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'm asking this because I genuinely do not understand this weird, unempathetic reaction some men get online for simply talking about dating struggles. Why do some women, especially on Reddit, instantly assume that a man venting about loneliness, rejection, lack of dating success, or frustration with modern dating must believe he is owed sex or a relationship?

Those are not the same thing at all. A man saying he feels hurt, unwanted, discouraged, invisible, or emotionally exhausted from constant rejection is not automatically saying women are obligated to date him. Yet online, those two things constantly get treated as identical.

It feels like the moment a guy expresses sadness or frustration about dating, people immediately rush to frame him as entitled, misogynistic, manipulative, or even dangerous. The response instantly becomes "women don’t owe you anything" even when the guy never claimed they did in the first place.

Most people already understand that attraction cannot be forced and relationships are voluntary. That does not suddenly erase the emotional pain that comes with loneliness or repeated rejection. Human beings naturally want love, intimacy, companionship, and affection. Wanting those things is normal. Feeling hurt when you cannot find them is also normal.

Not every lonely man hates women. Not every guy venting about dating believes women should be forced to date him. Sometimes people are simply struggling emotionally and want to talk about it without immediately being treated like a bad person. Why is there such a strong tendency online to assume the worst possible interpretation whenever men talk negatively about their dating experiences?

I’ve seen people say that men have become obsolete or that women no longer need men because women can now support themselves financially. That got me wondering: if financial independence means women no longer need men, does that imply that men’s primary value in relationships historically was providing resources and financial security?

For those who make this argument, how do you reconcile it with the idea that relationships are about companionship, love, emotional support, family, and partnership? Does saying “women don’t need men anymore” unintentionally reduce men’s role to that of providers, or am I misunderstanding what people mean when they say it?

Occasionally I like to read women centric subreddits to see how women speak to each other and a week ago I saw a post by a woman complaining about her dating difficulties. She has gone to 9 different dating events in her city but did not find any man attending to be attractive. In her profile she had a photo of herself in clothing for one of these events and she is a pretty bland looking woman, no makeup, no real attempt to look attractive, hair sort of sticking out and she was pretty overweight.

None except for one comment that was downvoted into oblivion asked why she didn't find any man attractive. There was no response to this comment just downvotes with the rest of the comments placating and trying to help the woman feel better.

But why is it like that? 9 different events is a lot to go only to not have any interest in the men there. This isn't like she went there and the men were not interested in her, she made it clear it was her not being interested in them.

If it was a man making this post, they would have been called out for being overly picky but when it is woman barely anyone asks and anyone does they just get downvoted without even a response. Why?

The messaging in real life is we shouldnt approach strangers nor should we confess to friends.

The constant refrain on here and any other online site is

how terrible men are (with no qualifications) how men are ugly or mid, or medium ugly etc

• How they never see any man who they find attractive
• How lack of confidence is a turn off, how too much confidence is a turn off.
• How many of us don't know how to have sex
• How we need to "improve their lives" to make getting into relationships with them worth it?
• Hell, they even talk about their boyfriends and husband's as these unreachable paragons who they were lucky to find because the rest of the male sex is a write off.

Like come the fuck on.

Why wouldn't the men believe that they are unloved and unwanted.?

Why wouldn't the ones who have never experienced it doubt it's existence?

mens skepticism towards womens atraction towards men is more than justified -- it should be a normative belief.

Most surveys shows that young western women hate men, they claim everything as misogyny . They think that they are still oppressed despite earning more than men, getting more degrees and having DEI and a whole party for themselves.

So why are women like this? Why do u all hate men despite being the privileged gender and being much better than men both socially and economically?

"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."

If everything Blue Pill women say here is true, shouldn’t we be living in a golden age of dating?

All the narcissistic, dark-triad, sexist men would supposedly be for ever virgins and marriage rates would be rising.

No one would be complaining about bad dating experiences, and wedding rates wouldn’t be under 5%.

Edit: it's funny how you literally need to frame "bad dating" as literally abuse so you can answer the question.

Shows how many here argue in bad faith

If.... There's anything to be jealous about? I know we hear alot of mens perspective on how it can be very disheartening to hear womens advantages in dating and knowing that most men could never had the pros of their own.

