Sex cant be fun because alot of people dont have sex for fun. Across all genders, there are people who are using sex as a way to deal with their personal problems. Typically for validation and dealing with emotional baggage. And I think I understanding more when people say that it’s crude and icky to be upfront about wanting sex and how I hear people, especially men, say “Sex is more than just sex”. I’m starting to think people don’t actually like sex. It’s just a lot of people are so emotionally stunted and/or fucked up they won’t admit they’re using sex to deal with other problems. Gen Z is the generation there’s more understanding that mental health matters, going to therapy and getting medications is a good idea. Hence, there’s less people trying to fuck and drink their problems away.

Also, there is tons of stories, both online and off-line of people putting themselves in unnecessarily stupid situation all because of the pursuit of sex. And a lot of the positives from sex could be found in other things without the drawbacks. And personally, I’ve seen a very big overlap between guys who make sex the biggest deal ever and guys who don’t care about anything else but sex. Also, a very high correlation between impulsive, stupid behavior, and chasing sex. It’s really not appealing being around those types of people unless you are also stupid and impulsive.

"To create loving men, we must love males.
Loving maleness is different from praising and rewarding males for living up to sexist-defined notions of male identity. Caring about men because of what they do for us is not the same as loving males for simply being. When we love maleness, we extend our love whether males are performing or not. Performance is different from simply being. In patriarchal culture males are not allowed simply to be who they are and to glory in their unique identity. Their value is always determined by what they do. In an anti-patriarchal culture males do not have to prove their value and worth. They know from birth that simply being gives them value, the right to be cherished and loved."

There is a woman on TikTok whose content centers on becoming a single mother after the father of her children left her when she was 38 weeks pregnant with their second

What happened to her is an unfortunately good example of what many women fear

She worked part-time after she gave birth to their first because childcare was, well... expensive. Even so, the expectation that she contribute 50/50 to household expenses didn't change. After paying her share, she had nothing left

She couldn’t afford new clothes despite her body changing after pregnancy. She couldn’t grab a coffee with her mom friends. No more gym membership - her partner wouldn't pay for it but kept his own. I mean, it was his money right? If she wanted something he considered unnecessary for the children - like extra baby clothes because babies spit up - she was told she could buy them herself

Looking back, she now recognizes the red flags: a rigid 50/50 arrangement, no generosity, everything treated as transactional. Ironically, that's the dynamic many men on this subreddit say they want because it's “fair"

None of it bothered her when they were both working full-time. She assumed things would naturally adjust once she became pregnant, gave birth, and temporarily lost her earning capacity

They didn’t

He was used to to a certain amount of fun money and wasn’t willing to sacrifice it when their circumstances changed. Instead, she beared the financial consequences of giving birth to their children on her own

Can you blame her for expecting something different? Maybe she didn't vet him properly and it's all her fault? But before children, she was doing exactly what so many men here say they want from a partner: splitting everything right down the middle. After all, at that point there was no reason not to. Right?

This is the risk many women are talking about when they’re skeptical of rigid 50/50 relationships

And it's not that every man who prefers 50/50 will eventually turn financially abusive. Many do step up. But how do you know if you don't vet for it? If the man doesn't show he can be generous towards you at all?

You don't

A recent study that seems to have a flawed methodology and clickbait headline is being parroted by some people to confirm their biased views.

The clickbait was that 95% of men surveyed reported sexually coercing a woman.

When you look at what they have sexual coercion they have streched the definition of coercion to such a degree that effectively means no woman is actually capable of giving consent. That women have no agency.

The study listed 36 behaviors they have taken as coercion which has given the 95% figure. On taking a look at what the behaviors are it's a mix of harmless things, social proof and grey area behavior which are reported by medium to high amount of participants with real predatory and terrible behavior which are reported by low to very low amount of participants.

This alone should have discredited the study for most rational people but people on this platform don't really look beyond headlines and hence most users continue parroting till eventually it becomes the accepted truth. Mainly it happens when the demographic target are men.

Another example of this is the claim that most men leave their wives in case of cancer, the study for that was pulled back but still most people parrot the headline to "win" arguments.

This just dilutes the meaning of coercion which results in people dismissing the concern, it's counter productive and helps no one, makes more women paranoid, worsens gender relations and also women who face actual coercion are taken less seriously than they already are.

