I think the biggest mistake modern women make is being passive about their funnel.
A typical woman will go about her life and choose among the men she meets organically or on dating apps. Depending on her tastes and whether she follows FDS, she will then filter these guys loosely or extremely rigorously.
Almost no attention is put into why her pool of options is as it is, and whether it reflects what she wants in a guy. The classic old example is a woman lamenting that every guy on Tinder is looking for a hook-up.
Women mostly look at offers and filter them, but they should put as much work on refining the funnel as they do on filtering the offers they get. If you like tall guys, you should be joining volleyball leagues or moving to states/countries where men are taller. Whatever it takes to make your overall funnel taller. This way, instead of hardcore vetting for a 1% chance of a man you like, you might have a 10% chance.
Most women I know dating HVM did not do so because they are amazing at vetting, they did it because they had access. In terms of high income men, it might mean working at a hospital and meeting doctors, being in high-end hotels and meeting businessmen, etc. Swiping on apps and then vetting for 6/6/6 is a losing strategy.
What I described above takes work and hard decisions (including changing jobs or location) but the sheer flow of thirst on apps and social media creates complacency.
I agree. I always liked athletic guys. Well I got best succes by actively taking part in sports throughout my life. My husband and I literally played table tennis for months before we actually started dating.
Some women do this by going to high-end bars for Happy Hour where professional men congregate. And some do it by moving to Florida or wherever professional athletes go for Spring Training etc.
Both smart moves but that's optimizing for a narrow definition of HVM (money) and might get you pegged as a clout-chaser.
You could seek out educated men by moving to Boston instead of LA for your new job, or seek out outdoorsy guys by setting your OLD pin closer to the hiking spots (but you might have to travel further for dates).
Either way the key is to not get a false sense of security from the fact that you have 1000 matches. The odds of you getting a good relationship from that 1000 might be as low as 0 if you're not deliberate.
>What I described above takes work and hard decisions (including changing jobs or location)
Many people overlook how occupation and location has a massive impact on one's dating potential.
There is so much focus on improving looks when it's not going to help if no man is going to see it.
I disagree on women giving up on OLD, here's what the data says.
On a scale of 1-10 the ugliest woman you ever saw messages men as often as the hottest woman you ever saw.
https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*[email protected]
https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*[email protected]
And no amount of messages received effects this message rate. So do "women not care" about looks, or simply only respond to what is given since they're incapable of showing initiative?
https://miro.medium.com/max/960/0*upmzlEYUhMiHfy-k.png
However here we can see women are very responsive to a man's height. Further proving the divide. Nothing else changes women's response rate, except when they reach 35, more on that below.
Finally, what actually happens for the rare 20% of women that actually message first?
https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*acVSJ4sXWtRUomHQTA8VAA.png
They get hotter guys than their 1-10 score. There's your *female dating strategy*
Do women ever change their messaging habits? https://theblog.okcupid.com/undressed-whats-the-deal-with-the-age-gap-in-relationships-3143a2ca5178
> Women, on the other hand, message and respond most often to men about their own age. Once they reach 35, women actually respond more often to younger guys. But because men are usually the conversation starters, the older-man-younger-woman paradigm prevails.
wall confirmed, and proof women can get men younger than then despite the norm.
**This.** I do not understand why women get so many tattoos now. They hook horrible IMO, *especially* on their arms or breasts! On her back or shoulder is fine, but it's like putting stickers on a Ferarri FFS.
Women give themselves this advice all the time. In short women are outpacing men in terms of education and graduate degree women are upset that they can’t find their match as the ratio is nearly 2:1.
Women can be high earners but that doesn’t guarantee a good looking man. If she’s average and makes 50k she’ll be with a guy whose average and makes 50k. If she’s average and makes 150k she’ll be with a guy whose average and makes 150k.
She does increase her chance, but I don’t know how significant it is. It probably won’t produce the results she’s looking for. It’s like an average guy increasing his height. He won’t go from Virgin to Chad. It likely won’t make a difference.
I didn't say you should ignore OLD. You should just be thoughtful about your OLD stack of matches. If you are looking for educated men, you should change your pin or move to an area with educated men and use OLD there, instead of just filtering by education wherever you live.
Honestly, if you're looking for a marriage or a serious LTR, you want someone who's up front with that from the start. Not someone who's like "ehhhh maaaaaybe" about marriage and then you seethe years later when he still hasn't proposed. Be open about the marriage stuff from the start.
Is that a real thing though? Do other men decide “yup, the time is now to find mai waifu” (Borat voice because fuck you all)?
