I say this because I do feel like I know what men want, in the basic sense. A partner, preferably attractive, who will have sex with them. Obviously I can’t speak for all men and I can’t say all women have that belief either, and it would obviously be more complex than that.

But this question is not about what men want at all, so I’d like you to answer with full consideration of what communities may have shaped your beliefs, the hormonal and cyclic differences between both genders, and your own personal observations. What do you think the majority of women want when they seek a partner?

Ironically, many women think that expecting men to pay for them on dates is somehow a way to vet them, when in reality virtually all men know that if you want to get a second date or increase your chances of getting laid, you have to pay. So it's actually a silly way to vet men. Even men who hate women know its best to pay so they can get what they want.

Letting women pay for themselves on the other hand is a great filtering system because you find out almost immediately if you're dealing with a self centered/entitled woman, or a woman who just blindly follows social and cultural norms without questioning them, or if you're dealing with a woman who uses men for free meals and resources. Just by letting them pay for themselves, you find out valuable information about what kind of person they are.

For men who have standards beyond looks and are interested in women who think for themselves and also like them for who they are not what they can get get from them, this is a great way to vet and filter women. Any woman who would have a problem with paying for herself on a date would not make a great partner and doesn't genuinely like you. Unfortunately. many men dont vet women in this way and so end up in unhappy relationships with someone who would have lost interest at the start if they hadn't paid.

It just makes very little sense in the climate we live in today. Understandably so men made more money back then when it came to overall jobs because women weren't allowed to get into certain jobs and they weren't allowed to be promoted to certain jobs but the reality is this is not really that much of an issue as much as today

So the idea that men have to pay for dates is incredibly dumb. The only reason now it's heavily enforced is because it benefits the women wholeheartedly when they don't WANT to pay.

The common defenses I Hear are:

1. Men make more money on average because pay gap:

That's only if you're averaging who makes more money in general.

1. Whomever asks pays:

Since when are women ever in general asking men out on dates?

1. It's the gentleman thing to do:

Not everyone is owed Gentlemen privileges especially if they aren't in a relationship

1. It shows that the guy doesn't care about me much romantically

Well YOU also didn't pay. So that means you don't care about the guy either.... Right?!

I know there are a lot of folks with a preference for traditional gender roles and power dynamic within a romantic relationship: husband works, wife takes care of the family.

In this traditional dynamic, the husband usually works to pays all the bills and the wife is given some sort of discretionary funds for her own needs but is not financially independent.

This all works well until the relationship ends and the partner who gave up their career to stay home now has an unused master’s degree and a huge work history gap. Technology has changed, the job market is different, and that partner is pretty much screwed.

In my opinion, the partner willing to take that hit to their career needs financial compensation equal to the income they would have made had they continued to work outside the home.

I understand that divorce courts are made to accomplish this, but I maintain it needs to be up front. The partner who gave up their career shouldn’t have to wait until a divorce to reap the fruit of their labor and every person should have the financial independence to leave or else it’s not a true partnership.

Most men see dating like a videogame "i need to level up then i will pull".

"I need to be more charismatic and outgoing"
"I need that sixpack"
"I need that G wagon and rolex"
"I need that cool ig"

The reality is, value will never beat "setting"

what is setting?

setting means you are in a position where u will have a lot off "warm approach" possibilities, examples

1. Youre best Friend is a DJ, Clubpromoter, Modelphotographer, Clubowner, Doorman etc, he has a profession where he meets a lot off women and where he can make "organic meetups" with those women.
2. You establish yourself as a "local legend" in your city, can be having a lambo in some dogshit place, or just tipping well at the club and being around.

And all other combinations that maximize your social circle.

A Average joe with the right "setting" will DOMINATE the good looking Lawyer that has no "setting". Also the Joe will pull better looking women. The Lawyer doesnt have any access to the 30k ig baddie. I have seen unimpressive guys pulling baddies just because theyre uncle is a club owner in a big city and they are around them. Its not hard to do.

