Dedicated to exposing all the women who complain about wanting a "good man", to show women's poor dating behavior and unreasonable standards while offering little to no value themselves.
- Main Forums
- What's Hot
- TRP.RED
- Tribe Forums
- TheRedPill
- Tribe Management
- Create New Tribe
- Manage My Tribes
- Find New Tribes
- Recent News
-
-
Vermillion-Rx Penchant for plastic dolls 1y ago Stickied
Second comment because topic
One of the biggest things women fail to realize when chasing exclusivity and commitment is that they think that sex is all men want. If they put out that's good enough
Women generally seem to fail to realize that if they want a relationship they need to bring RELATIONSHIP qualities to the table. What can she offer HIM in exclusivity that no other casual fuckbuddy or prostitute can offer HIM.
So many women aren't providing any different services than relatively free prostitution to their prospects and then wondering why he won't go without that from other women.
Ladies, all these other women out there can also spread their legs too, and if that's the main attraction you have to offer, without anything more of substance that makes my and other men's existential experience on this earth feel whole, then there is no point in exclusivity.
Ladies, high value men go exclusive when they know they cannot get the equivalent to feeling whole by fucking another vagina out there. High value men commit when they say to themselves "I will not feel any more complete or content in my life and my mission by being inside another woman that I value less than my top, vetted prospect because of what she brings to this relationship"
A solid, reliable woman that puts out consistently and enthusiastically (and LOYALLY) is a must have for high value men, but so are a multitude of other qualities that require character and discipline and fulfilling a feminine role that compliments the ying-yang esque completion to his masculine role and masculine energy.
Sex is great but that's not all we went in a long term relationship, ladies
Men who can't acquire sex very easily (AFCs) will happily lock you down if they struggle to find even casual partners if it will keep you around, but not high value men who have vagina a la carte
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1y ago Stickied
comment stickied
CC: @moorekom, @Kevin32, @lurkerhasarisen, @woodsmoke, @DeeplyDisturbed, @houseoftolstoy
deeplydisturbed FDS Dinner Donor 1y ago
Agreed on all points
Vermillion-Rx Penchant for plastic dolls 1y ago
@moorekom, @Kevin32, @lurkerhasarisen, @woodsmoke, @DeeplyDisturbed, @houseoftolstoy
Greatly appreciate the honor. It has been quite enjoyable contributing to this masterpiece of a forum
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
What's wrong with the phrase, "HVM" to describe guys with high SMV / RMV / MMV? It seems to me that if we accept the existence of value in the mating markets, we have to acknowledge that some men have more than others.
It's no more rigid than than the Greek alphabet categories, but the behaviors of women consistently show that they assign value to certain attributes that are not evenly distributed among men... and we all know that it is buyers who determine value.
We do it all the time. We all know that an attractive, feminine, 20-year-old debt-free virgin with no tattoos has more mate value than an obese, post-wall, feminist baby-momma with $60,000 in debt for an Art History degree she's never going to use at her job stocking shelves.
Half of red-pill advice centers on guys doing things to improve themselves (heighten their value in the mating markets).
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
The term HVM is fine, provided the context of the value is made clear. Unfortunately, that is not the case all the time. There are men who have high SMV but low RMV (alpha fucks: bad boys, players and the like), men who have high SMV and high RMV (alpha bucks) and men with neither but can be the consolation price for marriage (beta guys). HVM can be used as a blanket term to describe any of these guys depending on the situation. A woman will call a beta guy as a HVM when she is trying to advertise to her friends that she is not settling for a loser. The same woman will fuck a bad boy on the side to string him along without ever calling him high value. While we cannot expect everyone else to be, I think we should be clear about the context ourselves.
cc: @typo-magashiv, @Vermillion-Rx
Vermillion-Rx Penchant for plastic dolls 1y ago
Good analysis, can start using terms that better fit the context vs a stand in
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
No argument from me. I think the context is usually clear, and I suspect that I'm the one here who is most likely to differentiate between SMV and MMV, because a lot of guys use SMV to denote desirability is all contexts.
As much as I respect what Kevin Samuels had to say, he was one of the worst offenders in that regard. He often gave the impression that the main thing - indeed the only thing - a woman needed to secure a HVM (a term he used all the time to denote men with very high incomes), was her physical beauty. In other words, she brings temporarily-high SMV and gets a lifetime of luxury in exchange. Obviously that's a really crappy deal for the man if that's all she brings to the table, because her physical beauty has a shelf life that his wealth doesn't have.
Truth be told, the phrase I have the most trouble with is RMV. Physical attractiveness (SMV) is pretty straightforward, and marriage is well-defined (MMV), but the term "relationship" is so vague as to be meaningless. Consequently, the attributes that make a person a good relationship prospect (RMV) can mean almost anything because it depends entirely on the nature of the relationship.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
I was talking about how the term is used in general. RMV is vague because "relationship" is supposed to be vague by design. It's a non-committal committed relationship. There is an argument to be made that modern marriages are like that as well, but "relationship" is even worse because it is essentially a trial period.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1y ago
I will never stop hating the term HVM!
deeplydisturbed FDS Dinner Donor 1y ago
I hate the term Alpha
We are not monkeys or lions
But I toss them out there once in a while because people know what it means
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
I only dislike the hags that twist the term to their liking.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
Have Some V-Cards You Scrote!
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
I would add that the second level of red-pill from self-improvement is also about what to spend his SMV on. Although it makes sense in many ways to just have a "roster" or "spin plates" and move on from one woman to the next to avoid entanglements, improvement for men's next stage, IMO, is to (and I hope you think this is cool)
Turn hypergamy around on women.
Knights of old courted "ladies" because the knights wanted a dowry from the father-in-law or "huge tracts of land". Marriage becomes perfectly safe (with caveats!) when the WOMEN are bringing money to "the table." Women's hypergamy teaches them to not emotionally commit to a man unless there's "something more in it for her".
Let women clean our homes and become our orbiters. This is what traditional masculinity has been in the past. Time to bring it back.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
Courtly love encouraged Knights of old to simp for married women and to perform outrageous acts of "fealty" to prove they were worthy of the love of a high born tease who was probably never going to take the risk of fucking some guy behind her husband's back. Bored bitches just wanted some entertainment and wanted men who were below them to help them feel worshipped.
I doubt the prevalence of Knights marrying young high born women above their station because marriage was a strategic contract to gain power via alliances and pooling of resources towards similar goals.