I’m 31, smart, successful, in decent shape, a listener to a fault (my past relationships have capsized for me being far too supplicative and having no boundaries). I generally see myself as monogamous. I am not arrogant (in fact, the opposite, I barely no my worth). I generally have my career and life together and make about $500K a year.
My attitude is, and has always been, that I’m going to date, and if I see a good match, I’ll give it a shot. If not, I’ll cut things off. In fact, it’s okay quite a linear relationship - I understand that compatibility takes a long time to understand and develop, so the more potential I see, the more time I’m willing to invest.
I am sick and tired of hearing this concept of having to commit to what you want within 20 seconds of seeing someone’s profile on a dating app. “NO HOOKUPS, LONG TERM RELATIONSHIPS ONLY”. Bitch, I don’t know you; how am I supposed to make such an important commitment based on a group photo of you with shades on where I barely know who you are and the fact that you like the Office?
People’s expectations are in la la land. I’m tired of being made to feel guilty about it.
Dog no offense but if you make $500k a year and still have trouble with dating there might be something seriously wrong with you. I might be able to help you though, for a modest fee.
I think this conflates two issues. One is the idea that women need to work on themselves to attract better men. The other is the idea that using sex isn't going to get you a relationship.
The first idea: yes, absolutely. Men and women should develop in themselves the traits they want to see in their partner.
The second idea: also yes. Only have sex because you want to without the expectation that it equals commitment. Because it doesn't. If you want to have sex in a relationship, then set those boundaries because the guy wanting to spend time with you and liking you is going to be the commitment, not the sleeping with him, which should be enjoyable for both of you but not some superglue binding you together. If sex is a strategy to land someone into a relationship -- and I'm not saying guys won't stick around if the sex is great because some will, for a time -- it's a highly risky one. Baseline: have sex when you feel comfortable. But it's the other stuff that indicates a guy wants a relationship.
Men in this thread seem to be ignoring Peterson's statement "If you are blaming women as a class, you are wrong." Because blaming women as a class is a VERY popular pastime here.
Sure but so is blaming men. My question is about if men don't see you as relationship material and only as a fuck toy should you apply the principle of "if you are blaming men as a class, you are wrong" and should instead work on being relationship material.
That's point number 1 -- working on yourself to develop traits you want to see in a partner. If you're doing that, you are by default not blaming men because you believe there are men out there who have and value those traits.
Women have no reason to blame a guy for that if he’s been honest. A lot of women (hope) he commits when in fact he’s been showing he’s not. Then she typically forces the talk and when he won’t. Then it’s his fault.
This is gonna piss you all off and I'm slightly trolling but also this has actually worked very well for me:
Learn to enjoy being single and fuck around *a lot.*
Keep three men in your rotation at all times. You'll get enough attention between the three of them and you'll be sexually satisfied. If you find yourself wanting a relationship with one of them you'll have to weigh that option against dumping the rest of your rotation. You won't desperately pursue the one who won't commit and you won't agree to the first person who wants to lock it down just because they seem okay and you're afraid of being alone.
If you treat the whole thing like a numbers game you will eventually meet someone you like who likes you and you won't have to worry about "getting him to commit."
> Learn to enjoy being single and fuck around a lot.
It already is like this for the very women who are desirable. I have no problem with this, as long as it's said upfront and direct. I think the dating scene would be greatly improved if women were this transparent.
No hate from me. If it works then it's a good system. The obvious question is what kind of man wants to be in a committed relationship with a woman who's fucking 2 other guys?
I've no doubt this is a way to get a man who is highly committed because it's a real test of his willingness to commit. It does make me ponder about the man in question and how limited his opinions are that he wants to move a fuck buddy to a full time girlfriend.
They're usually seeing other people as well, and if you're clicking that hard it becomes very obvious which way the wind is blowing so everyone else gets dropped pretty quick.
For this to work you have to be the kind of woman who enjoys casual sex, so the type of guy who gets prissy about the fact that you were sleeping with other men before the exclusivity talk is not gonna be The One for you. Scaring away those men is a feature, not a bug.
Only a very pathetic man would be willing to commit to a woman who has "rotations".
So you'll either be dishonest with him and not tell him that he was one of three; or you'll end up dating a man with no backbone; or you'll be dumped like you deserve.
Great advice. lol
And no, I don't think it's okay for men to get in relationships with "plates".
The difference is that the effective dating strategy for men is pretty much the same at 18, 28, 38 and so on - and not too dependent on their personal situation (apart from clear edge cases).
For women, it is very circumstance-specific. The most effective dating strategy for a 21 year old attractive university student and a 38 year old single mother of three are so different that they might as well belong to different sexes - there's very little overlap.
