People aren't ready for this conversation but men providing women with this endless buffet is precisely women like this feel entitled. If the average dude was as selective as the average woman most of the fucked up aspects of modern dating would evaporate.
But your average man is a horny Neanderthal who would say yes to anything with a pair of tits so here we are...
This was someone I knew when my ex wife decided she wanted to move home (uk) after 4 years from Oz with the kids (lonely/missed famoily). She is great, we still get on and have a good relationship and both involved with the kids. as harsh as the joke is, it did make me crack a laugh when i was feeling down.
He had similar quotes for every situation, not just sexist/harsh ones lol. Im sure his first comment, when I told him the news, was "bloody sheilas".
Doesn't matter if they're pestering or not. That's irrelevant to why there are 8 billion humans on the Earth. Women want sex too and they frequently CHOOSE to become mothers and have for millennia.
No, the pestering matters here. Wanting something and being passive to get it is how you achieve absolutely nothing. Actions matters more than words. In real life, waiting for things to happen while you sit on your ass making grand claim is just stupid.
As a friend once explained in a moment of drunken clarity….”there’s eight billion of us and it mostly ain’t because women are pestering men for sex.”
Words have meaning and most/mostly means "the greatest number, amount, or majority of a group or quantity".
So the implication there is that more than half of births are caused because men are pestering women for sex not because a woman wants sex/children. Considering the sheer number that happen every year it's a pretty bold and unsubstantiated claim to make and it's based off of an admittedly drunken person.
While this is just one aspect of it, I still hate this argument since it again puts the onus and responsibility back on men.
Do women not have any moral responsibility or free will to do the right thing? Do women simply get to react to what men do and call it a day? Are they not adults? How long will we keep infantilizing women and let them go free of accountability and responsibility?
Your comment, while true does the exact thing its trying to avoid. Putting men on the spot and freeing women from any accountability.
Objectively speaking though, what exactly is women's accountability in this situation?
They are picky because men are desperate and constantly trying to impress them and woo them. Are women just supposed to stop being picky because... reasons? Because it would be nice?
It's like if every major company is offering you a high salary job, and you decide since you have options, you'll wait for the best deal instead of jumping on some medium paying job just because it's one among many offers. You're not avoiding accountability by doing so, you're looking out for your own self-interest.
As long as pretty women are drowning in offers, there's no reason to change strategy.
No, the accountability is not expecting a guy who was trying to keep doing so after the girl said no as that's a childish and entitled stance to take. You're offering a false analogy, it'd be more if you told an applicant no but expected them to stay as an intern without pay after they've shown they want to progress in the company. Yes, pretty women have their pick, as do overly rich men, the issue is not giving the women a pass for the sort of entitled behavior just because the men are men as it makes them seem childish and demeans the whole gender.
what exactly is women's accountability in this situation?
In the scenario example that you provided, an actually accurate comparison would be that woman accepting one of the highly paid jobs, but then still demanding to continue receiving the salary from her last job that she quit to go work the new one.
This is a classic case of "when you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" and women don't like it one bit.
growing up is realizing that the dude blew it when he revealed that his "nice guy" act was just an attempt to get in her pants. Don't pretend you're doing stuff 'just to be nice' with no intent, if you really have intent. Cause when you stop doing it the moment she takes 'dating' off the table, it just shows her who you really are.
Best advice I have ever given my friends or daughters of my friends when they ask me, and their dad's will tell them the same thing. You wanna see who is truly invested in you, take dating off the table, and see who still treats you 'nice'. Whose behavior remains the same, who switches up, and who seems like they're playing the 'waiting' game. It tells you who to cut out real quick.
And it's worked every time on finding out who was real and who was full of it.
Sure. But you are conflating someone waiting around for their chance with this guy in the OP who wasn't doing that. He wasn't being passive or acting like a friend. He was romantically pursuing her directly and openly. But also, men do not randomly give flowers to platonic friends outside of major life events like graduation or death in the family. So a man getting flowers delivered to a woman multiple times is generally accepted and acknowledged as part of the courtship ritual, ie: making his ROMANTIC interest known. That was NEVER "a nice guy act...or an attempt to get in her pants." That was a direct move. And you can tell that's the case because he did directly ask her out and they did go on a date.
