me.
Same thing. His value is lower to that buyer since he is not her preference.
Interesting how types absolutely exist for men. And we know. Bc they don't stop talking about it. Its how they consume their porn, some only date this or that type, and that's it. No questions allowed.
But when its women, you have tired theories as if we aren't human with eyes and libidos bc, I suppose, the truth is difficult to take.
I suppose you can edit your reality to your heart's content but it doesn't change the facts for anyone around you.
Good try though.
Thing about RP is when you talk about actions you may get some women to agree with you, but when you ascribe these actions to negative motivations or shallowness you lose most women. You have to understand language and framing is everything in these matters.
Men and women have largely the same motivations. The difference is men have the privilege of generally being physically stronger. Mazlo's hierarchy of needs puts physical safety as the most basic need humans have. Physically weak people have to tackle life generally not feeling like they are physically safe. Thus they have to employ different strategies to achieve the same feeling of physical security; most of which employ the use of language to control how others perceive you and how you perceive yourself. Many of the behavioral differences between men and women come down to this difference in perceived security (and also hormones).
Another thing to understand is collectivism. Many western women view themselves as part of a collective interest group. Take China for example, many Chinese citizens are well aware of the faults in China, but will never admit those faults to foreigners because foreigners are the outgroup. The foreigners should mind their own business. And even if they did admit these faults to foreigners, foreigners would just exploit that admission. This is very similar to the dynamics of the aforementioned collective interest group.
As any police interrogator will tell you, if you want a perp to confess you have to sometimes down play their negative motivations and make them feel like you are on their side. Thus if you want women to admit fault you have to sometimes down play their negative motivations and make them feel like you are on their side.
Pretty sure both genders have types
I've stated my preferences quite honestly and been called a liar for it. It just makes the men clinging to this argument look pathetic.
But do you think dating is random? Do you date completely random men?
If we assume it's not random, then there's something you can measure and quantify.
Just because we suck at measuring, it doesn't mean people are magical, mystical beings msde of fairy dust who fall in love for myserious reasons.
My favorite is that men have no idea that women can have very high libidos but the way we get turned on is completely different then a man’s. Men try to turn us on like they would like to be turned on and it’s gross to us.
So how should a man turn on a woman? Asking for a friend
This guy totally nailed it. Great post https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/q58y6b/there_is_little_difference_in_libido_levels/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
It’s a buildup. It goes from a man showing he is confident, and making her feel safe. To touching her. To kissing to forplay to sex. Men get aroused by cruder words or seeing a naked woman it’s much much faster. Women generally do not
Fair enough. But there are also girls who fuck guys in the toilet cubicle of da club
I think that most of the rhetoric doesn’t include the fact that women are conscious beings, meaning that women don’t operate using only our lizard brains.
We also don’t think the same way that men do, and we have had an entirely different experience living and existing out in the real world.
The idea that women are emotional and men are not is a joke. It’s just that some men have learned that all emotions need to be channeled as anger and you’ve somehow fooled yourselves into thinking anger is not an emotion so you can pretend you’re not making “emotional” decisions. Every male driven antihero movie that you love is about a man ruining everything because he’s making emotional decisions.
Pretty much any time a man describes a woman here he might as well be describing an alien. Don’t care about your car. Don’t care about your height. Don’t drink pumpkin spice. Rarely wear makeup. Don’t watch the Kardashians. Hate anything with “Real Housewives” in the title. I could go on but I am a woman posting on PPD so it will automatically be discounted.
These ideologies are insane.
Women are supposedly having all of this wild casual sex with Chads. Are bad for not having casual sex with most men. But are supposed to remain virginal for some magic guy.
Women are gold diggers. But are also supposed to be economically vulnerable in a marriage and not have any money of her own via a career and education.
In one breath they complain about women being promiscuous, then complain that most women are choosing to be by themselves.
In one breath they complain about women being too educated and career driven, only to complain about women being gold diggers.
It makes absolutely zero sense on any level.
Its selection bias. Imagine you are a 27 year old guy going out to the clubs, what kind of women are you going to find there?
LTR oriented women or party girls?
The problem IMO is that RP focuses on the party girl and never even sees the LTR type as shes in an LTR.
I've noticed that these ideologies never seem to exist outside of online dating and party night life, which have always been sub cultures.
They never talk about going to the museum or joing a book club to meet women.
"We're just trying to enjoy the museum, leave us alone!"
"We're just trying to enjoy our book club, leave us alone!"
Because those are both terrible ideas for picking up women. The nightclub is too, idk any man that would advise another to pick women at the club it's literally a business designed to drain you of money.