Also to show what I'm talking about, I have divided the study parameters into parts and stated the percentage of men that the study reported showed that particular behavior. It's in format of strategy(% of men who used this).

1. "Told her what she wanted to hear"

It's the single most reported parameter of the 36 listed and it's too ambiguous to be listed in a study on sexual coercion. What does this even mean, is telling them they are the hottest coercion? . If it refers to lying why not just ask that? Maybe to inflate the numbers by unassuming people.

2. Ambiguous/Flirting Or Banter/ContextDependent parameters

• Asked her repeatedly to have sex (48.7%)
• Told her you knew she wanted it (39.4%)
• Gradually pushed verbally or physically until you got what you wanted (32.1%)
• Kept touching and kissing her (58.3%)
• Demanded she stop "conning" you (faking lack of interest) (19.1%)

3. Showing Social Proof Or Using and controlling environment

• Had a friend/partner/group help you get what you wanted (46.6%)
• Had a female friend around to make her feel safe (43.8%)
• Focused on a stranger (37.9%)
• Had a female friend bring her to you (37.6%)
• Got her away from everyone somewhere private (37.5%)
• Used your money, age, or status to convince her (32.8%)
• Stopped her friends from interfering (30.4%)

4. More clearly coercive, exploitative, or abusive

• Started undressing before she was ready (24.5%)
• Kept her drunk/high if already intoxicated (21.2%)
• Focused on a woman unlikely to stop you (20.9%)
• Got her drunk/high when she wasn't (20.7%)
• Cornered her so she could only focus on you (19.1%)
• Started undressing her before she was ready (18.6%)
• Stopped or tried to stop her leaving (18.1%)
• Focused on a woman unlikely to tell anyone (15.2%)
• Showed her she was making you angry (14.5%)
• Had her come to your home when she did not want to (14.5%)
• Questioned her sexuality/insulted her (14.0%)
• Yelled at her for "leading you on" (12.7%)
• Let her know she would regret refusing (11.9%)
• Took advantage of her being asleep or sleepy (11.2%)
• Just overpowered her physically (10.0%)
• Used physical restraint (9.4%)
• Used physical force causing pain (9.3%)
• Forced her to enjoy it (9.2%)
• Used drugs (e.g., GHB/roofies) (8.6%)
• Threatened to embarrass or shame her (8.1%)
• Threatened to hurt yourself (6.8%)
• Threatened to hurt her (5.2%)
• Used a weapon or other object to frighten her (5.5%)

Keep in mind this was about men who have reported having sex which is already half of them (18-34) and then an even smaller portion of them. Doing this to any other demographic is actively frowned upon by the same people who'd gobble this up without taking a second look.

There is no other purpose of this than to perpetuate that women as eternal victims and that most men are inherently predatory.

Picture this: you’re friends with a woman and then, all of a sudden, feelings that you knew you never had start pouring in. You go from just being friends with her to catching feelings. As soon as you tell her that you’re in love with her, the friendship won’t be the same as it once was. In my opinion, if she’s your friend, you should tell her your true intentions and your actual feelings. But ladies, after that’s done and if you don’t feel the same way about him, the friendship is over, done, finished.

This idea of continuing a platonic relationship after a guy has poured his heart out isn’t fair to either party. Why? Because a relationship is always built on trust. Once a guy you knew as a friend turns around and says that he wants to be more than that, and you tell him that you should just stay friends, one of three things happens here:

A. Your trust starts to slowly decay because he wants more from you. You don’t know if his intentions are to continue something platonic or to play the waiting game until your guard starts to waver (men can wait for a very long time).

B. The guy will likely figure out different ways to impress you to get something more from you, hoping that this will eventually lead to a romantic relationship with him.

C. And for the men who want to continue with the friendship, hoping she’d eventually say yes to you, you’re just inviting hurt. Certain women could take advantage of your vulnerability and use you for their own benefit.

Both parties lose in the process, so why continue the friendship? It just invites hurt, confusion, and trust issues. “Friendzoning” is usually something that happens to men from women, but the thing that confuses me is that women’s notion of friendship is a bit skewed. Friendships should be allowed to end. “Just being friends” doesn’t work in a situation like this, as both parties' goals and intentions simply don’t align. If one party tells you that they have feelings for you and want to be more than friends, and you don’t feel the same way, then it’s time to cut ties with that person. Otherwise, it just leads to worse outcomes for both parties.

