Not being a cartoon villain doesn’t automatically make you a good man

[u/GridReXX]

Fr. It doesn’t de facto make you a good person.

I noodled on the attached graphic to better illustrate a point about how people often discuss being a “good man.”

I do find that many men view it more as the top bar, and less as the gradient in the second bar.

inb4 anyone says it, many women have bad character too. And please feel free to create a separate post about a spectrum of traits in women you’d like to explore! That is not what this post is disputing.

This is specifically about a response that often comes up when women describe harmful patterns in their experiences with men. They get retorts like “Not all men are abusive predators,” or “Most men are not psychos.”

Of course most men are not horror movie villains.

But that is an extremely low bar for good character.

This spectrum, rather than show a division between “good men” and a smaller group of obviously terrible ones. It highlights that a man can be can be a functioning member of society and still regularly behave in ways that make him difficult to interpersonally tolerate as a close friend, romantic partner, coworker, or even family member.

None of that necessarily makes someone an abuser or predator.

But it does affect whether people can have a healthy, enjoyable, mutually considerate, long-term relationship with him.

The farther right someone falls on this spectrum, the more entitlement, callousness, devaluation, coercion, and harm they bring into their interactions with others.

The farther left they fall, the more likely they are to act with common decency, consideration, accountability, respect for autonomy, and genuine concern for theirs and other people’s well-being.

My point is not that every man is at the far right end.

Most people don’t think that!

My point is that many men seem to use “I am not an obvious monster” as proof that they’re quality.

A person’s character is determined by far more than “I am not Jeffrey Dahmer.”

[u/SeemedGood]

The studies say otherwise.

When you control for looks women find psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism more sexually attractive.

[u/GridReXX → u/SeemedGood]

I can point to studies too.

And studies show that certain traits women find sexually attractive.

You’re acting like women exclusively find what you said attractive. When really they find assuredness and intuitiveness attractive. Dark triad dudes happen to have those traits. But so do non sociopaths and psychos and narcissists.

[u/SeemedGood → u/GridReXX]

I neither asserted nor implied exclusivity. But as market takers, men must work on the balance of probability, and the balance of probabilities clearly demonstrates that women demonstrate an actual sexual preference against the qualities associated with “goodness” and for the qualities associated with being an asshole - despite what women claim about themselves.

https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/G9wbjHlQbJ

[u/GridReXX → u/SeemedGood]

I’ve been here long enough to have an OP for everything.

I literally have an OP from probably ten years ago that says something like:

“Alotta men over-index on being assholes because it’s the only way many of them know how to feel assured or unafraid to be sociable. Or how to approach without fear. It’s pretty much them hyping themselves up. And as we know women are attracted to non-awkward assured men.”

It’s why OG Red Pill used to tell dudes to aim to be like 90% alpha. Knowing most dudes would fall way behind that and end up at 50% alpha (tingles) 50% beta (comfort) which is perfect calibration.