The system of dowry has existed in societies where women outnumbered men and could not find suitable men to marry. They paid a price to reserve their spot at the altar. Remember that this only worked with societies that enforced a stigma of spinsterhood on unmarried women. For an example, in China, Chinese women who are past the agreeable marriage age are trying to lock down foreign men to assert their position in the society through exotic appeal and the bump in status an English speaking foreigner bring them.
I agree that the height of masculinity is not about men chasing women, but women chasing after accomplished men. To me, a man who chases after 100 women and beds (most or some of them) by appeasing to them is less impressive than a man who has girls (or even a girl) chasing him.
Your sentiment is correct. The examples are not.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
I would (politely) disagree or quibble with much of the "examples" above which makes it neat that we both agree that what today is seen as "chivalry" is a romanticized version of what had actually occurred in "classic" European history. There was a stigma of spinsterhood and unwed motherhood in the past for reasons that are apparent today: the children of fatherless homes tend to be burdens upon society. The key is that both of us regard the modern definitions of masculinity upon "chivalry" to be a false romantization of historical and biological reality.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
Yes, we agree on more things than we disagree on.
As with everything, people tend to listen to what they want to listen to. When you're a pampered group, this will be even more true, such as it is with modern western women. They don't understand the context of a man being nice to a woman in medieval times or in a patriarchal society. These days, there is no need for it and thus it is not beneficial for any man to do it unless the woman plays by the rules of the patriarchy: feminine, submissive, responsible, pleasant and pure. That, needless to say, does not describe most women.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1y ago
Quick side note for anyone who hasn't read many of our past conversations on this:
I hate those even more. I use "alpha" and "beta" as shorthand the way Athol Kay did for sets of behaviors and traits, but that gamma/delta/sigma nonsense needs to go the way of the dodo.
A) It's an empty container phrase (to borrow a term from Rian Stone) with no real assigned meaning. Everyone who uses it takes a container labeled "HVM", fills it with their own (usually unexamined) thoughts and feelings on what it is, and throws it at your feet and expects you to know what is in their container.
B) many people who try to assign meaning to it will frequently over-emphasize some traits (usually to do with $$$) and under-emphasize others (usually moral/ethical character and behavior). Idiots like Myron Gaines, Tater Tot, and even Kevin Samuels (who was otherwise not an idiot) will have dudes leading with their wallets, which is one of the worst ways a man can go about trying to get with women, unless he only wants gold-digging whores (or HOOOO-AAAAHHS for those of you from NY/NJ). Not to mention, but all 3 of those dudes have famously argued that so-called "HVM" have the right to cheat no matter what. A man's exclusivity is a highly sought-after prize, and a man who acts in his interest doesn't give it away lightly, but it should still be attainable for a woman who proves herself worthy of it (and maintains that worthiness - this is conditional!).
C) women sure as shit can't define it, and we can almost never take their gum-flapping seriously, hence the aphorism "ignore what they say, but watch what they do".
D) as far as I know, it originated at FDS. why are we giving any credence to any term those inspins coined?
Lionsmane8 1y ago
Thank you.
HVM is just another bullshit buzzword.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1y ago
I think you and I are alone in this.
When I was on PUA forums back in roughly 2000 through 2002, I fought tooth and nail against the use of "alpha" and "beta".
It was like trying to stop a dam from bursting.
I can see this is going the same way, only faster.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
Keeping things simple is good for rhetoric. Nuance is not welcome in such situations. Don't fight the term. Fight for the context.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
Spoken Like A True Epsilon!
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1y ago
*mental note that you get vcards*
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
I'll try to explain my thought process here:
Just because a term cannot be precisely defined doesn't mean it's worthless. We all use terms like "SMV" and "MMV" and "Post-wall" to denote mating market value. Let's say that we include every flaired user here, and we picked 100 random women to rank them. Even if we knew everything there was to know about all of them, no two of us would rank them in the same order. But although your #6 girl might be my #15 girl, it's unlikely that any woman in one man's bottom ten would be in any other man's top 10. It works the same in reverse: women are generally consistent regarding which men they rank in the top 20% of SMV and MMV. That doesn't give those guys the right to cheat, and I certainly wasn't arguing that it does, but that has nothing to do with whether "those guys" are a generally-identifiable group. Gaines, Tater, and KS were observing what women do, and applying their own version of morality to the group. Just because I disagree with their moral code doesn't mean that they're wrong about the existence of the group. As for FDS originating the term... all they did was coin a phrase that describes what everyone has always known by observation: some people are more desirable than others.
Inspins didn't come into existence when I coined the phrase, and it would be stupid for the FDS harpies to object to it because I came up with the label. Likewise, HVM don't owe their existence to FDS because they dreamed up the label that stuck in popular culture.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1y ago
True.
They'll object to it because it's them!
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
Well said.
Vermillion-Rx Penchant for plastic dolls 1y ago
@lurkerhasarisen
So what would be a better and less contentious label to use than HMV if we are to acknowledge that some men are more desirable to women and more inspirational to other men as benchmarks of achievement? If "alpha" does not work either
Is top 10% man more accurate or there another term used in WAATGM for such a man?
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
Just chiming in with my two cents. Alpha bucks. It's the unicorn all women hunt for but only a few can lock down.
Vermillion-Rx Penchant for plastic dolls 1y ago
I could start using alpha bucks if the situation fits
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
In the context of this sub, it fits most of the time. Whenever women wail about a lack of good guys, they are talking about alpha bucks. Not beta bucks.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
I'm not the one who objected to using the term "HVM." I use it all the time, in fact.
That was @Typo-MAGAshiv.
Send him v-cards.
Vermillion-Rx Penchant for plastic dolls 1y ago
Yeah for sure, I noticed you didn't object, was just curious if you also knew any alternatives because your analysis was good
I'll hit him with v cards (;
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1y ago
You will both have vcards rained down upon you!
CC: @lurkerhasarisen
Vermillion-Rx Penchant for plastic dolls 1y ago
I'm gonna end up finding my virginity again at this rate
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
And you will be born again, pure as a maiden.
Vermillion-Rx Penchant for plastic dolls 1y ago
Maybe now an alpha bucks will finally want me
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
Yet you still expect him to chase you, don't you?
Vermillion-Rx Penchant for plastic dolls 1y ago
Obviously, I can give him sex, what more could he want?
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
Surely, that pussy is magical.