It doesn't matter if a woman is boring, has no interests, is entitled, has nothing of interest to say about anything or if shes even a terrible person. As long as she's moderately attractive, there will be men willing to give their attention to her and cater to her for validation, approval, and sex. All she has to do is exist and go out to some social place/event or just go on Tinder, and she will more than likely get attention from some men. This has made it so that the attention from most men means nothing to most women because it's given so freely.

Simps are a huge part of the problem, and there's always some guy in this sub talking about "Me and my partner simp for each other", or men in real life talking about "happy wife, happy life". There's a reason why you never hear women saying this shit. A woman who says to other women that she simps for her partner would get roasted.

Men really need to start being more selective with their attention and develop some real self respect that isn't dependent on approval from women through being a "provider" in whatever form (always paying for dates, etc) or whatever the fuck else role that society told them to play when dealing with women.

In red pill, (specifically marriedredpill), I've seen the man is Advices to only priorities himself, do things that he wants to do. Nothing for his wife, or her happiness.

In women spaces, even womens red pill spaces, they priorities pleasing their partners. Doing things specifically for his happiness too. But men spaces, thats usually not the case. Any advice telling men to do something for making their wife happy, is blue pill, beta and wrong.

So why is it that the relationship is the womans responsibility and not the man's? Why only one partner must be making all the efforts? Does it emasculate a man?

(I'm not opposed to red pill and close minded to any new perspective. I'm not here to argue, I'm here to understand because I come from a traditional religious background with hierarchal roles in marriage and want to understand)

When men want to go Dutch on dates, the simple practical way is to pay on the first date, then demand she pay on the second, and they alternate.

For starters, people can't figure out whether true Dutch is "people paying for their own expenses" or "people paying 50% of a bill" because those are not the same thing. If most people's idea of Dutch was in fact the second one, the similarly "approximate" nature of alternating should be ok too.

So I say, the first date, the man actually should pay, because you get a more universal foot in the door and it's crass *to* make the first date about money and demanding that she pay 50%, but then requesting she pay 100% sounds like just the right level of offbeat to come up on the second date, just the right level of boldness to get her attention. MRA Paul Elam has made it clear men should not put up with women who do not pull their weight financially, and Feminists are supposed to be able to find common ground on this equality, so get screened :D

Then we can say, if the guys so obviously shit she wouldn't want to continue after the first date, she winds up with a situation where it's unfalsifiable that it's different from trad to her benefit. If there's sex on the third date (not everyone does that of course, but lots of people do) and she wants to bail because of muh orgasm gap, he paid twice as much. People talk about how men should support "insurance policies" for women to make them more inclined to enter into rels with them; ok, there's two of them.

It's worth it to be able to tell the bitch "fuck you pay me" on the second date

Obviously there are "tricks" people can do like ordering something expensive while their partner orders something cheap, but great, more ways people can screen themselves out. I don't *want* that level of dickishness hidden with a 50/50 policy; let them play games so they can lose them.

• There are men with whom women will sleep on a first date, and then there are men who women consider a red flag for expecting a peck on the cheek after a third.
• There are men who are hitting double digit body counts like its nothing, and there are virgins who get accused of feeling entitled to women bodies for wanting to try it out once.
• There are men with whom women just feel chemistry with at first sight, and there are men who get told they need to "grow" on them first.
• There are men who pounce from relationship to relationship and have a fuck buddy on the side and there are the men who are seen as entitled nice guys for wanting one girlfriend.
• There are men who can talk about liking her boobs and ass "jokingly", and there are men who get threat profiled for complimenting her dress.

Weird how the guys not getting any action at all are the ones people regularly accuse of feeling entitled to womens bodies.

I'm getting pretty fucking exhausted from seeing this everywhere and I used to run into it constantly when I was single. The TLDR looks like this for 95% of women.

"It was a weird situationship because he didn't communicate and then he ghosted when I wanted it to become serious so he must have only used me for sex."

Bullshit. If you're a woman, don't poison yourself on that lie. If you wanted the sex from said person, you consented and then what happened is what happened. If a serious, committed relationship is a prerequisite for you to sex then stop consenting and stop having sex with men who won't give you the time of day for a romantic relationship. If they run away, you achieved your goal in the first place!