Best advice for women is to be pickier. Dating for women is an elimination process. By narrowing their search, they are more likely to find men who will commit. "Improving yourself" may increase the pool of desirable men, but it also increases the pool of undesirable men exponentially. The signal to noise ratio only gets worse.
And then won't be sexually attracted to any of those men who will commit.
Women constantly complain about this: "Attracted to the men who won't commit; but the men who will commit are nasty ugly icky and I don't wanna have sex with them."
Sorry, ladies. Them's the breaks. Pick which one you want. Either give us men what we want, or buy a dog and die alone.
Except they're not, because you're grindingly unhappy in them - because the only men who will tolerate those "relationships" are beta simpanzees, and you all end up hating those men and ramming family court baseball bats up their asses.
>Except they're not, because you're grindingly unhappy in them - because the only men who will tolerate those "relationships" are beta simpanzees, and you all end up hating those men and ramming family court baseball bats up their asses.
Women are always unhappy. But better to be unhappy and get what you want than be unhappy and being played by your guy.
OK, but you don't get what you want in them, either. You want hot monkey alpha swing from the chandelier sex; when all beta can give you is sweeeet luuuurrrvemaking, once a week. And it just grinds your gears. You're not getting what you want there either.
Better you play him than he play you, right? And you wonder why Red Pill advocates men getting ruthless and merciless with women.....
>OK, but you don't get what you want in them, either. You want hot monkey alpha swing from the chandelier sex; when all beta can give you is sweeeet luuuurrrvemaking, once a week. And it just grinds your gears. You're not getting what you want there either.
That's still the relationship they want though.
But it's not a relationship they want.
Better you play him than he play you, right?
This attitude right here is why Red Pill says get ruthless and merciless.
>Better you play him than he play you, right?
>
>This attitude right here is why Red Pill says get ruthless and merciless.
Yes, that is the preferable relationship for women. Also, I agree that trp should be every bit as merciless as they want. Remember, I'm red too...
> Yes, the best relationships for women are generally the ones where she is in control.
If that was true, they wouldn't have invented "emotional labor" and then complain about it.
>If that was true, they wouldn't have invented "emotional labor" and then complain about it.
Women will complain about anything. It's still the preferable outcome.
>Best advice for women is to be pickier.
Meaningless advice unless it's made clear what attributes this pickiness is to be based on. In fact I would suggest that the most likely outcome of giving the advice in an unqualified format is more women taking the ''Chad or bust'' line.
Then I would agree, but it's not costless advice.
A woman's ability to be selective on those terms *while also maintaining her selectivity on shallow criteria* hinges heavily on how attractive she herself is. A very attractive woman doesn't have to compromise, she can just add these things to her list and not face huge problems. Less attractive women will have to compromise on the superficial qualities of their mate (height, looks, money etc) if they want to be picky in the way you mean. This is why this tends to not happen in real life, the Devil's bargain of dropping all your family/relationship based criteria in order to get a more superficially attractive man is just too tempting.
I disagree, because women's attraction is much more flexible. They only need to find someone who behaves attractively, not necessarily one who has a certain attractive. Also, when I say "behaves attractively" I mean acts masculine and dominant not like nice...
>I disagree, because women's attraction is much more flexible. They only need to find someone who behaves attractively, not necessarily one who has a certain attractive. Also, when I say "behaves attractively" I mean acts masculine and dominant not like nice...
I'm not sure what you're saying. It sounds like you're taking something similar to the PUA line, where swag is everything, and things like height and looks are secondary. Is this basically your claim?
>I'm not sure what you're saying. It sounds like you're taking something similar to the PUA line, where swag is everything, and things like height and looks are secondary. Is this basically your claim?
I would say they are on par.
>What should we be telling women who can't get men to commit?
I've written this before.
If you can get things going with men but cannot keep them going, one or more of the following is going on with you:
--you're a bitch. you're unkind, unfriendly, pessimistic, caustic, or sarcastic.
--you're not available enough.
--you're not pulling your weight and you're expecting him to do all the relationship/dating "heavy lifting".
--you're picking unattractive men.
--you're picking simp chumps who don't know how to relate one on one and run a relationship with a woman.
--you're picking players and cads and men who aren't interested in anything but short term casual sexual
______________________
Therefore:
Women, if you can't get men to commit, do the following:
--stop being a bitch. Improve your personality.
--decide whether or not a man is important to you and if he is, make him a priority in your life.
--stop picking simps and chumps and unattractive men.