Vermillion-Rx Penchant for plastic dolls 1y ago
Almost as magical as my golden uterus and three out-of-wedlock kids
Lionsmane8 1y ago
Maybe it's because they don't actually want relationships. Maybe what they're actually looking for are sponsorships.
The benefits of a job, without the responsibilities of a job.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
This is straight from the book of St. Patrice Oneal, patron saint of padawan pimps.
"Pussy is not all I want, unless that's all you've got".
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1y ago
I had meant to say that in this thread yesterday, but got distracted. Damn.
GimmeTheUsual Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
Good comment, and it is projection from the women.
They think men just want sex because that is how they view themselves. I forget where it was, but a comedy bit from I think Patrice (I could be wrong) where he asked the women in the audience what they'd do to keep a man.
The shouted responses were basically the holes they'd offer for him to use. Not one said anything other than using them as a fuckdoll.
He called this out, and the nervous laughter was on point because that is exactly what women see themselves as, sex objects. Even though feminutz REEEEE about it, its just how they value themselves.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1y ago
Patrice asked the audience something like: "If your vagina just stopped working due to a tragic accident, how would you keep your man past whatever grace period he gave you?"
Women yelled out: "anal!" and "blowjobs!"
Patrice: "now see, you could have said 'learn to play his favorite games on Xbox with him' or 'be a great conversationalist' but instead, you just reduced yourselves to a series of holes."
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
You left out a crucial part: "or to bring another bitch into the mix". There is a profound observation there despite how crass it might look from the outside. If you cannot do something for your partner and if it is needed, you make a selfless compromise to keep them happy. None of them got it because they have never been selfless.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1y ago
I must have been watching a cleaned-up-for-TV version, because I do not remember that!
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
Could be. It's around 3.10 in the below clip.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yauS_XKlqwM&pp=ygUgcGF0cmljZSBvJ25lYWwgcXVlc3Rpb24gdG8gd29tZW4%3D
Impressive-Cricket-8 Founding member of FapGPT 1y ago
I was about to comment on your other message regarding the "I can deep throat and I ride like a champ [...] and like halfway emotionally stable so idk whay else men want". Yeah, if you're nothing but holes to be filled, those are enough. If you want an actual relationship - with a lot of talking, connecting, compromising, trusting and whatnot, you need to offer more. Or, as the sorority likes to say, "do better".
Any halfway decent man has an ok life. Maybe he doesn't go out fishing on his yacht every other weekend, but he has his work, his friends, his hobbies - his life. And he probably likes it enough that there really isn't a big reason to change things - sometimes even a job offer across the country somewhere you know nobody is too much of a hassle. So, for him to carve out a big chunk of his time to offer it to some woman, she should be offering a net positive - otherwise, what's the point?
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Yup, thus the aphorism that sex is not getting a good grade on the relationship test. It's putting your name on the test so you can get credit. You can still fail the test otherwise very easily by leaving the rest blank or giving the wrong answers.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Another way of putting it is this: She's a 33 YO woman (apparently, I read her profile, with stretch marks, meaning single mother!), who wanted to "lock down" someone after 5 weeks of dating whatever that means. I underlined that he was treating her like girlfriend material texting her daily and going out twice a week but she griped he was failing compliance tests and not dropping going out with friends after work rather than seeing her. I've been married for 19 years and if my wife, or I, said we're going out for beers after work and we can reschedule a dinner for the next day, it's no biggie. She was cracking a P-whip on him.
Which didn't work (I think) for two reasons: 1) Even while a 33 year old stretch marked woman can get a 1st day lay OLD, and she reminded him of this, HE was able to do the exact same thing and then went "private". She realizes that this is the sign of a HVM who has choices. She probably regrets that most of all that she, as my father RIP, loved fishing would say about trying to reel in the fish too fast similar to a guy trying to get laid on a first date rather than waiting for the 3rd.
2) Women such as her age. So when they use sex as the ONLY thing they're offering in a relationship, the power of that only works up to when it's put-out-or-get-out (he risks being friendzoned or an paying down bad money/time). They established these rules where men have to game them into bed, and after bedroom fun, every day that goes by his position gets stronger and hers gets weaker. The only way to handle that is, as you say, bring other value to the relationship such as loyalty and submissiveness and lower your demands and, of course, get commitment while young.
Finally, the comments on the thread all appear to be "you go girl! you don't need him!" but this is bad in that she DID have options to keep him around, if she had played her cards better. Women today largely lack game and other women appear to encourage this which is ok for us men.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
Good comment.
dongking 1y ago
I would like to add that this 33 y/o single mama didn't even put out.
Someone asked in the comments if they had sex, her reponse: Just the first few bases. Didn’t want to take clothes off and have sex till exclusive.
She literally tried to lock him down for betabuxx whilst offering nothing in return - and he had none of it, just found a good excuse to get rid of her without making her too pissed off.
Her post history (apart from nudes) also reveals she had multiplie partners/guys she dated in the last year. So surely a very high N-count, yet she tried to play virgin Mary for this guy like he's a total fool...
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Good catch! Future, I'll read all the comments!
I don't know if he found an excuse to get rid of her, it sounds more like he was asserting his boundaries (which already were sort of loose) and she overextended herself and blew it. The fact that he was able to pull in a new girlfriend that quickly means she realizes she had The Unicorn: A guy who is desired by women who put up with 5 weeks of a single mother rooster-teasing him.
Here's the thing: I think she was, up to that point, doing a pretty good job. Perhaps she "dates" other men in similar ways demanding multiple month courtships (with the man paying) before she puts out. That isn't a bad thing for any woman, including single mothers, to do. But as a single mother, she is low on the RMV scale and therefore it was wrong of her to gripe that he "blew her off" for drinks with his friends or making demands. She was perhaps hoping to fast-track the guy into marriage which, as we know here, in this modern culture is stupid.
I think she's one of the smarter, more dangerous ones though.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
I would not call her smart. She is just feeling regret after making a wrong choice and losing because of it. She's still going to try to muscle other guys to pay upfront for her used pussy.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Yup. Like I said to a commenter on the shithole site, this woman did not regret the game she played, she regretted that the man was better than her at it.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
"It's impossible to sucker an honest man" is an amusing, but false aphorism. Most victims of games are honest, but naive people. She treated this guy as if he was a dog willing to do tricks into perpetuity for future promises of sex treats and that works reasonably well on exceptionally hungry dogs with low options.