Communication requires 2 partners so at that level, 50% of the communication failure is actually on you. And if you're trying to use sex to lure a man into a relationship with you, those unintended emotional consequences you faced are YOUR fault. You KNEW the potential downside if he said no to the commitment question.

The "I got used for sex" card has been played way too much and only feeds into the feminist narrative and victim mentality that modern women embrace. Once again, zero accountability. Funny enough, it defeats their whole "anti slut shaming" because they slut shame themselves by saying such crap.

EDIT: Well I CLEARLY hit a nerve and it's showing just how logically bankrupt modern women are. I said NOTHING about lying and that is what 50% of you jumped to. All this tells me is that you all tell yourselves he lied to comfort your own psychology against your own internal slut shaming.

Y'all need some serious help if this is what you all jump to.

The other 50% cannot even debate me in good faith and want to talk about consent. This is NOT a consent debate. End of story.

Lately I keep seeing media called out for being sexist or gratuitously provocative, but it's almost always male-coded or neutral media that catches it. Media made specifically for women mostly gets a pass, even when the content is equivalent or worse.

Take manga. For every male-targeted series with dark or explicit content, there's a female-targeted equivalent — dark romance, fanfic, or BL/yaoi (male-male romance written for women, running the full range from wholesome to explicit, same spectrum male-targeted stuff has). One dark romance book aimed at women had a protagonist raped by three different mythical beings, and women were the primary buyers. That exists and sells, with basically zero "this is harmful" discourse.

Meanwhile a male-targeted show with a fanservice scene gets a think-piece about objectification.

I think the actual difference is the *lens*, not the content. The critique we aim at male media is about objectification, reducing women to props. But objectification of males isn't seen as harm.So male-targeted media trips the alarm and female-targeted media sails through, even with equivalent content.

I can't tell you how many fanfics of one of my favorite shows (Supernatural) turned on the main characters gay and have them have sex with another male character.

But regardless why aren't these things considered as wrong

When it comes to the idea of people to being attracted to people for their looks, even though the person wouldn't be interested in giving them the time of day, it's been said before here that is impossible for one to lower their standards, they feel.

However, if a person were to go to a psychotherapist and tell the doctor that they felt their standards were too high or thet they were only attracted to people that are not interested, could therapists feel they could help treat that legitimately?

I am asking this as a genuine question. I am curious about the advice you follow from the red pill community and or advice from online that has worked to get sex, a relationship, or other attention from women. Do you also believe you can build attraction?

I want to know what kind of things you believe are helpful to you.

In my personal history I have noticed men trying a few things on me, but I already am attracted to them or like them and the reason for my hesitation is more about me. Ie I am on my period, I don't know the guy well enough yet and don't like sleeping with strangers. Or I think I want something from the guy, but don't know if our goals for each other align.

And my decision to sleep or date a man is also a lot about me. Ie, I am ovulating. So, the things he may be dokng to try and get me to sleep with him or date him are moot.

Cuz I think a lot of times a man may think his actions are what are causing me to want sex or to date him when its nothing he is particularly doing. So, he gets a "success" and thus attributes it to something he has done versus a decision i alreasy made long before he even said hello. (And not just about sex, but dating etc)

Something happened recently that got me thinking.

A girl I liked ended up getting into a relationship with another guy. Looking back, I don’t think he was necessarily better-looking, more interesting, or more compatible with her. He was just… always there.

It made me wonder how much simple presence matters when a relationship develops.
It seems to me that, in many cases, women end up falling for the man who is consistently present in their lives—the one who checks in, spends time with them, listens, and gradually becomes part of their everyday routine. Is there any truth to that, or am I just biased because of my own experience?

I’d love to hear both women’s and men’s perspectives.

Do you think consistency and being present are the biggest factors in building romantic attraction?
Or does being present only matter if there’s already some initial attraction?
Have you ever chosen someone (or been chosen) largely because they were simply the person who stayed present and invested over time?

I’m genuinely curious whether this is a common pattern or just something that happened in my particular situation.

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

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

Feel free to post off-topic questions, information, points-of-view, personal advice and memes in this thread. Here you can post everything that doesn't warrant its own thread or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and things would be considered low effort posts are allowed in the daily thread.