Which is the male version of “Women only focus on Chad!”
So basically these guys are chasing the female version of the men they bemoan women chasing.
It’s more like they believe that good women don’t exist anymore.
I mean there’s a high percentage of wild but that doesn’t mean everyone is. That’s my biggest disagreement from the getgo
This is one of the best descriptions it I’ve ever seen. How are you supposed to be a virgin and a whore at the same time? It’s supposed to be impossible so they will always be right.
I think that's the point of the pill. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
The woman is made to feel like worthless shit not matter what she does. So she's easier to manipulate into doing what the man wants.
If a woman doesn't have casual sex and wants to wait for the right person/comitted relationship, then she's a stuck up bitch with impossibly high standards.
If a woman has casual sex while not caring whether she gets into a relationship or not, then she's a worthless whore that doesn't deserve anything.
No matter what, the woman always has to be pubished or mistreated in some way.
There is no "right" way for these women to react or behave that will get them respect.
It’s a confusing never ending round and around with some of these ideologies now
I have never met one of these women that they describe. They are incredibly foreign to me.
You have never met a shallow woman in your life? And you expect people to believe that?
Let’s just say it’s not the crowd I run with and not even sure where you would meet such people. Or why.
Like please, you're 46 iirc, and you are here telling us you never met any shallow women in 4 freaking decades. Either you're so biased in favor of women that you're blind either you're lying. Considering you truly believe what you're saying I bet on the former.
I’m neither blind nor lying. I’m saying your “AWALT” is my “wtf?”
If she’s 46 she may actually have known less vain and shallow women. I think women have REALLY become vain, trite, and shallow with the advent of online dating and Instagram and such in the last generation. I’ve dated quite a few older women and I feel like they are far less shallow. I also know older women focus on more important things in a guy than younger women too, but I still feel like social media has severely warped young women’s brains and expectations. I’ve heard Instagram has actually caused a lot of mental illness and even suicide in women. Guys are not immune to it either. High speed porn is probably a huge problem for a lot of us. I can attest to that.
I have met shallow women, but i don't think there are more shallow women than shallow men. Shallow women existing doesn't mean all women are shallow.
They basically just use the stereotype of the modern millennial woman
1) Apparently the metric of my love is whether or not I had sex with you early
Forget literally anything else about our relationship. It doesn't matter if I have emotionally supported you or built a life with you. I fucked some guy forever ago earlier than I fucked you. Or tried something with someone else that I now don't like, but because I won't try it again with you I'm not "treating you better"
If to you my "best" is sex, I'm better off single with my vibrator.
2) why is everyone convinced of the cock carousel. And what even is it? 4 people in your 20s. 10 by your 30s? What?
3) we're all just waiting at the finish line while you guys run the race and pick the winner.
Mate I am also in this race. I want someone who is somewhere in my field of vision in this race so I can run it with them. Me not going for someone near the start when I'm halfway through isn't me being a branch swinging wahmen. It's because I want someone who I'm obviously more compatible with and heading in the same direction. I don't ask men for anything i don't have myself.
>1) Apparently the metric of my love is whether or not I had sex with you early
Not love, lust.
Re 1. You're misrepresenting the argument of she doesn't do for me what she did for others. It's not about she tried once and didn't like it. It's about she blew her ex every morning for 4 months until he dumped her but now she pretends she doesn't like to suck dick.
That's different with I once tried anal and never did again and don't plan on doing it thanks.
Not according to the amount of shit I got re:marriage material vs fuckboi material thread
People screeching that fuckboi got treated better because they'd get casual sex but you made bf wait a few dates shows you only beta buxxed and are obviously not attracted to bf. Like that's obviously the reason as opposed to maturity, getting older and being busier. I actually appreciate those threads. It makes more determined that if my husband and I ever seperated that I'd just find a BFF to share expenses with.
>1) Apparently the metric of my love is whether or not I had sex with you early
Women will hook up with men they want. The tall and handsome man. But make men they don't want prove themselves by earning sex. We all see it all the time. They make rules for betas and break them for alphas.
Using dating apps as "evidence" of what women really want.
The sample size is already so small with completely uneven M:F ratios, and on top of that women are generally better at marketing themselves via photos.
As a woman, I generally put men in 3 categories: objectively attractive, neutral, and unattractive.
The issue is a small % of men meet my "objectively attractive" bar, while a much larger % are in the neutral category. Men I consider "neutral" can become *subjectively* attractive to me once getting to know them.
