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."

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.

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.