Confession here: 28 years ago, a (gorgeous) single mother girlfriend did something similar to me for a while. She strung me along for a year never giving me sex and she was quite convincing. I even gave her $2000 to fix her roof after a storm. The breaking point was she got a face piercing after I told her they disgusted me and I told her off the second I saw it, we got into an argument, and The Princess Spell was broken. We broke up and she told me (bitterly) "You need to be careful because it's easy to manipulate you. I did." and I didn't respond, but if I had I would have said that if she was so smart, she wouldn't have gotten the face piercing. I would have handed her the keys to my kingdom but why educate an immoral person on how to improve their craft? She later did apparently marry someone, but she tried to add me as a facebook friend which I would NEVER do if I was a manipulator (I could easily have reached out to her husband and let him know all the shenanigans I uncovered.)
IMO, this guy wasn't playing games. He was simply a sincere man taking things "slow" because that was what she claimed to want, but she wanted more commitment from him than she was giving.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
There probably isn't a man here who hasn't been used by a woman and had his eyes opened. The red pill is often administered as a suppository. That may even be the only way it works in the long run.
Fortunately mine didn't cost me $2000, but I know guys who paid a lot more dearly than that... and still didn't make the connection.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
In this case what I mean by being better than her at the game was bailing instead of complying with her one-sided demands.
It's the only real way to beat women like that. You just bail the very second they demand more than they give.
X-ternal 1y ago
But then she should do extra few miles by cooking, dropping some meal at his, preparing picnic + asking IS THERE ANYTHING I CAN DO FOR YOU BEFORE I GO. This is so extremely easy yet rocket science for her. She doesn't sound from descriptions like the one that keeps her count below 5 [55].
might be yellow card [for our US friends yellow card in FOOTBALL is for first offence followed by red]. Let her know things are changing.
that is probably coz he was too nice in her damaged mind and she tried to cash on it, then she has written the post to improve her game on [what she consider] chumps so she can catch one off of the other orbiters. She wants to improve it but I'd say she can't. SHe won't [99%] be able to hold fake frame for long enough if she'll make it with any guy it will be only because guy will not have strong enough boundaries.
[deleted]
cosmicbuffalo 1y ago
Sometimes the ignorance of these women astound me. If she really wants a relationship, she needs to do the following:
If they don’t do this, then they’re really wanting to stay on the carousel, despite what they say.
Seems like there are so many cases where women seem astounded at “how men treat them”, yet they don’t TALK. It’s assumed (quite fairly) if you jump on a dick after or during a first “date”, that you’re not into long term.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
I think the issue arises with your point 1. Women say that if they put up a OLD profile that says 'I'm only interested in LTR that leads to marriage' men don't swipe. And they then say that all men are commitment phoebes.
Well, they are right and they are wrong. If they put up an OLD profile which clearly says 'only interested in LTR/Marraige' we know that that means no sex. So we don't swipe.
Women are missing the point - they think we're commitment phoebes - we're not. We love to commit to women, JUST NOT TO YOU.
If you're a post wall slut on OLD, we might want to smash and dash you, we are not looking for an LTR. this is 90% of the problem of OLD - the men and women are talking at cross purposes.
The women be like "Ok, i'm past my prime, I've sucked a thousand cocks, now I'm ready for someone to pay for my lifestyle'
and the guys be like "Ok, I've been grinding for 15 years, its been a pussy dessert out there, very hard to get any lays, now its harvest time, I'm looking to smash a series of post wall desperates in exchange for some mid range meals at a not too fancy restaurant"
cosmicbuffalo 1y ago
First off, just because women say that all men are commitment-phobes (sp. ?) doesn’t make it true. There are a lot of delusional women out there - OP post is case in point.
If they say they’re only interested in long term, they’ll certainly get less swipes, but the ones they do get will be far more likely to match what they’re looking for.
In my dating life, I never lied about looking for a long term thing just to try to smash. I think most men are that way - much easier to find someone who is obviously open to short term.
My argument would be, that if a woman follows those rules, then she’s probably actually ready for marriage. Now, that doesn’t mean she has a super high (or even any) value at that point. A woman could hit the wall and realize that after 4 kids at 45 years old, or it could be at 22 just post-college.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
I'm skeptical about #3. Although they shouldn't be having sex with anyone, it's counterproductive to be exclusive while you're vetting (which is what dating is). That applies to both men and women.
If a person is dating for marriage, he/she should refrain from sex (it clouds judgement, among other things), and avoid exclusivity. If you know you want this person and no other... get engaged. If you don't know, why close off other options?
cosmicbuffalo 1y ago
I think #3 is more a matter of preference. I’d counter that being exclusive while you’re vetting is the only true way to see if you’re compatible.
As for sex, very few people will refrain from sex prior to marriage - as long as the communication and dedication is there, I don’t see that as necessary. Certainly not a bad thing though, I wouldn’t frown on it.
You may know you’re interested, but being exclusive for a period of time is how you really know they’re the one. THEN get engaged. Otherwise, break it off and look for someone new. To me, dating multiple people at once would cloud judgment.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
I think this misses the entire point of dating - vetting. Vetting isn't supposed to be fun... it's research. Let's say we go with the "Three date rule" for sex. It's been quite a while, but if memory serves there were seven women I went on at least three dates with before I met my wife, and I'm nobody's idea of a Chad. If I had gone with that "rule" I would have an n-count of eight (more if I had availed myself of other opportunities... I could have easily gotten well into double digits if I had been trying).
A woman who has even a modest dating life and "only" has sex with guys she's in "relationships" with (defined as having gone on at least three dates) can easily come to her marriage bed with a double digit n-count. The research is clear that there is about a 90% chance that such a woman's ability to pair bond with her husband has already been annihilated. This isn't "just" morality, either: we even understand the biochemistry behind that fact.
I'll concede that as a relationship moves "toward" marriage that others are likely to fall away, but the notion that people should be exclusive for years or even months before their engagement strikes me as unnecessarily self-limiting. We can agree to disagree on that, though.
cosmicbuffalo 1y ago
I think dating/vetting should actually be fun (for both parties), at least when they’re younger. You are exploring each others personalities and temperaments, and checking compatibility. If it’s not fun, then perhaps that’s telling you they’re not the right one. The work begins once engagement and marriage happen - that’s when both parties have to work together to make the pairing successful.
I would say in my case that I knew within three weeks of dating my now wife that she was the one. If dating goes on for years, then that’s its own red flag.