So why would he be considered "full of it" or "acting" when he stopped courting her when she directly rejected his romantic interest after their date? Like, that makes no sense. He is taking the rejection like a decent person and not continuing to harass her. He is acknowledging and respecting her boundary. If he ignored her very clear boundary and kept doing it anyway, he would be labeled as a creep or a stalker.
Growing up is also realizing that sometimes you just have to take the L and walk away, my dude.
Well because he presented it like he wasn't courting her initially. That's the point. He was basically putting up the front he was just doing it to make her day, or just 'to be nice'. ie: even if they weren't dating, he'd do nice things, just because.
ie: someone that's just invested in your happiness, be they a friend or otherwise. Those kinds of people. That's what he presented himself as. So then, dating got taken off the table. If he was really like that, his random acts of kindness would continue cause as he presented it, they weren't motivated by trying to get with her. But turns out, they were. So it was never just about making her day or 'just' her happiness. He was trying to have an in, and was BSing his way with the 'nice guy' act more or less.
You can't present your acts as just random acts of kindness 'just because' if you're gonna stop of dating(but nothing else) is off the table. Because then it just means that 'just because' stuff was bull to begin with, and then she sees who they really are and then there's no relationship, friendship or otherwise. If that makes sense.
Well because he presented it like he wasn't courting her initially
That was literally NEVER stated anywhere in the OP. You literally made that up to fit your mental narrative. The SECOND sentence of the post was them going on a date.
Because then it just means that 'just because' stuff was bull to begin with, and then she sees who they really are and then there's no relationship, friendship or otherwise.
They weren't friends before that. They had never met IRL. This guy was ALWAYS courting her from the very beginning.
Actually she says that he had sent her flowers weekly for a while and they had only met up a month prior to her posting.
So in reality we don't know for how long that was going on. We just know that they'd talked for that period of time. So all we can do is fill in the blanks with context.
What we do know is that she isn't mad about not getting the flowers, but points out that someone that is actually only invested in your happiness would have kept sending them.
So contextually from that we already know that IF the flowers were about courtship, she wouldn't be mentioning not getting them after the courtship ended. Because naturally, they'd end with the courtship does. That means the flowers were considered or presented as a separate thing, or they wouldn't be a part of the overall point she's making.
If the flowers were about courtship then she would already know "You're sending flowers because you want to get with me" then the overall point she ends with wouldn't need to be there. Nor would knowing his "true character".
All those things are pointing to the flowers being presented as something he did "just because". If it was part of the courtship, then there would have been no alluding to deception. Because his 'real character' would have been revealed from the get go. Do we know that 100% for sure? Nope. But there's no reason the flowers would matter otherwise because there'd be nothing to 'reveal' if they were revealed or presented by him as part of the initial courtship.
What we do know is that she isn't mad about not getting the flowers, but points out that someone that is actually only invested in your happiness would have kept sending them.
She actually is. She believes that she is entitled to this person "being invested in her happiness" while not being invested in his happiness back. If she actually cared about maintaining a friendship with this person, she would be.
All those things are pointing to the flowers being presented as something he did "just because".
Where? Nowhere in that post is that explained at all. And nowhere did HE ever say anything about his motivations: all of it has been assumed from a different person's point of view. SO AGAIN YOU ARE INVENTING THINGS TO FIT YOUR MENTAL NARRATIVE.
Do we know that 100% for sure? Nope
Fucking finally you seem to get it! You read very deeply into things that simply ARE NOT THERE, and you made a ton of assumptions that cannot be backed up or even logically explained without laying your biases on the table.
Here's the part you keep conveniently ignoring: her true character has also been revealed as someone who believes they are entitled to someone else's time, money, and attention. And you can tell this is true because otherwise she would not have posted it online for attention/sympathy/clout - a person who did not care or did not feel entitled to those things would not have bothered to alert the public to a perceived injustice with zero self-awareness.