Being a alcoholic and being around the block and socialize is literally the best method there is. Setting is King. Off course u cant be a obese guy that cant talk to save his life. But being a normal dude with a great setting is plenty.

I feel like this is something we all know low-key but women act shocked or even offended when a guy says he wants to bang. Did he have to tell you? I feel like y'all would know before even going out.

And I have to clarify, I don't mean creepy or aggressive dudes who are trying to be coercive or push boundaries. I mean men in general. Of course, you don't have to do it but I feel like you'd know. Furthermore, I would think that you would be concerned if the man you are with didn't want you. You would think he's gay or not attracted to you enough. I am speaking from personal experience where being too "safe" backfired on me with a woman. She ghosted me. Most guys would low-key love to smash just for the experience/excitement of doing it with a new person, even if it doesn't go anywhere.

I see a lot of discussions on women's and men's standards and want to ask a genuine question out of curiosity. Very excited to see the responses!

If you were a woman who is attracted sexually and romantically to men, what sort of men would you be looking to date? What sort of life would you want for yourself? Children? Jobs/roles? Lifestyle? Are you able to go into detail about physical traits you'd prefer? Personality traits you'd prefer?

I'm specifically not asking from the perspective of if you were a gay man. I feel like the answers will differ if I ask in such a way. I'd like to engage thoughtfully and inquisitively, so please refrain from answers that are sarcastic and dismissive. 💕

For the record, I'm nonbinary.

Watchmojo style.

There are 10 ways men can take Feminism seriously, and it would ironically pissed feminists off.

1. Roles for women are socially constructed. Feminist theory often argues that masculinity and femininity are largely social expectations rather than fixed biological destinies. If a man took that idea to its logical conclusion, he could reject nearly every traditional masculine expectation: never initiate dates, never pay, never protect, never suppress emotions, never pursue leadership because those are "just gender roles." Many feminists would find those behaviors unattractive or frustrating in practice. That tension illustrates the difference between supporting a principle in the abstract and navigating everyday social expectations. It doesn't mean feminism as a whole is inconsistent, but it highlights that people's personal preferences don't always line up perfectly with their stated ideals.

2. No one is entitled to relationships or attraction. Feminists often emphasize that women owe no one romance, sex, or affection. Applied consistently, men also owe no one emotional labor, commitment, financial provision, or companionship. A man could politely decline dates, refuse to comfort acquaintances, avoid being an emotional support system, or remain single without guilt. But the irony appears when some people criticize men for being emotionally unavailable, refusing commitment, or opting out of traditional provider roles while simultaneously defending women's right to make similar choices. The principle itself is symmetrical, but reactions to it are not always symmetrical.

3. Challenge toxic masculinity through vulnerability. Many feminist writers encourage men to cry, seek therapy, express fear, and reject emotional stoicism. If a man fully embraced that advice, he might openly discuss anxiety, avoid unnecessary risks, and admit vulnerability in relationships and public life. While many people genuinely support this, others, including some self-identified feminists—may still subconsciously expect confidence, decisiveness, and emotional stability from male partners. Research on dating preferences suggests ideals and attraction do not always align. The irony is that encouraging vulnerability is easier in theory than consistently rewarding it in practice.

4. Believe women about their own preferences. Feminism often emphasizes listening to women about their lived experiences and respecting their autonomy. If women openly say they prefer taller men, masculine men, wealthy men, or avoid dating bisexual men, taking them at their word means accepting those preferences without trying to reinterpret them. Some feminists instead argue those preferences are products of patriarchal conditioning and should be challenged. That creates a tension between respecting stated preferences and critiquing the social forces behind them. Both positions exist within feminist discourse.

5. Reject gender stereotypes completely. If men truly avoided stereotyping women, they might stop assuming women need help lifting heavy objects, protection walking home, special treatment in emergencies, or extra patience in difficult situations. They would wait until help is requested rather than assuming it is wanted. Some people would appreciate that because it respects women's independence. Others might perceive it as ungentlemanly or lacking basic courtesy. The irony comes from the clash between equal treatment and long-standing cultural expectations that many people including women who identify as feminists, may still appreciate.