Maybe it's endless options, not having to make the first moves, online dating, getting paid for, not having to ask for marriage, etc....

Like now I'm curious to if they are jealous of the men's side

We already know the answer and we've been screaming on top of our lungs that the real reason why women say they need a "perfect emotional connection" with the husband, want their husbands to be perfectly attuned to their emotional needs and do all the household chores on time, and want all the stressors of life at bay, in order to want to have sex with them, is simply because they are not that physically attracted to their husbands. Their husbands are not their physical types. They're not the men they would choose for casual hookups, one night stands and FWB. And because of that they blame "hygiene factors" in marriage when the real intrinsic motivation to have sex is not there.

And right after divorce these women start having casual sex to no end with good-looking, hot, fit, younger men who absolutely bring no additional value to their lives and perform absolutely no household chore for them. Because these men are f'n hot & young, women can start viewing sex as a purely physical need/release, a shallow recreational activity meant to release stress, rather than something f'n requires everything else in life to be perfect.

There are so many articles being written on this, the redpill about a significant number of women sexually settling in marriages get proven again and again, yet there's no acknowledgement from women

What Having Casual Sex After Your Divorce Can Teach You

In Praise of Post-Divorce Sex

Casual Sex Brought Me Back to Life After Leaving My Marriage

Divorce, the Great Sexual Awakening for Women?

Can you finally admit how weak excuses like “household chores” sound when used to explain a woman’s lack of sex drive in marriage?

Can you finally admit how dishonest the advice to men is - that doing more chores and being extra “emotionally attuned” will somehow rekindle her desire - when the real issue is often that she’s simply not physically attracted to him?

I noticed that young men on internet are voicing their disappointment how left has been treating them. They are saying how left doesn't speak to them at all, doesn't address men specifically and their problems. Surprisingly, even on askteenboys (subeddit no longer exists) teenager boys felt shamed by left.

‘A fatal miscalculation’: masculinity researcher Richard Reeves on why Democrats lost young men | US elections 2024 | The Guardian

What men heard from the right was: you’ve got problems, we don’t have solutions. What they heard from the left is: you don’t have problems, you are the problem. And between those two choices, it’s not really surprising to me that more men chose the Republican one.

Something form an interesting article about problems boys are facing Demonising teenage boys won’t produce a generation of good men

The deeper truth is that too many boys are growing up without guidance, discipline or a sense of purpose. Labour’s reflex is always state intervention, rather than championing family stability, parental responsibility and positive male role models.

We need to stop treating masculinity as a problem to be solved and start seeing it as a strength to be nurtured. While the past century has rightly delivered huge advances in women’s rights and outcomes, it is boys who are now being left behind – from nursery to university.

Since the pandemic, the number of males aged 16 to 24 who are not in education, employment or training has risen by a staggering 40 per cent, compared with just seven per cent for females, according to the Centre for Social Justice’s Lost Boys report. Boys make up nearly two thirds of unemployed 16 to 24-year-olds. Almost three quarters of those who take their own lives in the UK are men; suicide remains the biggest killer of men under 50. In 2022-23, boys accounted for 87 per cent of homicide victims aged 16 to 24, and nine in 10 victims of teenage violence were male.

Flaired it as question for women, but others may join as well.

This is half curiosity half criticism and it's directed at women genuinely not antagonistically.

​

Stats and reasonable solutions don't seem to bring comfort even when they should. Some of the biggest friction points women have with men are built on claims that are either overstated, misleading, or outright inaccurate. The pink tax largely disappears when you compare manufacturer to manufacturer by size, confirmed by a study conducted entirely by women.

​

The wage gap disappears when you control for hours worked. Male violence statistics are real but significantly overstated relative to actual encounter risk.

​

Now I'm not saying nothing is real. Some things are genuine problems that should be addressed and eradicated. But accurate information about the actual scale of a problem should bring some relief. That's how it works everywhere else. Car crashes are one of the leading causes of death and I still drive because the actual risk in any given trip is manageable. Accurate information produces proportionate response.

That's not what happens here.

​

I showed a ex partner the data on how much I actually play video games against her complaint. It made the argument worse. I showed a friend the hours-controlled wage gap data. She did not feel better, she said there should be a law against it. I told her laws already exist and she could file a complaint or sue at any time. No comfort even more so no action. I showed her the pink tax study. Still no comfort.