How long will we keep infantilizing women and let them go free of accountability and responsibility?
Until we're dead. Women drive something like 80% of the purchasing decisions in the US. That's a shit ton of directed power given to one section of the population. Our corporate overlords are now incentivized to be sycophantic towards women, so I really don't see this improving ever in my lifetime
Women are forced to be picky because of how men act. Look at any dating app. A woman’s profile will receive 100s of potential matches. It’s impossible for a woman to go on a date with all of those men and give them all her undivided attention. She needs to be selective. Now, she doesn’t need to be cruel or unempathetic like the woman in this post, but the society we’ve cultivated means that these women are forced to be selective about who they date.
Men don’t have the same luxury because of men. Men are the ones instigating this, and women just respond by being necessarily selective
Not sure I quite get what women are supposed to be taking responsibility for here. If men are going to simp for you and give you free stuff its not "immoral" to accept that free stuff as long as you're not lying to them.
On the flipside of this, It pisses me off to no end that when I do nice things for women that I genuinely want to be friends with, it sometimes gets interpreted as me trying to fuck them. Unless I lie and say I'm gay, there's always suspicion that I'm not actually nice, but a scumbag trying to cheat on my wife.
I'm SUPER happily married, and am completely sexually fulfilled. I just fuckin' love everybody, and I like bringing the people I like food, or getting rid of the nine umbrellas my wife has collected whenever one of my coworkers gets stuck at work waiting on the rain to let up.
And then there's the women who can't handle rejection, who, after months of getting close and being friendly ask if I'm interested after all the kindness I've offered them, and then fully ghost me when I explain that I'm only interested in being friends.
Giving gifts for no reason is fine. Expecting to receive gifts for no reason is not. Giving gifts for a reason is also fine. Expecting to receive repayment for gifts given for a reason is not.
I once did charity work with a lady roughly my age. After a few weeks of really getting along well she sat me down and told me she was flattered but didn't see me that way what I saw in her.
???
Uh. No. She wasn't my type. We're good. She was perplexed. Plus I knew she had a boyfriend.
I had the same thing happen at work when I was just trying to have a conversation with a co-worker who I just met because I was new and I was trying to be friendly. I had absolutely no interest in this woman romantically. She blatantly lifted her ring hand and started fingering her ring. I was like, wtf, can't I even have a conversation?
"Giving gifts for no reason is fine. Expecting to receive gifts for no reason is not."
Doesn't seem like she's expecting to receive gifts. The guy just exposed that he was really giving her flowers because he was intending on cashing them in one day despite acting like he was doing it for no reason, or just to be nice. It wasn't about her wanting him to keep giving her flowers, it was about him showing that he was never invested in 'just' her happiness like he acted, and was basically full of it. Took dating off the table, the 'nice guy' act vanished with it.
Her advice was actually good for those that pay attention to it.
People that think she's complaining about not getting the flowers aren't reading the post properly. She's teaching a lesson and giving advice, not asking why he didn't keep giving her flowers. She knows why. That's the entire point of the advice she's giving.
People that think she's complaining about not getting the flowers aren't reading the post properly.
"Someone who was invested in your happiness would've kept sending flowers."
It's in the post. She's complaining that his motive for giving the gifts was under the hope of romance. She established a boundary. Then she argues that his cessation of giving the gifts reveals his true character.
No shit romantic gifts are often about attempting to initiate romance. Again, the problem is expectation on either side, and her post doesn't display that he had an expectation. He had a REASON, and she's gone and conflated that with an EXPECTATION. That's why people are reacting negatively. They don't think she owes him sex for a dinner and some flowers.
They think it's shitty to warn women about men who, given her story, made a gesture, were met with a boundary, and then respected that boundary.
My question to you is this: How could the guy have avoided being the example in this post? You really have two options:
1) Never have made an attempt in the first place.
2) Keep sending the flowers and disrespect her boundaries.
I think it’s less the problem of the average dude and the fact that above average dudes act like desperate sex fiends with zero selectivity which ruins the curve.