I definitely see your point though - I guess there are major differences in people’s expectations of behavior prior to marriage - something else to talk about during the dating phase.
I think my original statement is what would give a woman the best chance as successfully acquiring a husband, but I can certainly concede it isn’t the only - or “right” - way to do it.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
In case I wasn't clear: I'm not suggesting that dating should be a "No Fun Zone." My point is that the purpose of dating is vetting... having fun is incidental. If you end up together you have the rest of your lives for fun, but failing to vet properly is likely to result in a lifetime of misery.
Focusing on fun during the dating process - especially sexual fun - is very likely to end in tears because you're vetting for the wrong attributes.
My focus is not on whether a woman can acquire a husband. Pretty much any woman can do that. My focus is on people setting themselves up for solid lifelong marriages. There are things women can do that will help them become brides that will absolutely sabotage their ability to be wives.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
She writes 'did I mess up by WANTING exclusivity at 5 weeks?' when she should have written 'Did I mess up by DEMANDING A UNILATERAL CHANGE TO THE CONTRACT and also calling his bluff at 5 weeks?'
Women sometimes do this thing where they tell you the price of something, you make the exchange, and then later, they increase the price with demands. This is what she did. She settled on a price for her vagina. The contract was clear - he gave you a certain amount of attention, let you stay over, gave you quite a bit of his time, probably bought you out etc all in exchange for some sexy time. All is good. But then, she demands a radical increase in price, presumably without offering anything additional in return.
She demanded to renegotiate mid contract, made an ultimatum, and he did the right thing.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
Apparently in the comments she said that they stopped short of having sex (at her insistence); although she admits that they were fooling around a bit. She was vague about how far she was willing to go.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
I didn't see the original post or see the comments. If she said that they weren't having sex....then, WOW. Holy shit. Was this in the amish community??
Do we believe her that she wasn't having sex? It sounds impossible. How can that be at age 33? wtf. Sleepovers with no sex at age 33? Were they playing lego?
Or do we think that his makes no sense and she is talking nonsense to try and convince hersef and her online clan that she is not a slut? Bear in mind that women have far superior skills at self delusion than men.
If she really was not having sex with this dude, then holy fuck, what the hell. 5 weeks in and she is demanding exclusivity without him getting to check the oil? ffs.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Yeah so not only did she try to renegotiate the contract, it was already grossly in her favor to begin with.
Honestly, he should have bailed far sooner. She was a 30+ year old single mom that shares her nudes online, and very definitely did not have a history of chastity/sexual discipline.
Trying to play a game of keep away with her pussy is just an insult at that point.
@Lone_Ranger
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
yeah - she is crazier than I thought (had not realised that she was trying the born again virgin nonsense). The guy must have been seriously beta to have gone along with that deal in the first place, finally came to his senses and ditched her. OR she is just flat out lying and she was putting out. I'm inclined to believe that she is just lying - she can tell herself that she wasn't sleeping with they guy, and then she'll feel less of a slut, because women are great at lying to themselves. Hell, self delusion is basically part of the personality. For some women, its their whole personality. They just don't have anything else going on.
Pic889 1y ago
Gotta love the delusion displayed in the above post: "You see, I wasn't a plate dating way above her league, I did have a legit chance to secure commitment from Chad, all I have to do is figure out the exact moment I got the timing wrong and in the next iteration that elusive Chad commitment will be all mine".
With this way of thinking, she can lie to herself and keep jumping from Chad to Chad until she is old enough to not be attractive to any Chad, at which point it's time for misandry and boxed wine. And cats. Lots and lots of cats.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Yup, like I said in another comment - her problem was not the timing. It was that she was demanding way more than she offered.
Pic889 1y ago
Yes, that's what I say in my post. She thinks she actually had a chance to secure that elusive Chad commitment, and that all it takes is a couple of tweaks to the strategy, while in reality she doesn't have and didn't have a chance.
Justanaverageguy 1y ago
I’m one of those guys that wanted to be exclusive with a girl I’d been seeing for a month. She didn’t and ended things with me soon after I brought it up. There are plenty of guys who will commit to you within 5 weeks or less. They just aren’t Chad, which is what you’re going for, you just won’t admit it.
orbilius 1y ago
True, but there are fewer and fewer the older she gets.
At 23, the world was her oyster and 80% or more of the men she crossed paths with would have gladly been exclusive with her. Had she taken that deal, the state would have protected her (we all know how one-sided divorce laws are) now that she's older.
But no, at 23 she rejected the 80% - lol she rejected 90% or 95%!! She partied with a tiny minority of men.
And now that she's 33 she doesn't realize that she has less power. She probably already thinks she's "settling" and if the guy she's describing in that post had accepted her terms, she would probably already be tired of him.
Jokes on her, he is already out of her league. And every single day she gets a little older, and fewer men are left who will commit.
Justanaverageguy 1y ago
The thing is women seem to think they have more power the older they get. I’ve always had shit luck dating women in their 30’s, I’ve had much better luck with women in their 20’s for some reason.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
They've had less time to learn and calcify bad habits. Women largely never get better with age. A woman making it to 30 single, is that way for a reason. Because vagina is a double edged sword like that.
orbilius 1y ago
The only possible exception I can think of is a girl who's overweight, then loses the weight. But there are caveats to that, even.
In every other case, they get worse with age. Show me the most attractive 30 year old woman you can think of - an actress or something. Most people respond to the concept of "the wall" by saying "SEEE!!!! SHES STILL HOT!!!"
Okay, now go find a picture of her at 20. Tell me she's not hotter.
The real problem is that women are so fucking deluded that they imagine getting a degree or fronting like they have a business makes them attractive. Nah. Youth and having a healthy body is basically it.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
And that's just mainly considering their physical attractiveness.
The 20 year old that acts like a manipulative cunt (I know, I know, I mean compared to standard female) all the time? Good odds she'll be even worse as she gets older. Usually the best they can do is not getting worse/accumulating baggage and bad choices. A woman improving on the personality front as she gets older may as well be a statistical outlier.
hornetsfalcons12 Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
They haven’t created a laundry list of “standards” yet. The 30-something ones want a man who is just as hot as what they used to get, but also a gentleman and makes a lot of money.