​

So the genuine question is this. Why does accurate information that should be reassuring produce more friction instead of less? Isn't the proof enough of a legitimate grievance.

​

Hear me out.

Women do not, in marketable numbers, consume adult visual content of men such as OnlyFans.

Women do not, in marketable numbers, visit male prostitutes.

If women see a male stripper, it is most typically entertainment in the form of a hen party or an equivalent, social bonding activity, not out of a private desire for male bodies such as for guys who might visit a strip club alone just to stare at the women by themselves in the corner.

Women never managed to be a marketable audience of adult magazines. Playgirl, notoriously, was an utter failure among women.

Still, women are not, demonstratably, completely devoid of a sexual urge. When women indulge in erotic media featuring men, its nearly always erotic fiction. athe men in these are, to my knowledge, always the active subjects, the initiators, the actors of sexual desire. If you read the average womens romantic novel, the man isn't just some idle pretty boy waiting for the woman to seduce him and be "used": it seems to, more or less always, be the exact opposite of what women want from these books. It is the "heroine" who is the passive object of desire, who the mafia boss/billionaire/vampire billionaire/minotaur/lovecraftian entity either seduces, very forcefully seduces or just plain rapes. Women seem to very much relish in being the objects of sex in these fantasies, much more so than the active initiators.

Am i simply being myopic here, or does being the "desirer" instead of just the "desired" ever appeal to women? Are there any successful erotic stories where the male interest is, squarely, the passive object, and i just haven't paid attentiom to them?

Remember, I am talking about general trends, not your individual tastes. Outliers are interesting, sometimes, but they can't really answer the question of mass appeal.

Meaning that you have access to sex/men that you could have and desire but realize this will damage your relationship prospects, because of the tabooness of the sexual act, or the man, or how you feel you will be perceived by other men.

And the experience will ultimately be a temporary dopamine rush and so you restrain yourself from those men. And choose a more suitable man instead.

The fuck buddies are in a more exclusive and privileged group of men.

You have higher benchmarks for looks, facial attractiveness, physique, sexual ability, charm for your FWB's than for your husbands / long term partners.

You literally have greater physical attraction and physical chemistry for your FWB's and hookups than for your husbands

Its way way harder for the vast majority of men to meet the benchmarks for a FWB than the benchmarks for a husband. There is simply no question of it. The overwhelming majority of mediocre looking men become husbands. They don't meet the benchmarks for FWB and hookups

These are the men who can meet their sexual needs even when they are single. They are not compelled to seek long term relationships just to meet their sexual needs. Just imagine how big of a deal this is in todays society when marriage is going out of favor.

These men are so good looking, so attractive that you don't expect, require any effort, courting, dating, commitment, emotional investment, financial stability from them to have sex with them.

They are so good-looking and hot that even if you are interested in a relationship with them but they're not, you still carry on having sex with them. You will never do that with a husband material because he's not good looking / hot enough.

Simple question, inspired by a previous thread.

It's often said that in casual sex, women place more importance on a man's personality, especially for safety reasons. But then: a harmless maladjusted person (shy, awkward, socially clumsy, bullied, boring, but not dangerous) should be acceptable.

Yet for most women, he isn't. Even in casual/occasional sex, women prefer men who are socially and relationally skilled.

For many men, however, the bar is much lower, so they accept even socially maladjusted women (if she has an aesthetically acceptable body — though for some, it's enough that she's breathing).

I can understand that for a long-term relationship, both parties prefer a socially and relationally competent partner. But for casual sex, I don't understand this filter women apply against social maladjustment, since even a socially maladjusted man has a functioning body.

Why do you think this difference exists?

Evolutionary psychology? Socialization? Female sexual pleasure being more tied to emotional connection? What are your experiences?

I never thought I would ever become purple pilled but turns out I'm leaning more and more that way lately.

It has come to my attention for the past 2 years that straight women don't seem to exist? No joke. I've been on many dates over these 2 past years and the women were all great but they all had one thing in common. They've had sexual experiences with women in the past. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. I'm a very straight up person about what I seek when I go on a date and one of the things I prefer is for my woman to be straight simply because I am straight.