Women's attraction is often more "activated" than just existing. And even if I find a guy objectively attractive, he still needs to have an appealing personality for me to want to bang. (But yes, he'll get the right swipe while the neutral guy won't... Caveat being, he still needs to have the personality I want to get me)
I've known a few "Chads" and they didn't just get laid via looks, they needed the charisma as well.
In a way you are proving red-pillers right. You're saying your not swiping right unless the guy is "objectively attractive" to you. The men that are neutral can gain "subjective attractiveness" once you understand their qualities, but you aren't swiping right on them so how are they supposed to do that? You're saying some really red-pilled shit here.
I swiped right on average looking men who shared similar hobbies and were similarly educated/career driven.
> As a woman, I generally put men in 3 categories: objectively attractive, neutral, and unattractive.
>The issue is a small % of men meet my "objectively attractive" bar, while a much larger % are in the neutral category. Men I consider "neutral" can become subjectively attractive to me once getting to know them.
I mean there may be some misunderstanding on your part here. Those claims that use dating app as 'evidence' is saying exactly as what you're saying here; women will find only small fraction of men actually attractive to them when looking at photos. Hence why women usually rate men on the ugly to average side in dating apps (with few men actually being 8-10) while men's rating of women looks more like a normal distribuition curve with mean around 5
Women don't find men attractive in the same way men find women attractive. That was my point.
Female attraction is more likely "activated." I don't get turned on by photos of random men and I need some sort of context to want sex with any specific man. I need to know his body language, sense of humor, mannerisms, etc.
A photo isn't enough to determine desire for me.
Dating apps say most women only “like” a small percentage of men.
Now you’re telling us you only find a small percentage of men attractive and would swipe left on neutral men. What did they get wrong again?
You like chad not only because he’s attractive but because he has charisma? Is that your point? Earlier today two women said Chad only needed looks to get his dick sucked. Now which is it?
Do you believe you’re attractive enough to attract and retain chad?
None of this disproves rp in the least. It's actually supporting it for the most part.
Manospherians generally do not understand female sexuality. Old school red pillers did moreso or at least got it partially right but TRP appears to be heavily influenced by incel rhetoric these days.
Probably because there have been respective shifts in sociocultural nuances by generation that have caused that.
Can you explain what old school used to get
Honestly. Everything. Everything you think about women is insane and generalizing. It’s like you’re trying to dehumanize and study us but you’ve learned nothing. Yes. In general women prefer taller men. But men under 6 ft get laid. Yes. A financially successful partner is preferably, but not all women are gold diggers. Shitty people are shitty. It’s not a conspiracy of women to deprived men of sex.
> It’s not a conspiracy of women to deprived men of sex.
I personally don’t hold this opinion but a lot of people do.
And it’s crazy. Like Illuminati crazy.
They feel entitled to the organs of other people. Which is disturbing.
Someone can't "withold" their own organs. Women don't have to have sex if they don't want to. They don't believe that women should have the right to reject men at all.
It's terrifying to know people exist like this IRL.
I like to think they mostly stay on the Internet. But United States politics prove me wrong.
This. Every single stereotype I’ve seen men make about women on this sub doesn’t apply to me, or most of my female friends.
It’s just genuinely confusing. I know some women like they described must exists. But I’ve just never encountered them.
I think maybe the men on here see things on social media and the algorithms just further their confirmation bias.
>But men under 6 ft get laid.
But below a certain height things get very bad for men. Being short is one of the most unattractive feature for women.
It gets harder if you have zero skills and rely only upon your looks. The biggest Chad i know is 5'6. He just makes women feel amazing and hot which in turn makes them want to bang.
>The biggest Chad i know is 5'6.
He is not a Chad.
What’s a high value to someone might be low value to another.
Women are not okay with sharing a man, never. And it’s not about his “resources”.
Some women may want you to lead the relationship, but not them.
Alpha/beta??? grow up :)
Playing cold and distant game will only get you girls with self esteem issues, maybe.
Women aren’t happy at home, cocking and cleaning all day, if they were, more women would strive to get married instead of having careers.
Yes you are.
Red pillers and trad men know women aren’t happy being housewives—they just don’t care about our happiness.
Right. That are mad that we’re harder to subjugate. They want us back in a situation where we have to rely on men for survival. And in exchange. They get sex.
You still rely on us for survival, just anonymously.
I mean we live in a society, yes. So abstractly, I suppose. Much less direct.
I mean if I dropped dead tomorrow my wife would be ok in the sense that she could find her way in the world. Emotionally not so much and there’s the added tragedy of our child not meeting me.