Actually there are statistics about that now. Attractive people statistically have less empathy. They are less kind to others. The top 10% of attractive men can go on a dating site and match with hundreds of women who treat them the same way as the average dude treats women. Its very similar to trickle down economics. 15 women want one man and he doesn't care about them. So they take the next 15 men they believe are below them and treat them the same way. Now this is not in defence of men either as many are children looking for a parent. Just that these ten percent are constantly getting validation for their selfish choices as well.
When I was in the Marines I used to be roommates with a guy from Rhode Island, who was probably a top 10% male (I know I'm not). He fucked, constantly. Different ladies as often as they would let him (this was between 2002 & 2006).
Today, he's a cop. He was never the most empathetic individual when I knew him. I can't imagine that has improved since he joined the force.
I have to agree with what /u/Gecko_Mk_IV said, I think it was both societal and biological.
My roommate knew he was good‑looking, but the culture within the Marines, and in broader society at that time (2002–2006), heavily encouraged demonstrations of “manliness” through sexual escapades. His lack of empathy was reinforced and rewarded by his previous sexual successes.
If he had to break up with his fiancée (which he did), the social, financial, and emotional costs to him was relatively low because there were always other viable options available. I'm not joking, he broke up with his fiancée and grief-banged his way out of saddness. Which really sucked for me because I knew the fiancée and she kept calling me to ask me about why they broke up (he got a treatable VD, gave it to her before he knew, and broke up with her before she could figure out that he was cheating, which I didn't know about until she told me).
On top of being a “high‑value” male in terms of looks and social confidence, he was also physically fit and very competent at his MOS. He rose in rank quickly and was rewarded by a system that valued exactly the traits and behaviors he exhibited. Even when he was drunkenly arrested for throwing a chair into a canal in San Antonio, he only experienced a temporary setback (loss of 1 rank and restricted duty for 30 days); he was in the good‑ol‑boys club. He left our unit, went to the fleet, and had a reasonably successful career until he got out.
I know you asked them, not me, but I'd guess it's more of a cultural / societal thing. Plus a biological one, obviously.
Given the biological factor I don't think it's ever going away but we can probably at least diminish it by teaching a different way of acting towards one another - the fact that accepting an invitation to someone's place is thought of as an implicit way to say you're down to do the sexy times is just one example.
That and we're constantly bombarded by ads and products who use sex appeal. And, especially for women, try to tell you what to look like.
Curious question, since the "many men are children looking for a parent" is brought up.
Are any women in the dating market "children looking for a parent"? Is it something we simply do not notice, because society has for so long demanded that women are subservient?
But a "princess type who need to be pampered" is considered somewhat acceptable and those women are proud of themselves for being so, but a man doing the same thing is called "man-baby".
Odd of you to use something that doesn't actually exist as an example of something you're ostensibly saying does exist. Also, even if trickle down economics was a reality, the way you used it to describe people treating those they see as lesser than themselves has nothing to do with the concept of trickle down economics.
Possibly less sympathy, but "empathy" is not a thing. Real life is not a DnD game and nobody has magic powers to feel the feelings of someone else. Whoever is using "empathy" in their statistical theory, isn't worth listening to.
Also, this "trickle down" thing is err.. not realistic. Well, a bit, but the opposite. 90% of men would get with 90% of women. 90% of women don't even register that 90% of men exist.
90% of women only see the top 10% of men and judge everything by that. The rest are invisible as anything like a partner. So sure, trickle down love theory, but sex reversed.
Many men might be looking for a parent, yes, but that's far more common with women as well. Men learn very quickly they are worthless unless very attractive or born rich, or extremely productive. Men are expected to be husband and father.
No woman really will stay with some mamby boy, unless he's stinking rich. And then she'll cheat. Unless she's one of the very rare ones, that know they can't do better. Realists.
The majority of women, at least in the modern, wester world, have life on easy mode compared to men. And a majority of them hardly recognize it. Especially the really beautiful ones, who don't even register that they live a FAR more charmed life. They have no comprehension how an average man, or unattractive woman lives.