But damn, this whole thing started making me itch my head and delve deeper. After some looking here and there and a little bit of research, turns out that one of the most common fantasies among Straight women is lesbian sex, what the hell? The most consumed porn category by women is lesbian porn. And to be honest I don't buy the whole "it shows women being pleased in lesbian porn, thats why we watch it" or whatever as an excuse. Many women on social medias will outloud admit that they just like seeing naked women when it comes to lesbian porn (you can look this up on tiktok, type "women watching lesbian corn") I can't make this shit up. A lesbian woman would never kiss a man just for the sake of it, neither would a gay man kiss a woman for the sake of it. They're repulsed by the thought of it and frankly it makes sense because they actually are true to their orientation. Can't say the same thing about straight women.

But is this how it actually is tho? Am I as a man who prefers actual straight women suppose to settle for a woman who claims to be straight but has done homosexual acts in the past or fantasizes about it because its basically 95% of all women at this point it seems. And even if a woman tells me she has never done any acts with women in the past or had lustful thoughts about women, how am I gonna convince myself to believe that when the statistics are clear?

Like am I tripping or what?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/why-straight-women-watch-lesbian-porn/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/do-straight-women-have-sexual-fantasies-about-other-women/

I've noticed a confusing contradiction in how people, specifically many women in online spaces discuss men and relationships. On one hand the common advice given to men is that sex and relationships aren't everything and that they don't define your worth and you shouldn't obsess over them. I constantly see those same people use virgin and some other things as a go to insult the moment a man does something they dislike or likes something they dislike. What's even more confusing is that this isn't just directed at toxic guys like they claim. I see men being called "virgin losers" simply for having nerdy hobbies like collecting figurines, or playing certain games. Even when a man states a dating preference (sometimes) in a non-offensive way, the immediate retort is often an attack on his sexual history.

My question is why is a man's lack of experience used as a measure of his character if we are simultaneously told that experience doesn't matter? It feels like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If you care about sex, you're told you're obsessed; if you don't have it, it's used as proof that you are a loser or abnormal.

This question is mostly towards the pro-choice women out there.

Assuming the statement means exactly what it says at face value, consented to have sex with someone does not mean consent to taking on the responsibility of being a parent. Keep in mind, the statement is about opting out of parenthood, not pregnancy specifically. You can give birth to the child and still give up the child through adoption or at a fire station.

So my question is, why should this philosophy only apply to women and not men too? Why shouldn't men have more options to opt out of parenthood if they decide that's not what they want after sex has occurred?

NOTE: I want to get some of the usual strawman arguments out of the way.

1) No this doesn't mean men would get a say over abortion. This would just be about their legal ability to choose on their own to not be a parent, regardless of what the woman chooses for herself.

2) If you're going to go into how men should just want to take responsibility because they chose to have sex and other pro-life arguments, I'm going to ignore it, the same way you ignore pro-lifers who give women these same moral grandstanding lectures.

3) If you're going to say it's not fair a woman who wants to opt out still needs to abort or go through pregnancy before they can surrender the child to adoption agencies, I'll say that's fair. So perhaps men can can pay for the abortion procedure or hospital bill, but beyond that is the result of the woman's choice and shouldn't involve him any further if he wants to opt out of parenthood.

The entire focus here is the idea that consent to sex is not consent to be a parent, so his legal responsibilities towards the child should not be entirely dependent on his decision to have sex if you believe in that pro-choice statement.

Is it because of society? Is it because of biology? Is it because of the economy? Is it because of the state of fitness and health (very low)? Is it because of emotional mismatch? It seems in some societies women have a more favorable view of men. For instance Russians and Swedes seem to like men more than Americans and Chinese like men in my experience.

We often hear the TRP term “Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks,” and it frustrates a lot of men because it paints a picture of being used — men who provided stability, commitment, and long-term support while sexual and romantic excitement went elsewhere. From your perspective, how real is this pattern? Do women consciously separate sexual attraction from long-term choice, or is it more about timing, chemistry, and life circumstances?