>Women are not okay with sharing a man, never.
Not explicitly maybe but there are enough women that are willing to "share" a top guy as long as the evidence isn't directly in their face and (they think) they'll eventually get commitment. It's the main reason for asymmetric sex rates.
Gold diggers will share an atm card with a dick if that’s what you guys mean.
But a woman who can support herself will not, it’s not a female nature to share their parents no matter how you delusional try to push for it, never was never will be.
Alllll of this.
I don't know why men like this think they're entitled to a woman who loves them. It will never happen.
This is absolutely golden.
We like being treated well. Once the good treatment stops, I leave
Literally everything. The men on PPD think every woman in the world is an Instagram thot or just looking for a hookup mate on tinder. Y’all are literally the male version of the feminist. The toxic mindsets y’all have aren’t going to do anything but make you end up alone. Even the women who holds up to your standards would be disgusted with the way you think. (Not you specifically, referring to things I’ve seen on this subreddit)
I always hear them say that women over 25 are useless and something is wrong with them if they’re single. To them it means they were promiscuous in their 20s or refused to settle. That’s not always the case. Some women are figuring out their career and their path in life. I don’t get men who keep saying they don’t care about a woman’s career and they’re not impressed by it but then also complain when women say they don’t want to split the bills
Biggest one would be personhood. I'm a person with thoughts, hopes, and principles of my own. Just like you.
That men are individuals but women share a hive mind
It's always amusing to hear MRPers refer to their wives as "the oldest teenager in the house" ... knowing that while they're typing this, playing online, their wives are probably doing laundry, fixing dinner and helping the kids with their homework.
“Hitting the wall” has to be one of my favourite red pill delusions. Also the fact that so many people here seem to think any woman with a body count higher than 0 is undateable and ‘no self respecting man would want them’. All the posts about height are pretty funny too considering I’ve never once cared about someone’s height. I could go on and on.
Fucking you does not mean we value you. Stop assuming your worth based on whether you're getting what you want.
I rather be fucked than valued. My homies value me enough
This guy gets it.
Then no one cares what you want. You're a walking dildo, and dildos aren't sentient lol
Fine with me
FACTS. Who gives a fuck about being valued? 99% of men would rather be Mr. Wrong and a one night stand in a woman's early 20s than Mr. Right and waiting 90 days in the same woman's late 30s. PLEASE don't value us at all, if that's what's keeping your panties up
For the love of all that is unholy and holy who the fuck came up with this myth? When I was single all the women I slept with, we all knew damn well we were just there for sex. Ok sure it would suck to hear if one of my previous partners died but I didn’t expect them to call back or think they were my girlfriend. They didn’t expect me to be their boyfriend either.
I hear it all the time here: if a woman likes a man, she'll fuck him sooner.
Honestly the rp seems like they make alot of stuff stupidly complicated. I assume that means more if its 2 dudes your talking to and you like one and kinda like the other if your the type for casual sex. Youd sleep with the one you like first. I mean it make since obviously but it what they say isnt wrong if you like the so-so guy more youd have slept with him instead. Thats from my knowledge but thats learned from being in ppd
If both are only good for casual sex, sure. When it comes to dating? I was pretty much raised on the warning that men will do or say anything to get laid. I've never had it happen to me, but I've generally practiced the rule that sex won't happen until I'm confident that he isn't faking the relationship just to get laid.
And if I actually want to date a guy, he's way more valuable than a guy I'd use just for sex.
Ohh i agree on the last part definitely i mean shit time and sex that's a good combination. Its like cheese and wine 😂.
I can understand that I've meet more than enough women that only have sex with dudes that commit to them. You know 50/50.
I also think past relationships/burns and traumas will play a roll if a girl was only used for sex multiple times than she probably more like to value not having sex until she knows shes into her romantically. Than to just have sex with him because she likes him so/alot
I usually say this to RP men, but if you have a purely transactional relationship based on "value", the resulting relationship is the one deserved.
I married my dream guy two weeks ago so...awesome?
But also, I was talking about casual sex, not relationships.
That we’re out to get you
And that we’re supposed to want what you want more than what we want
RP Men still don’t see women as humans or individuals.
Instead of caring about anything that happens to us (because they view us similar to objects or other animals, etc), they’d much rather just argue that their point is right. Because they literally cannot see us as individuals who have had an entire life before them.
i also think men view us from THEIR perspective. It’s very odd. They take their own logic and apply it to women. So it’s often funny how women are being demonized for the exact things men WOULD do if they were in our positions.