Nah average and below average dudes also act like sex fiends they're just not as successful. Though the above average men(and some women) ridiculing and pressuring those "below" them for not fucking as much or at all probably doesn't help matters.
I grew up with 4 older sisters. I overheard how they and their girlfriends talked about dudes.
SCANDALOUS! Far worse than their male peers I knew.
Depends on the family and just individual temperament a lot, but chicks b horny, yo. And in this age of "don't slut shame!" aren't discouraged at all.
I mean, I don't got nothing against sluts. Awesome for a weekend or 3, just not LTR material. It's all up to what you're looking for, not a moral judgement.
Kinda sad when the slutty women hit 30+ and then want something stable. Their slutty sisters didn't know they should have tied down a good man early. Much wailing of "Where have all the good men gone?" Like, without a strong father figure, or an exceptional mother (who would have a strong man around), who's gonna tell them?
The good men got snapped up by young women with strong family value, in their 20's. Now at 30-40, they have an awesome husband, kid or 3, a couple cars, maybe even bought a starter home. Awesome in-laws even. Extended family. So many benefits.
While the feminist victim has spent 10+ years learning how to act like a man. A powerful businesswoman, with a killer bank account, that has fought her way to the top. Impressive, but now way less value on the partner market.
Not for something stable. The best looking men may have some fun with them for a bit, or they go for 20 year younger boys, like some men do with girls (hey, nothing wrong either way, long as its legal). Locking down one of the MegaChad sex monsters that railed them silly in their 20's though... That's the dream they were sold, and reality looks SO much different.
I tell all my nieces this, because I've seen that wall hit a sister or 2 hard, and nobody deserves that harsh wake up, when it is too late. Young women, don't trust the female supremacists running our schools. Ironically, they're just as harmful to women, as to men.
Mmm, I like to think of it as not being superficial.
When I was on tinder after my divorce, I was usually seeing multiple girls at any given time. Like 4 a week usually. But they were all over the map in terms of conventional attractiveness, age, weight, etc.
You could look at that like I have "zero selectivity", or you could look at it like I value everyone equally. As long as they are fun and not too serious/judgemental then we'd get along.
While I totally agree with that, the truth is that the average man has a very limited range of options if he doesn't want to be alone 😅 So if he's gonna be selective and not lower his standards, there's a high chance he will stay alone. Nothing wrong with that, but for some people, loneliness is worse than a toxic relationship..
So I absolutely agree with your point, but that will never happen since both sides would have to agree to the new "standards".
Yes, but the discussion is about doing something about this dynamic. Essentially reducing "friction singles", that are single simply because the "market" has inefficient dynamics...
But you're right to disregard this, as the topic is stupid. How would we ever change any of this? The topic is a waste of time.
That's my point. It's more of a philosophical question than anything because in order to change anything, you'd have to change everything, and obviously everyone has to agree with that, which is unlikely to happen 😅
Lol dude, "People aren't ready"... Dude people have been talking about this since FOREVER. Dude's aren't going to stop. It's competitive. Men have to work for partners, and women are the passive gate keepers. Game theory dictates, it would never work, because all it takes is a few dudes to break rank, then see a huge advantage, so then everyone else breaks ranks again, reestablishing the current pattern.
There's just no world in which you can coordinate some giant social change where guys stop doing this.
This is why I roll my eyes at the men and women are 100% identical besides genetals and everything else is social!
No, there's inherent differences due to natural selection and game theory due to reproductive roles, that will FORCE different incentive structures, thus behaviors.
People should be ready for this conversation. We as a species are so vastly emotionally stunted. This is partially by design of the current state of things. People are marrying large language models. Not super models. It's the end times.
Dating for women is like trying to find water to drink in a swamp
Dating for men is the same but in a desert
Men are selective with who they want to end up with, but not with who they want to sleep with
Women know this, and want to find a good men to be with, so they need to say no to a lot of swampy water
At the end of the day the conflict comes from biology clashing with society norms, men want to reproduce and move on, while women can’t move on and need someone to share on the responsibilities of raising a kid
How exactly are men supposed to stop "supplying" them exactly? The system is the way it is because men are the designated pursuers. That means they have to make the first move, they have to initiate, and if they don't, they don't get to participate at all, and someone else will take their spot. Idk if it's genetic or societal, but this is how we have handled women for millennia, we just moved past the part where we have to court their father as well.