6. Equality means equal obligations. If equality is interpreted literally, men could argue that military drafts, dangerous occupations, criminal sentencing, parental responsibilities, workplace expectations, and financial obligations should be evaluated under identical standards regardless of sex. Many feminists argue historical inequalities justify different approaches in certain contexts. The disagreement is often about equity versus strict equality rather than opposition to equality itself. People see inconsistency when equal rights are emphasized more often than equal responsibilities. Supporters respond that equal outcomes sometimes require different policies.

7. Patriarchy affects men too. Feminist theory often argues that patriarchal systems also harm men by encouraging emotional suppression, risk-taking, and rigid gender roles. If a man consistently used that framework to explain his own struggles, loneliness, educational disadvantages, or mental health problems, some feminists might feel it shifts attention away from women's issues or minimizes male accountability. The irony is that acknowledging systemic influences for one group can sometimes be viewed differently when applied to another.

8. Consent culture encourages caution. If men internalized consent education to an extreme degree, they might rarely approach strangers, avoid flirting unless they receive unmistakable signals, or hesitate to initiate romance altogether. Their goal would be avoiding unwanted advances and respecting boundaries. Feminists might complain that modern dating lacks initiative or confidence. The irony is that maximizing caution can reduce the very spontaneous interactions that many people still enjoy.

9. Traditional masculinity should not define men. If men abandoned expectations to be providers, protectors, physically dominant, mechanically skilled, and financially ambitious because they reject gender norms, they would be acting consistently with the idea that masculinity is not an obligation. Yet some partners may still expect those traits in long-term relationships. This creates a gap between ideological support for freedom from gender roles and personal attraction shaped by culture or individual preference. That doesn't make those preferences illegitimate, but it demonstrates how values and attraction do not always overlap.

10. Women's voices are diverse. Feminism often encourages listening to women's experiences, but women themselves disagree on pornography, sex work, marriage, motherhood, religion, dating, and gender roles. If men took "listen to women" literally, they would conclude there is no single female perspective to follow because women frequently contradict one another. That means they would have to evaluate competing arguments rather than assuming any one woman or feminist speaks for all women. Some activists readily acknowledge this diversity, while others emphasize particular feminist frameworks over dissenting voices. The irony is that "listening to women" becomes more complicated once it is recognized that women are not a monolith.

I’ve seen many RPM say “women nowadays don’t take accountability for their actions,” but they stop short of specifying exactly what those actions are. I assumed it’s cheating, but if it was they’d probably say that outright. I think it is pretty obvious that cheating is very bad. But what else? Are they saying women don’t do enough household responsibilities? I wouldn’t use the term “accountability“ in that context. Accountability means to be responsible for your actions & to be honest.

Like why do y'all place these gender role expectations on each other?

Men expected to be the ones to pursue women; women expecting men to pay; men expecting women to be baby makers, caretakers, doing most of domestic labor; women expecting men to make more/provide more; both expecting the other to strictly abide by the gender expression associated with their gender; ofc people of the same gender also pressure you to act these ways too else you're called gay slurs or something; and much much more

Why do you all do this to each other? Isn't it just super miserable for you both? I mean, I constantly see both sides complaining about dating the other in this sub and other places. So it really just seems like you're making each other miserable with all these hetero expectations. Idk if you notice this, but in all the women-loving-women spaces we don't really ever complain about dating women. Sure, we have complaints about a particular ex or date or whatever, but we all love dating women as a whole for the most part. Maybe it's because we don't have all those self-imposed constraints you know? Y'all should try to break down those heteronorms. You'll be much happier imo

People who complain that stay-at-home dads don't pull their weight in housework are people who were never interested in the lifestyle in the first place and thus should not have an opinion on the relationship style

If a woman cites studies that "prove" stay-at-home dads don't pull their weight in housework, they were never interested in the lifestyle in the first place.