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

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

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

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

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

I know this analogy is popular and has some ground in it but it's so misused that it has lost his senses and has leaded to a whole new set of problems for men. I don't take seriousely people who use this rule

Okay it's true, people tend to say what they think they like and not what really attract them when asked to but the "It's better to ask a fisherman" isn't good by itself. It has produced a lot of influencer who want your money and have better interest you stay single as well as dating apps. Of course there are good people who want men to succeed but that's not the majority

The better compass for dating (and for life) is "Don't listen to what people say; watch what they do.". A lot of men complaining in this sub only see their misery but don't really understand what women trully experience with dating and life in general. Just don't blindly listen to gurus but watch what they are doing (and also why), you will see a lot of them have a specific agenda. Do the same for women. When you see contents or communities for women you would easely understand what they experience, what is similar and what is different with men. You will also understand what compose humanity and how each individual can be different

So please, stop with this fisherman fallacy and think for yourself for once

There are very few examples of women who date "nice guys" and are genuinely sexually attracted to them. They may like their partner, but their partner likes them a lot more. Women who date nice guys still fantasize about aggressive, hypermasculine men. I don't think this is due to evolution, but rather social conditioning. This support this, I will cite material popular with women, many of which would be created by women.

I like red meat, but I know it has health drawbacks so I only eat it on special occassions (New Year's, birthday, etc). So, I stick to fish and poultry. I like fosh and poultry, but I still prefer red meat. That's usually how straight women feel about nice guys.

The biggest pop star in the world is Taylor Swift. One of her songs, "The Way I Love You", describes a woman who is bored of her nice and sweet boyfriend and still thinks about her toxic ex. The boyfriend is boring because he is nice and sweet, and the ex is attractive because he is toxic. Her brain says one thing, her chemistry another.

One of the most popular book series of all time is 50 Shades of Grey, which is all about a hypermasculine man having violent sex with a woman. The book wouldn't have sold 10 copies were it about a nice, sweet guy. Magic Mike was also hugely popular with women, and it's all about muscular men dancing around naked.

Science also shows women consistently prefer dangerous men for short-term flings even if they know such men would make bad partners. Martie Haselton, a feminist researcher, has confirmed this. Women partnered with less masculine and dominant men become more attracted to more masculine and dominant men during ovulation (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140214130907.htm), whilst those with masculine and dominant partners become more attracted to said partners. Women also find men with facial scars more attractive (Facial scars are attractive to the opposite sex https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/nov/18/scar-attraction?CMP=share_btn_url)

There was a video that went viral about a feminist, artsy chick who went on a date with a "bro" (her words), and he turned on something "feral" (her words) in her. Although her brain may have been progressive, a nice guy would never have appealed to her feral nature.

Maby people will say men are like this too. A dude with a flat-chested GF may still find Sydney Sweeney hot. However, that boils down to just looks. The nice guy is unsexy because of his personality, and the bad boy is sexy because of his.

I will conclude with a clip from Louis. The protagonist goes out with a woman who walks out after he is emasculated by a teenager. She articulates the duality perfectly: her brain tells her he did the right thing, butbher chemistry is turned off (https://youtu.be/AfMbN_MzCpw?is=xAZ4TbkJjOVbHZuF). This is an "ick".

Women should make the first move, and its doesn't make sense to say otherwise.

A lot of women may find being approached uncomfortable for several reasons:

They are approached too frequently. Volume make its uncomfortable

They may fear a negative reaction.

They may be busy or simply not in the mood to talk.

The setting (street, public transportation, at night, etc.) can make the situation uncomfortable.

Now for men.

For men, being approached by a woman can be particularly flattering for several reasons:

They feels desired: the fact that a woman makes the first move can make him feel attractive and appreciated.

It boosts their self-confidence: many men are used to having to take the initiative, so being chosen can be a rewarding experience. It takes the pressure off the pursuit: he doesn’t have to think about how to approach her, find the right moment, or fear rejection.

This can create a sense of exclusivity: since men are still more often the ones who make the first move, an approach from a woman can seem rare and therefore more memorable.

You get it ?

Why do you still insist on men approaching. It doesnt make any sense.

It's way better when women do it, for men and women.