Impressive-Cricket-8 Founding member of FapGPT 1y ago
Honestly, it's quite impressive that the more they age, the more their lists of must haves increase. Nevermind that they never found a guy with most of what they want, it just doesn't seem to click to them that there is nobody that can offer everything. And even if there were someone like that, he could do much, much better.
hornetsfalcons12 Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
Correct. And if she wanted all of that, why didn’t she ask for it a decade ago? Bet a girl who is 21, reasonably sweet and innocent and in decent shape could get about 90% of men to offer her exclusive within a month, and probably be proposing within a year. Guys like Chase from the “whatever” podcast, girls in their 20’s mostly mock him for being a mega tradcon and old school in his ways, but those same women will be begging guys like him for a chance in their 30’s (and then still blow it if they got a chance, because they want to live in a delusional world where they can do whatever they please and still get the protection and provision that a rock solid man offers).
Pic889 1y ago
That's the hallmark of the modern woman: Her life must always go up, no going backwards allowed: if she dated a handsome man yesterday, her new man has to be handsome and a gentleman and make a lot of money. I mean, that's what happens in romcoms, right? Not for one moment she will stop to think that she may be setting herself up for failure.
Then she will discover FDS and take it as validation of her beliefs and be irreversibly set to the path of cats and boxed wine.
hornetsfalcons12 Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
If women followed the strategy of “marry the first man who showed potential”, their lives would be infinitely more happy.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
I don't recall all the details, but research into the "Paradox of Choice" suggests that the best way to optimize one's odds is to date six people of the opposite sex (but not have sex with any of them), then marry the next one who's a better match than any of the previous ones. If you get to 12 without anyone from the latter half being better than the best one from the first half, marry that person.
Then go all-in without looking back.
X-ternal 1y ago
She either wasn't worth it or it was communication problem, and:
Mentioning other date was huge mistake and deal breaker - I'm surprised it is not highlighted with double line. It would be revolting to hear it and if guy had experience he might know that going for a 1st date could mean as well regular fucking beforehand that combined with beginning of drama would push the guy away. Lack of calibration in this one sentence is dazzling. Not that it is unusual for women.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Yeah I would take that as an immediate dealbreaker and sign that she was not truly interested, even if we were not "exclusive" yet. And if that's how she starts things off... her behavior isn't going to get better with time.
Lot of guys miss that last part. Women's behavior generally does not improve as you get more committed. How she acts when she first meets you and still has butterflies is the best it will nearly always be.
Vermillion-Rx Penchant for plastic dolls 1y ago
Never fails to surprise me that women are incapable of understanding that men have also had bad relationship experiences and don't want to immediately sacrifice their freedom and singledom to a woman
My guess is that this woman (like many others) seriously can't imagine a guy would have his guard up for commitment as long as she's putting out
I was actually talking to a girl I have been casually dating but haven't managed to fuck yet (she's just a backburner hoe to me) who couldn't get a more serious prospect to commit and be exclusive after a month of fucking him.
Her literal question to me was, and I'm not even exaggerating because I found the text again:
It's almost like women can't seem to understand that women are seriously problematic relationship partners that traumatize men and can't get off their high horse that men and muh patriarchy are the sources of all their dating problems. They can't seem to understand that men who value themselves and their own sanity like to vet first and have choices if it goes south
[deleted]
[deleted]
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Please edit this comment to avoid brigading. Good catch but avoid giving any hints where it came from.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
I am removing this comment temporarily because of your PS. While forums waatgm is the main platform these days, we don't want to be accused of brigading in reddit because of our conduct here.
PS: Thank you @polishknight for catching it first and trying to make sure the reddit sub is not jeopardized.
nicknack 1y ago
I didn’t know it wasn’t allowed to reference that garbage site. Won’t do it again. Wanted to let the bros know about the nice nudes.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
Thank you. Keep the discussion focused on these women and their behavior. We don't have to focus on the source and about who the women are. Their nature is what we should focus on to educate other men.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
I'd like to point out what this guy did right.
He didn't lose his cool. He didn't try to aggressively argue her bad behavior away like some sort of autist. He didn't chest thump.
He dropped her a few subtle hints (overly overt communication and/or ultimatums are a sign of weakness to a woman), saw that she was too up her own ass to take them, and then ghosted her for better options.
reignoferror00 1y ago
Since he "acted like a boyfriend" by putting in some effort with the daily texting and semi-frequent longer dates, she's pissed that he cancelled once in a while and didn't always put her as her number one priority? I guess her message to him there is to appear to care less and act less like a "boyfriend" and just be a fuckbuddy.
If she wanted exclusivity and a stated relationship with him she sure as hell went about it the wrong way. If he was, as she stated at that end, so great why didn't she treat him that way? She should have showed him that she's truly interested in him in her actions; stating she's dating another guy she likes is the opposite of that. His actions were closer to an exclusive relationship than hers were; he at the time was only dating her. Guess he might have been on the fence and she gave him that push in the direction away from her.
Finally she wanted him to have her as a priority over what I assume are likely some long standing friends of his. Possibly would be a serious consideration after you've moved into a relationship and are several steps removed from where she was (and not where she supposed wanted to be). Having her as a priority over work is just insane! Does she have any idea how a job, and making money to live work?
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Same issue with a young hot woman not realizing how much drinks cost or how much getting things fixed and or moved actually cost, because they went through the first part of their dating lives being able to flounce their way into getting those for free.
And then they get older and the free shit gravy train stops showing up at the depot. Misogyny? No honey, you were just an entitled bitch who is not good enough looking to get men to overlook it anymore.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
I feel bad for young single men today. Not only is the supply of HVW so low, but the money thing is ridiculous.
My wife and I are quite financially comfortable: easily into six figures with no debt whatsoever. We could quite literally live on the passive income from my military retirement. Yet I cringe at how much things cost. When I was single and took a girl on a date it was a few bucks... when the wife and I went out for a snack the other day it was over $30. We went to IHOP for her birthday and it was nearly $50 for a basic breakfast for two...
When I was still in uniform everybody loved to go TDY because per diem was a cash cow. Now it barely covers my meals, and that's only if I'm frugal. Eating out and doing activities is expensive.
Yet a lot of young women expect guys who are just starting out to wine-&-dine them and take them on adventures a couple of times a week for the possibility of a relationship.
It's no wonder that the Epiphany Phase coincides with the time women start having to pay their own way.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
One nice thing though about social media today is even though it gave female hypergamy a nitro boost, it also allows young men to be mentored even if they were not fortunate enough to have a successful older male in their family to learn from directly.