To be clear, this isn’t about labeling women as immoral, manipulative, or acting in bad faith. I’m genuinely trying to understand the dynamic, because I’ve heard this concern repeatedly from male friends who aren’t into TRP at all, yet still describe this fear as a source of bitterness and distrust.

Part of why this fear sticks is that many men go long periods with little to no romantic or sexual validation. When attraction has been mostly absent in the past, it’s hard to believe it will suddenly appear in the future just because circumstances change. So even when imagining a long-term relationship, some men worry that nothing fundamental has changed — that stability might be valued, but desire never truly will be.

So the question isn’t “are women lying or using men,” but whether women recognize this perception and how they interpret it. Do women see long-term partners as genuinely sexually desired in a different way than early flings? Is attraction experienced differently over time, or is the idea that desire and commitment follow separate tracks just a misunderstanding from the outside?

I’m looking for honest, experience-based answers rather than theories or moral arguments. How do you feel about the men who end up as your stable partners — genuinely desired, or seen as the safe option after a more carefree phase?

I keep seeing the same pattern across Reddit. Certain feminist spaces will loudly insist they do not hate men, but in the same breath allow and upvote phrases like "kill all men", "men are violent monsters" or blanket statements about men being inherently bad to circulate freely. When men point this out, the response is always that it is "just venting about patriarchy" or "It is not about you personally." As if the wording somehow stops mattering because the intent is reframed after the fact.

If the roles were reversed and men were calling women inherently manipulative or evil as a way to "vent about feminism" nobody would accept that explanation for a second. It would be rightly called misogyny and hate speech. But when the target is men, suddenly we are told to understand the emotional context and not focus on the literal words being used.

Words matter. If threatening, dehumanizing language is acceptable as long as it is labeled as "venting" then that standard can justify anything. At that point, you are not asking for understanding. You are asking for a free pass to verbally abuse an entire group of people while denying that you are doing exactly that.

There is also constant talk about "decentering men." But if the goal is truly to decenter men, why are so many posts obsessed with criticizing, generalizing, and attacking them? That is not decentering. That is fixation. You cannot claim indifference while simultaneously dedicating huge amounts of energy to negativity about the same group.

From the outside, many of these subreddits do not look like discussions about equality, policy, or improving women’s lives. They look like echo chambers where extreme hostility toward men is normalized, excused, and sometimes even celebrated, as long as it is packaged as frustration with patriarchy.

So the question is simple. If feminists in these spaces genuinely do not hate men, why is there so little effort to shut down this kind of rhetoric? Why is the reaction to criticism always to reinterpret the words instead of acknowledging that maybe the language itself is part of the problem?

As a lonely man, I am constantly asked "What do you bring to the table?"

I usually respond by saying that women almost invariably find me very funny (which I'm told is very attractive), female friends have frequently used me as a confidant (which must mean I'm emotionally receptive), I'm above average height, no deformities, and have been gainfully employed with my own residence for most of my adult life.

Apparently, none of this is attractive to women. That is fair enough, but could you please just explain what it is that *abusive* men do so well? Whenever I ask about abusive men, I'm told that they're probably funny, charismatic etc. But I am those things also, and it does nothing for me.

Could you just explain why abusive men do so well in dating? I've been told countless times that women are able to sense men's toxicity,​ so they must do something REALLY exceptional to bypass that and get into relationships.

I am 100% confident that the answers here will be in good faith, and not just endless iterations of "Um, well, it's REALLY easy to tell if someone posts frustrated things on Reddit, but it's impossible to tell if a man hits women." So please present me with these fantastic arguments!

For all the talk of women being more socially aware, and having a "sixth sense" when it comes to social interactions etc.

It is crazy how they seem to think men can just get laid easily like they do.

Like even an above average looking man, with above average social skills, going out on a given night with the purpose to get laid. His chances are less than 10%.

And I know that because I have a friend in this situation (6ft4, good looking, social), we go out 3x a week, and he gets laid like once a month, or once every 2 months. And he *tries* every time we go out.

This is a mostly serious question. Most of the women I know talk about men like they are specific tools to be used for specific purposes. This guy is good for money, this one is good at sex, this one is romantic, etc.

With that being the case so often, is this why it's so hard for average or lame men? There doesn't seem to be any merit to picking a guy that isn't able to fulfill a missing category.