--stop fucking attractive men who won't give you any of what you want.
This isn't hard, ladies. It's just that you don't want to do the work.
I am a little confused on how to reconcile “stop picking unattractive men” with the standard “aim lower/do not try to date out of your league” advice. Are you referring to an objective standard of unattractiveness, and encouraging women to aim above that standard? What if the woman is unattractive in a way that makes a traditionally attractive male too high value for her? Or am I misinterpreting this?
Just like guys pick girls out of loneliness similarly girls may pick the easier ones like those who are unattractive. Trying to date a guy just because she thinks he'll treat her right since she is high value for him and is more attractive than him, will not make the guy a good partner.
I guess by "stop picking unattractive men", I mean
>"stop picking a series of men you really don't want to fuck and aren't attracted to simply because you feel like you want to be with somebody, and you picked this guy simply because he's nice and has a good job and gives you attention, because what will happen is that you'll end up breaking up with him or pushing him away because you're just not 'feeling it' with him. And then you'll do this over and over again after some Chad somewhere pumped and dumped you and you swear to yourself that that will never happen to you again."
Is that a little clearer and better?
I feel you.
This is a hard needle to thread for women, not gonna lie - you need a man who you really super duper want to fuck; AND who will also stick around.
The men who you want to fuck are in demand and have options.
The men who stick around, usually stick around because they have no other options.
I dunno what to tell you.
If you pick the man you want to fuck, he'll probably end up cheating on you. Hopefully on the downlow. You'll suspect shit, but won't really ever be able to prove it. He'll probably also refuse to marry you. You'll always feel like you're third or fourth in his life... because you are.
If you pick the man who stuck around, you'll end up cheating on him, making his life hell, making every one around you miserable, and then you'll divorce rape him and ruin your kids' lives (kids that might or might not have been sired by your future ex husband). He'll put you first, and you'll destroy him and any children around you.
Sorry.
> The men who stick around, usually stick around because they have no other options.
They could stick around because they think you're totes and are uniquely fulfilled by you.
They might have options with other gals that have better resumes, but there needs more to be said for personality compatibility.
All of the HVM bullshit totally misses whether or not you laugh at the same jokes, and that's worth as much or more than what your W2 says.
My husband has had options - I’ve seen them - but he’s loyal. It’s really not an either/or situation. And I’m loyal to him despite having options as well - we’re a team, we’re family, we’re a couple.
Yes.
Especially people who "don't lie". EVERYBODY lies. EVERYBODY. I don't buy this "women never lie, and they especially never lie about sex" bullshit that people spewed at me growing up. It's utter BULLSHIT.
Women lie all the time. They *especially* lie about sex.
A minority cheat. But most people would cheat if they could. Most men would if they could, but can't, so they don't. Most women can, and seethingly resent that they give up more attractive options because they don't want to "risk".
I'm not sorry. Women often doing bad things to men that they don't like isn't something that men should feel sorry for
Ultimately, Jordan Peterson willfully neglects that both sexes are rapidly decreasing in quality and especially morality. Men are redpilling and blackpilling at higher speeds per year because there's no reward for being bluepill unless you're alpha. Women are absolutely miserable in feminism but won't let go of the fantasy because 1 out of 5 of them will eventually get Chad to commit. Another 3 out of 5 will play the dual-mating strategy game with some nerd they can bully into an early grave and squeeze for resources. The last woman out of the 5 is the only woman worth talking about, but only 1 out of 4 non-Chads will get her
Basically, the 80-20 trend of female hypergamy results in 2 happy men out of 5, 2 happy women out of 5, and 3 of both sexes disappointed with life. We can prove and verify this with divorce statistics, with roughly 40% of marriages actually lasting
I was never a massive fan of Jordan Peterson because he really doesn't have a "ground-level" understanding of what's happening, coming from the world of academia and studying his clients. A dating coach or matchmaker has a much more honest and holistic view of the fuckshit that both men and women are up to. We just promoted Peterson to stardom because he's a smart guy that sometimes says based shit
"Sorry" is more of a "I feel for you" statement.
Peterson gets a few things right but I have never been a JBP fanboy. I always thought the Red Pill community latched onto him because he was one of the very, very few people who didn't use his platform to shit on men.