Plus via crapps like Tinder, women are redpilling men via their behavior at a ridiculous rate. It's going to be fairly rare for a young man in the next few decades to miss the lesson that it's better to be the man for whom women open their legs for free.
Granted, hormones and desperation may manage to get them to overlook the lesson, but it'll be there, loud and clear.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
I hate "eggs to make an omelette" but as cruel as this current system is, it's not much better than the 1980's. Stories: A friend of mine in college was reasonably handsome and able to get tail at the clubs. He knocked a girl up. He was hit for 18 years of child support. A former girlfriend of mine did child-support defense of men and she represented one guy who slept with a "slow" girl who worked checkout at a supermarket. He went there 2 months later and she said "I've been looking for you!!!!" and he got his with 18 years support PLUS the kid was born slow.
Then there's the guys who were divorce raped. One I know self-deleted which was tragic. It was like the Praying Mantis mating game. Men were "scoring" back then easier than today, but it came at a huge cost.
Another thing I saw, which was depressing, was the strip clubs (I went for a bachelor party, I wouldn't blow money on something I get for free from ARPAnet) and there were men throwing away their mortgage money to get a girl to talk to them. It was sad, but in the end when the well ran dry, most would figure out they'd been had. Even I got a few gals to get money off of me, but not as much (and in the end, I held them accountable to their conscience.)
It also meant that me, being (self) red pilled, reached my 30's like the turtle winning the race: I didn't have debt or a slew of baby mommas dragging me down.
Where am I going with this? 40 years ago, the system was no less exploitive towards men. Men were divorce raped but today, they don't even get in the sack but are stuck with a few dozen dinner dates and perhaps some OLD dating fees. They are getting educated BEFORE their 40's now.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
And that's why the feminists are screeching about hookup culture now. They thought they were getting the ability to trade up at will and free shit for dating. But turns out when the deal is too bad on its face, men just go Peter Pan, and they are doing that younger and younger.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
I remember the attractive young woman who made the video about avocados versus bananas that went viral a few years ago. She used avocados to represent guys who were "boyfriend material" and bananas to represent the f-boys that she and women like her kept taking home.
It was mainly her complaining about the lack of avocados.
The video was absurd, but the comments were totally red-pilled. Thousands of men took her sentiments to their logical conclusion.
"Be the banana."
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Banana gets laid without having to pay.
Avocado has to pay, and not get laid.
Gee, wonder why men are choosing to banana?
whytehorse2021 Jr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
Who taught these women that you can go from hoe to housewife? This seems to be a recurring theme: sleep with a guy for a while and then demand an exclusive relationshit. Once in the relationshit, withhold sex to break his frame and beta-tize him.
Lori(Transformed Housewife) teaches women to not give sex to their boyfriends and freely give it to their husbands. This is probably the only way a woman can use her significant advantage in the sexual marketplace to become a wife and mother. Unless, of course, she is so insufferable that no man thinks it's worth it.
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
This has been the expected norm throughout most of history, and deviating from this pattern is the cause of the fall of empires. It is causing ours right now.
Lori isn't teaching anything new or shocking, just reminding us of what was already there just a few generations ago. She gets a ton of flak for it too. The irony is that the people preaching this stuff actually care about women and their long-term happiness.
whytehorse2021 Jr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
Her trolls are the nastiest I've ever seen. Female psychological warfare on public display. It's quite instructive actually if you want to know how they think.
houseoftolstoy Unchivalrous Christian 1y ago
For this strategy to work, women have to learn restraint and delayed gratification. These are not things taught to anyone, and it especially is not taught to women thanks to the current feminist ideology proclaiming that telling a woman that she cannot do what she wants is controlling, patriarchy and evil. A woman can do whatever she wants, and no one should tell her that she should not be a slut if she wants to be.
There is also a real lack of love and respect that women have for their future husbands, as many of them despise the idea that they should save their virginity for their husbands. Because after all, that interferes with their desires to have their cake and eat it too by sleeping around before marriage while expecting the husband to be to be waiting for her at the moment she decides it is time for her to get married. It should not surprise anyone here that this is yet another reason that men do not want to get married these days.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
I think this woman was trying that: Using slow escalation of sex to get commitment from the man and she overreached. The problem is that she didn't have much to bargain with: She's a 33 y/o single mother and the guy appears to have been reasonably attractive considering he got into a new relationship on a dating app within a week. Generally, if you're a guy and you can get into a decent relationship within a week OLD, you're top notch.
This strategy works when the bait is very fresh: If she were 24 and childless, sure. Nonetheless, I don't disagree that women should be more chaste BUT they have to demand less and offer more aside from, just bedroom fun. With bedroom fun as the ONLY thing most women offer men in modern dating, most men with self respect won't put up with it for more than a month or so, particularly if he's not seeing other women as this guy did.
whytehorse2021 Jr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
Yeah it's fun to watch old-school red-pilled movies like Steven King's Rose Red where the chick is super hot and the dude is super rich and how that plays out. Bedroom fun is guaranteed but she has to woo him into commitment. Like she actually has to show up to the date and be on time, she has to dress spectacularly, have her manners perfect, etc.
Back then if she was a fat chick she'd have to be an extremely warm and fun woman to be around and have gourmet cooking abilities. If she was older she'd have to be a wealthy widow. If she had kids she'd have to set her sights very low, like the local pig farmer.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Of course she starts off asking the wrong fucking questions which reveals why she failed.
Her problem was not the timeline. It was how she treated him. She offered way too little and demanded way too much of a man that had options, as proven by her failure to lock him down.
Just another life support system for a vagina that has forgotten she does not have the same negotiating position as a debt free 19 year old virgin with no tattoos, and refuses to realize that older men have had time to become far wiser and far less desperate, and will not accept bad deals as readily as a young buck.
ogrilla99 Pez "The Pussy Dispenser" Pimp 1y ago
I'm reminded of the late, great Kevin Samuels who always used to say, "After we fuck, what else you got?" Women are so brainwashed into looking down on men, they can't fathom that we're actually not just simply dogs in heat with no other goals or interests or needs in life other than having sex with everything that moves. And that's despite the evidence all around them: the vast majority of people in our lives (friends, work colleagues, neighbors, etc), we do not fuck. And yet we willingly spend significant time and energy with them because they give us something we need that's not sexual.