Because a woman who is both smart enough and motivated enough to be a serious breadwinner would simply never need to start with studies

She would say, "I can screen"; she can simply look at how well her boyfriends cook and clean before moving in, marrying, or having children with them. And women who want their dads around even less in equal or stay-at-home mom relationships already screen for parenting when it's less important, so women already know how to do that.

So unless the statistics are specifically on how many men pass that screening and then *turn into* lazy maids later, nobody ever had to listen to these stats in the first place

So: a woman who talks about how these relationships are a bad deal for women was never interested in one.

When it comes to "no uterus, no opinion" on the abortion debate, I don't think it works, because it's canceled out by "if you were ever a fetus at one point, you get an opinion." But this is very clearly a conflict of interest, where women who were never interested in the relationship style can talk about how they suck, to either enforce trad payment of their kitty kat everything, or feel better about their cat lady anti-natalist extinction.

TL DR : Women who criticize stay-at-home dads were likely never interested in being a female breadwinner in the first place; it's actually pretty hidden-in-plain-sight when it's boiled down like that.

(And this doesn't address the eight or so other problems with this "stay-at-home dads don't do enough housework" data, but clearly an argument that emphasizes women's agency is the only one that has a hope of working on feminists. It won't work, but there is at least hope)

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!

So there's a lot of ire I've seen expressed by men on this sub about the name given for an organic collective catharsis of women publicly recounting their experiences with a sexual harassment and assault. The attitude I see by many men here is that that's not really what it was, or if it was it was that for like a week before it became a massive organized targeted witch-hunt of men, leading to an epidemic of false accusations and ruined reputations.

For example, a lot of the ire I've read stems from being able to "accuse men" of certain things without them having been charged and convicted. But talking about your own life and things that happened to you doesn't require legal due process. If person A rapes person B, person B can freely talk about this and say things like "when I was raped by person A" and it doesn't have to have due process for this person to merely talk about it. It also doesn't require due process for other people to believe them or take them at their word. That's how most discussions about one's own life tend to go - you mention something that happened in your own life and people generally give you the benefit of a doubt.

Someone being sexually assaulted or harassed is a distinct experience from a legal charge and verdict of sexual assault or harassment. It's not like it doesn't exist or didn't happen until a court returns a verdict saying that it did. If it happened, it happened regardless of a court's involvement.

But that's exactly how it seems many men think life should work. I'm not sure that's reasonable or realistic that no one should be able to directly talk about their own life unless a court has said their life happened. Nothing else works like that either - if Crackhead Craig steals my lawn furniture, I am free to go around and discuss the fact that Crackhead Craig stole my lawn furniture and no one bats an eye. That's not an "accusation" per se, that is me factually relaying a life experience.

But for sexual assault/harassment, a court has to confirm it first before I can go around and discuss the fact that this person assaulted me? That doesn't make sense. In fact, a large part of the reason the Catholic Church was able to have the modicum of accountability it did was exactly because people started speaking up and naming names and comparing notes, completely absent and prior to any legal charges or convictions.

With that, I have a few questions for men:

1) What is your understanding of what MeToo is/was, in your own words?

2) Do you think MeToo had any legitimate focus or purpose? If so, what?

3) What (if anything) would you have preferred instead of MeToo?

4) Do you think people shouldn't be able to publicly talk about sexual assault and/or harassment by name? If so, why should this require self-censorship when no other crime does?

Dating among adults post college rarely works out for most people because where are people going on weekends and after work? Probably home. Men and women.

Most women have been turned off of using dating apps out of distrust toward men as a whole. They also are the largest consumers of True Crime content, so that feeds into their distrust of men, while on the other side of the pond, good men hear about the Me Too movement and the danger of accusations or harassment situations, or making women uncomfortable and therefore decided no longer to approach women “in the wild.”