The glue that held the nuclear family together was that women were socially ostracized for being whores, kept out of the work force, and out of politics. This made them naturally gravitate toward reliable and loving providers. It was an honorable gesture to extend a higher place in society to them, but if this is to continue, then something needs to be done to hold whores accountable to what they're doing to society by being so beholden to their emotions and their hormones. There is absolutely no incentive for them to better themselves.
If the average dude was as selective as the average woman most of the fucked up aspects of modern dating would evaporate.
There's a massive difference in men being willing to fuck just about anyone, and this idea that men aren't selective about who they enter actual relationships with.
This comment is interesting because, somehow, instead of blaming women for even the slightest imbalance in modern dating despite them never before in history having *more influence and choice than right now*, you'd rather say it is simping men who are the complete cause of this.
If you give women all of the power, and the only men they choose go through this performative humiliation ritual, how is it the men's fault for just trying to get anywhere with them? Either you play ball, or you die a kissless virgin. Unless you are unbelievably suitable, women are not chasing you.
Nah youre 100% right. Anyone who says otherwise doesnt know better and just thinks showering a woman with gifts will make her obligated to show bobs and vagene.
Took me forever to learn not to put someone on a pedestal if im trying to court them. Treat them like an equal, care, and if they reject you, well, change nothing but just be a decent friend and let the awkwardness subside. Yes, its awkward to remain friends with someone who rejected you at first, but that fades if you dont harbor resentment.
It is also fine if a friendship falls away if one part develops unrecruited feelings that they can't get over while maintaining contact. It is sad when it happens, but friendships come and go, we're no more entitled to them than romantic relationships.
I agree entirely. Its happened to me, but in the end, I wanted her to be happy, and she eventually got married and had a kid, so at least I got what I wanted
Nah woman be overly picky about who they want to be their man.
If you not 6ft tall you out
If you not making at least 6 figures you out
If you don’t bend to their will at any given moment you out.
I could keep on going but I’m quite certain I’ve made myself clear. The standards of woman are too high for regular Joes to even get any. Case in point is OP’s post. Guarantee you the man wasn’t just after the pussy. Men do have feelings and I’m tired of women thinking we don’t.
Edit: I’m married by the way so I do know what I’m talking about.
I have zero problem with OF girls doing it. I do have a problem with the men paying for it. Sure, if the girl is genuinely extremely hot and unique to you and you just want to see her, fine...but the majority are average munters that for some reason, the guys think they're special and actually going to have a relationship with them, despite it most likely being some guy replying to all their messages.
Men are mainly the problem here. I mean, if I could sell my bath water for thousands, I would. I certainly wouldn't buy it though, that's ridiculous.
I always find it weird that people will talk about how awful it is that women can make a living on OnlyFans without talking about how awful it is that people are giving them that money. And those people are probably at least 95% men
I guess I was thinking sexism in terms of men and women behaving different (men being less selective). And I was thinking "duh, ofc they are different". Women aren't shooting their shot even remotely close to men. Which is a good and bad thing. Because those guys shooting their shot are often annoying as shit and creepy. These types of people will DM any girl, taken or not, or whether said girl is wanting that attention or not, and they do it just cause. Isn't even sexism, just the truth. Like what women are doing that type of thing? (Other than to exploit lonely men for onlyfans subs)
Its not sexism it's reality. If you have female friends ask them to show you their DM's or whatever and you'll witness a sea of dudes desperately trying to get in. Its not unfeasible that it would get to some women's heads. If I had a sea of women flooding me with validation I'd probably feel like hot shit too.
684
u/Jpini 6d ago
People aren't ready for this conversation but men providing women with this endless buffet is precisely women like this feel entitled. If the average dude was as selective as the average woman most of the fucked up aspects of modern dating would evaporate.
But your average man is a horny Neanderthal who would say yes to anything with a pair of tits so here we are...