Most guys I know would rather hang out with their guy friends than basically any woman they know. It's not because we're all secretly gay. It's because the women are good for sex, some of them are tolerable for a few hours of conversation or entertainment, but that's about it. They never had to develop a personality or empathy, or anything else and are surprised when top tier men, who have plenty of sexual options, want something more out of a woman that is expecting a bigger commitment.
I remember reading a book about filmmaking, and the author started by saying how hard it is to make a good movie. He said "Imagine having to come up with a story that was so good, so compelling, that a million people around the world would willingly sacrifice 2 hours of their time, $20, and the inconvenience of driving to a theater, in order to hear you tell it. That's what a filmmaker must do. Meanwhile the average person can't keep 5 people entertained at a party, who are already there because of the promise of a free meal; in a few minutes most of the guests are already itching to flee and talk to someone else."
I feel the same way about men and women. Women see a successful man and think "Pshaw, I can do that. It's not hard." And I feel like asking them "Imagine that in order to get someone to care about you, talk to you, give you 5 dollars, or even just not spit on you or beat you up, you need to develop the skills to charm someone, spark their interest, make them laugh, etc. when their default is to not give a single fuck whether you even live or die. And you need to do this starting at age 10." Because that's what guys have to learn, and learn fast, or end up friendless, jobless, sexless, and likely homeless and lifeless in a few years. Women who are so used to getting everything in life handed to them because of their youth and beauty can't fathom what it takes to get someone who doesn't give two shits about you, to become a friend, or to hire you, or to even say hi to you. And so they can't imagine that such skills are necessary -- or even exist -- when a guy looks at her after sex and says "So what else you got to keep me from getting dressed and bolting?"
NB: And to all the feminists who keep insisting that they would love nothing more than to be evaluated on their personality, intelligence, etc. and not on their looks, all I have to say is an ancient Chinese curse: may all your wishes come true. They're like those people who mumble that they could make a better film. They have no idea how brutally competitive even half-way decent jobs are and they're absolutely shocked when they discover that, absent any favoritism shown them due to their being a woman, it's fucking hard to eke out a good life, competing against lots of people who are smarter, hungrier, and harder working than you.
They do finally realize this when that "objective male gaze" that they detest so much finally goes away when they hit 40 or 50. And then it dawns on them that they could be bleeding on the street and most people would just step over them and then spend the afternoon worrying about whether they got any blood on their shoes rather than whether you died or not. And after spending 20/30 years not developing (or needing) the skills that men are forced to hone over decades, they never manage to ever catch up, while wondering why no one ever talks to them anymore.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Women do have to develop social skills (in many ways superior to men) for one purpose that's very important to them: Their status and acceptance from other women. When I go to pick up my child at the school, the women quickly talk to each other and make friends while the men are playing with their phones. It's sad and I think male socialization has died off in recent years and it's killing us. We are put into The Thunderdome to compete with each other.
Women have "frenemies" and will harshly judge each other for not displaying trophy wealth with luxury cars, McMansions, and designer handbags. Men don't care about impressing other men but we also don't socialize as much with each other.
It's easier for women to develop lifelong socialization skills because they get that support early on. My daughter is a social butterfly (with my help, I'm proud to say) from an early age knowing how to approach people. Sometimes she gets rejected, but it's no big deal for her because most of the time she receives affirmation and when not, I'm there to cover her back. If I had a son, I'd have also helped him out.
Therefore, this is why when ordinary women gripe "Where are all the good men?" it's a joke in that most of them could get a decent man with a fraction of the level of effort us men have to engage in. They can go on a dating app and get hundreds of prospects or even just ask a decent looking man for directions to home depot and strike up a conversation with him, but many refuse to because they are conditioned, by other women, to demand the men chase them but this is a self-imposed restriction.
I even chatted with a plain looking woman friend who called me and my wife "losers" because we didn't have the traditional meeting and I asked her if she imagined in her head the perfect man, but she had to go through a dozen rejections from men and had to figure out basic approaches and conversation techniques to get out on a date with him and pay her own way, she said she'd rather die alone.
Men, on the other hand, despite the way we treat each other as competitors in this modern chivalrous society, develop the skillsets to survive in the urban jungle. It's why I could move a half dozen times in my adult life and make a few friends and get by on a limited budget since I have lived in discomfort my whole life, leaving my hometown and comfort zone wasn't an issue. Women have a MUCH harder time pickup up "roots" and trying something new.
Funny story: My foreign born wife says that Americans are nice to her until, quote, "[she] opens her mouth" and they hear her accent and then, the women in particular, clam up and socially isolate her. In other words, she feels outside of her comfort zone the way that men do our whole lives. Consequently, she hasn't made a lot of friendships with American women and we largely live like ex-pats in the states which is ok by me since my female relatives openly brag about their consumerist lifestyle. My sister-in-law bragged at the table about a big (natural) diamond ring. "Look how much of a man's money I can spend!" No thanks. I'm glad I only see her at rare family meetups every few years or so. American women are in a covent that is centralized around exploiting men and consumerism. For amusement, youtube "SNL Jewelry Party" which is supposed to be a parody about MRA's, but instead is the ultimate primer on American women culture.
My wife and I are a good team because where she clams up (because she's out of her comfort zone), I can strike up conversations with new people and they generally will respond to her better once she opens up.
In the past, I think men's socialization was better because our society supported men more by not getting us fired for making a bad approach, women were told to be more reasonable in their demands with a sense of urgency to start a family, there were more men's organizations that men belonged to for life, and so on. Over the past half century, those support mechanisms have been torn down to the bare bones we live in today.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Competition for space in nursing homes is going to get absolutely cutthroat in the next few decades. Most of the women from GenX to GenZ have been so absolutely toxic they never had a family or ran their family off and will have no one interested or able to take care of them once they get old, and I am pressing X to doubt most of them saved enough money to pay for quality care.
At least the men that were smart enough to not let themselves get parasitized will have some funds left, though they'll have to practice constant vigilance to keep it that way.
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
The government will steal more of our money to pay for thousands of state-run nursing home facilities. They will be miserable places, like prisons, and efficient as the armed forces at managing tax dollars.
But don't worry, I'm sure the US will go the way of Canada and start advertising assisted suicide.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Well of course. The point of state run welfare isn't to take care of the masses. It is to get as much money in one spot as they can to facilitate leeches skimming off the top. Welfare programs for the masses is far more akin to how a farmer cares for livestock - once one costs more than what they can fleece the taxpayer out of, the snub nose .38 to the skull or its equivalent is soon to follow.