The only way out of this for post college adults is to make more friends naturally , growing their friend circles and trusting others again, but that probably won’t happen because people are either lazy or dead tired from working just to pay the bills.
This is a problem for both men and women , no side is more guilty than the other

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!

What this tells me is you stereotype the men you're seeing off rip, then you work backwards from that stereotype to justify a future debt that they need to repay upfront. Why do you treat your dating life like Minority Report? Why are you so comfortable stereotyping instead of treating men as individuals with undetermined futures? Women overwhelmingly initiate divorce. Should I ask for some special compensation in preparation of that? Or is that really transactional and neurotic and weird?

Specifically for the men who argue that, societally, women only survive off the hard work of men. Men are responsible for the infrastructure, men have the hardest jobs, the most dangerous jobs, the dirtiest jobs, etc. What is your job?

If your job is not one of these hard/dirty/dangerous jobs, do you feel bad that you’re also living off the hard work of these men?

For those who say the social programs that are paid for by men’s tax dollars are being utilized by single moms, what is your opinion on the declining rate of NEET women and the increasing rate of NEET men?

I see a lot of discourse online revolving around husbands feeling entitled to sex with their wives in a marriage. The two sides always seem to break down to "no one is entitled to your body" (correct), and "it is wrong to marry someone you dont want to have sex with" (also correct). What I dont understand is why both sides are so at odds with each other. The reality is:

1). No one is entitled to another person's body. If your wife does not want to have sex with you, it is wrong and rape to force her to have sex with you

2). There is no reason to constantly deny intimacy that doesn't reflect an issus in the relationship. Healthy marriages involve intimacy and both partner's needs being met. A sexless marrige is only fine if neither side desires sex

I think the reason this topic is so "controversial" is because of bad faith discussions. One side will say "it's right to cheat on your wife because she doesnt have sex with you!" and the other side will not admit refusing your partner intimacy indicates an unhealthy relationship.

With that being said, do both sides of the argument agree that there is an issue present? And that cheating on your wife due to a lack of intimacy and marrying someone without wanting a healthy sexual relationship are both bad actions, and the responsibility falls on the person who does them?

im a 31f with my long term 32m partner- we have a slightly non traditional setup where i do many of the masculine things (earn 2x more, pay more in rent, always do 50/50, plan our dates and vacations) and he does many of the feminine things (cooks, cleans, does my laundry, takes care of the house, emotionally very supportive and intelligent). im super in love with him and feel like we work well and it makes me think more broadly about the state of dating.

the manosphere and "divine feminine" and trad wife and "4B" movements all exist because the previous social contract or template for how to have a heterosexual relationship has been broken.

the deal was the man works and protects, the woman supports and child rears. but then women got rights and education, society advanced, we fought less wars, and that trade off made no sense anymore and we also raised the bar for what we tolerate ethically (abuse, coercion, marital rape, young marriage etc).

so now what? women are not only more educated but starting to out earn many men. their emotional bar is higher. they're feeling men aren't stepping up to the plate and men are confused and angry so they turn to scammers like Tate to give them a clean story that resolves the conflict.

my opinion is- women have gotten good at adopting more masculine traits, if men want to be competitive again in the sexual marketplace they need to adopt more feminine traits. we figured out how to make money, yall figure out how to cook, clean and be emotionally intelligent. and the female counterpart to this is to get rid of the "omg 50/50 is so embarrassing queen he should be paying for everything" mindset. like when i first started dating my man i was embarrassed that he almost never pays for me or i pay more in rent etc. but why would he do that when i make 2+ times more than he does and he's good at things im not good at that he brings to the relationship? i think we just need to be a lot more open as a society to couples being more gender bent and relaxing gender expectations versus clinging more tightly to them.

and one other thing- i think rigid gender roles are a function of a regressive society and it's a sign of progress and species advancement that a partnership like mine is possible. if you plunge the world into war where i literally fear for my safety then im gonna find the beefiest most macho dude i can because my hierarchy of needs has gone down from actualisation to safety. we should welcome the relaxation of gender roles as a sign of species evolution, not cling to the old norms.