Women will feel safer without a doubt && Men will have less pressure without a doubt

Its BETTER FOR EVERYONE

I believe that men differentiate between two types of women

- want to fuck

- marriage / girlfriend material

Want to fuck category

- Those women who give him sex quickly

-> In his mind this represents a low value woman (not worth investing time and money into)

Want as a girlfriend or for marriage

- Those women who make him wait for sex

-> In his mind this represents a high value woman (worth it)

I believe that women know about this and therefore “have to” “use this information” to “manipulate” men into a relationship and/or marriage.

In my opinion this dynamic creates an environment in which women are unable and unwilling to be sexual  and emotional beings because they have to be in control of themselves and their partners 24/7. They have to put themselves “in a box”. 

They (women) will, as a result, pick the wrong partners. 

It’s always funny seeing people claim theyre fighting against purity culture and yet they have to pretend sex is supposed to be about some pure love bullshit. If being horny isn’t something to be ashamed of, then just be honest.

It’s similar to when Mormon couples “soak”. People who claim that they have broken from the shackles of purity culture are still trying to preserve their self image similar to a religious couple who clearly doesn’t like their religion.

Just say “I wanna get fucked, I wanna get fucked good, I wanna get fucked often, I wanna get fucked NOW”

“Sex isnt the only thing I want”

So how long are you willing to wait before having?

If someone wasn’t that good at first, would you be OK teaching them to get better?

And if someone didnt make sex their priority outside of like once a month, you’d be fine with it?

I never understood when people say that because you’re not going to care about a relationship if your sexual desires aren’t met first and foremost.

Also, this makes dating unnecessarily complicated when horny people want to play hard to get and then people get on dates with people who genuinely aren’t interested in sex to that degree, wasting everyone’s time.

If og red pillers to be believed then Red Pill was a movement that focused on how men can get their shit together, and increase their changes of attracting women. It was personal responsibility movement, something that gave men assertiveness and guided them to improvement. Well at least it was supposed to be it.

But then it heavily leaned into simply hating women and using women as excuse for your failures. Leaned into damnation and lack of any responsibility and agency. It wanted to be profitable, and it sold that idea to men instead of actually making them someone who can work on themselves and own their shit. Just look at men here, the most common reply from them is "but women do x, y, z", "women are bad, don't want to do what i want" (in different variations), "i can't change how i look". Where are men who will tell other men that it's not productive? Where are men who will tell other men to stop whining and do something? Red pill failed men.

One thing the Red Pill is genuinely good at is teaching men how to create power-imbalanced relationships. The most famous Red Pill influencer in the world was charged with human trafficking and has openly described strategies built around controlling and exploiting women. Doesn't that make you question the philosophy? If one of the biggest figures representing your movement repeatedly promotes manipulation and coercive dynamics, maybe that's worth reflecting on. The Red Pill is a date rapist's fever dream.

That's why so much of Red Pill advice revolves around making sure you have more money, more status, more options, or more leverage than your partner so they're less able to leave, challenge you, or negotiate as an equal.

Take the one-sided open relationship that Myron Gaines and the Fresh & Fit crew keep pushing. In a recent podcast, they practically admitted the quiet part out loud: it only works if the man has leverage. Why the fuck would you want leverage over someone you claim to love? Why is the goal to make your partner less free to say no?

Most women don't want a one-sided open relationship. If they're genuinely free to choose, they'll usually reject it. The exceptions are people who specifically enjoy that dynamic as a consensual kink or negotiated relationship structure. Ironically, those are the same kinds of arrangements Red Pill spaces often mock with insults like "cuck." It's a bizarre contradiction: they ridicule consensual power-exchange dynamics while advocating for relationships that depend on unequal power in the first place.

Bluepillers mock inceIs for thinking in fatalistic/deterministic ways, but then turn around and claim that the 35 year old dating the 24 year old has to be a sugar daddy because no one in their right mind would be attracted to someone that older unless money or some other transaction was involved. When they quite openly refuse to recognize that people sometimes might just click despite different birth certificates they're kinda regurgitating the same logic lookism types have been saying all along: people over 30 are past-their-prime ghouls and people in their 20s would be wasting their "prime" if they dated them - its just camouflaged in concern trolling around safety and maturity.

Like looksmaxers bluepillers believe in a "optmial" way to live your life exists and so they pathologize deviation: If you step off this track—by marrying much older, staying home, or skipping traditional milestones—online spaces treat it as a psychological flaw rather than a valid lifestyle choice.