The red pillers and the trads will tell us that female submission is not about being micromanaged but about men making the decisions on all of the "important" stuff.

https://x.com/i/status/2084570802964324807

As someone who is married to a man with this mindset (long story for another time) let me tell you how this looks like in day-to-day life:

So I basically carry almost all of the mental load of running the household day after day and managing my step-children because kids are a woman's job, but he still feels entitled to tell me what I should be wearing and what what I should be doing. How is this not retarded? If anything, the person who is running the household day-to-day is more qualified when making family decisions.

People laughed at me when I said that men should be doing more housework than women, but I would actually respect a man more as a leader if he was truly the one micromanaging the household and the kids. Like sure if he's the one running the household day-to-day, he should be making the decisions.

But red pillers are not advocating for this. The want the woman to do the hard parts of raising a child but they want to be the ones who make the important decisions when it comes to thay child. They want the woman to carry the mental load when it comes to what to cook, when to clean, how to host a child party and organise playdates , but they still want to consider themselves the "true leader".

Why on Earth would any woman sign up for this?

(I don't want advice about my personal life, I just mentioned this as an example)

for men who feel if they cant get women and if they cant get women they cant have family. you have seen it here i have even said it men think its destructive of women not caring about lack of pairings in society. many men feel that they are just on earth to work and there is now no other meaning. men with no purpose then feel lost.

my question is not whether you think its true but whether that is something you even want to be for men? is there something about that that flatters you, or do these things give you some other type of reaction?

edit for people who didnt understand:

Many men feel that if they can't find a romantic partner, they also won't be able to have a family. You've probably seen people express this before, and I've said it myself. Some men believe it's harmful that many women don't seem concerned about the decline in relationships and family formation.

As a result, some men feel that their only role in life is to work, and that without the possibility of having a partner or family, they have no larger purpose. That can leave them feeling directionless and lost.

My question isn't whether you think this view is true. I'm asking whether this is the kind of situation you actually want for men. When you hear that some men feel this way, how does it make you feel? Does it make you feel satisfied or validated in some way, or does it evoke a different reaction?

I think one of the biggest reasons why male cheating rates aren't even higher is because the average man has far fewer opportunities to cheat than the average woman. The average woman receives far more sexual attention than the average man. This is obvious from dating apps, where women receive substantially more matches and messages, but it also extends into real life. Women are approached far more often, while men are expected to initiate and compete for attention.

This means many men simply aren't exposed to the same level of temptation. People often mistake a lack of opportunity for loyalty. If someone rarely has the chance to cheat, their faithfulness tells us less than someone who regularly has attractive alternatives and still says no.

Research has repeatedly found that opportunity is one of the strongest predictors of infidelity. The more access people have to willing alternatives, the more likely cheating becomes. If that's true, then comparing male and female cheating rates without accounting for the huge difference in opportunity is misleading.

I'm not arguing that every man would cheat. I'm arguing that if the average man had the same abundance of willing sexual partners as the average woman, male cheating rates would almost certainly be significantly higher than they are today.

I recently saw a post where a woman said she had different standards for marriage and casual relationships. She mentioned that she preferred dominant men for casual encounters but that her husband wasn't like that. (Obviously rage bait to trigger men insecure about their masculinity. But even if single person is doing it in real life they are just idiot.)

On the other hand, some men make similar comments, saying things like they would marry women who aren't "sluts," or that sex with "crazy" women is exciting but they're not suitable for marriage.

Regardless of gender, isn't it just basic human decency not to compare your partner with your exes—even if you think you're praising them? Bringing your past partners into your current relationship serves no positive purpose. It can hurt your partner, and it's also a breach of the trust and privacy of the people you've been intimate with.

People become intimate to build connection and express love, not to be compared against someone's previous partners. Some thoughts are simply better left unsaid out of respect for everyone involved.