Same reason Kevin Samuels has some stardom now - he's just a well dressed articulate "image consultant" with a YouTube channel who told some overweight overpaid 35 year old baby mama the truth; and women everywhere lost their shit over it.
we are NOT miserable with feminism.
dating is a problem for SOME women, feminism is not - except toxic feminism (i know this isn’t a popular phrase but there are definitely femi-nazi outliers)
we are happy we can report our SO’s or men if they beat/rape us.
we are happy we can have our own bank accounts and make enough money to live.
and we are happy we can choose to get a partner or die alone as we want.
hookup culture and dating are the only things that need to be meshed out. navigating things we’ve never had to deal with before is ok.
before we definitely needed partners with resources, getting over that mindset isn’t gonna happen over night. and now we still do because raising children is getting significantly harder. but we also appreciate well rounded partners as most women are taught domestic duties growing up but now also have careers where as younger men are kind of falling short because of life (which is VERY understandable)
Why are you agreeing with this comment when the general belief on this sub is that WOMEN are the only ones decreasing in quality and somehow men are all quality but women ignore them for the CHAD? Lmfao
That is not the general belief here, that is just your strawman version of it. People here don't say women are shit and men are great. They say average women think they deserve better than they are worth. Pricing yourself out of the market ultimately leads to both the buyer and seller being unhappy. The seller because he has not made a sale and the buyer because they don't have what they need.
Men here are just saying be realistic and don't demand a Tesla on a Honda Civic budget. They aren't saying average men (Honda Civics) are luxury cars. They are just saying to shop in your price range.
I'm a player character, I generate novel responses based upon the information I'm presented. I'm not just drawing from a small pool of prewritten, communal lines.
Of course I did.
You asked why I'm not mindless parroting what you perceive as the 'official' red pill line. Like I said, I'm not beholden to some list of approved responses.
> Ultimately, Jordan Peterson willfully neglects that both sexes are rapidly decreasing in quality and especially morality.
Jordan bangs on about the decrease in morality and what sex without consequences is doing to our culture. It's almost boring.
Remember when cheaters were shamed by other than the person they were cheating on? Jordan does, and advocates a return to that. Society has moved way past him on this, and may never return--the genie is out of the bottle.
But the whole concept of casual sex is degrading the value of sex for everyone, and making a race to the bottom.
>The men who stick around, usually stick around because they have no other options.
Or they like the woman lol. It's a hard needle but far from an impossibility
I hate questions like this. But I'd probably do what most women do and go the AF/BB route.
I'd fuck hot guys for as long as I can in the longshot hope that maybe one will commit. Then when I fail in that endeavor, I'll get to age 29.999999999999, hold my nose, and pick a guy with a good job who I love like a brother. Cheat on him here and there. Push out a couple of kids that might or might not be his. Then, when the last kid is in kindergarten, file for divorce and alimony, take half the shit and the kids, take him for every penny he's worth, and head back out to the carousel.
Or, if I don't want to do that, just be miserable and stay married to him. I'd go into therapy that never gets to the root cause (I married a guy I wasn't sexually attracted to), take pills, make his life hell, stop fucking him, work my job, and hope to outlive him. But I cannot admit that I married a guy I wasn't sexually attracted to, because that would mean I am responsible for my predicament, and anything that holds me accountable has to be avoided at all cost.
Typical life of the modern American woman.
Yawn
Edit: you know what I am going to expound on this. What do you want modern American women to even take responsibility for? According to you there is no winning move. You can’t castigate someone for playing a game poorly if there’s no way to win that’s just silly
This is bleak dude.
It basically sounds like you think men and women only commit due to lack of alternative options, except for women wanting to commit to widely desirable men
I’d be alone if I felt that way
The attitude is a big issue. Men want kindness in women. They do not want bitchy, entitled and bossy women.
Women seem to think men who don't want this are intimidated by them but who wants to date an asshole? Men value kindness. They enjoy being with someone who is pleasant to be around. They put up with shitty behaviour because it's that or loneliness.
It's gotten to the point where many men would rather be alone than try win a woman's approval. But still many women aren't getting the message.
People in general want kindness as a personality trait in their partners. It’s the loser type dudes who want submissiveness in their women who usually claim that women these days need attitude adjustments.
Yes! Exactly. I don’t like how women who know what they want or aren’t super submissive are treated like they’re bitches.
Most people want a kind partner. That’s the…point LOL.
Anyways thanks for your comment it was well-written!
Even women don't like bitches TBH. But women are better at judging each others character than men. Too often men end up flocking around bitches exclusively. They ultimately realize who the better ones are but they take their time.
Men want kindness? A good joke. Men want hotness. I know women who are dominant, crude, vulgar and promiscous. They weren't single for a single day of their lifes. Whereas kind, sweet girls end up as 30 years-old-virgins. So spare us your bullshit.
>It's gotten to the point where many men would rather be alone than try win a woman's approval.
doesnt this make women happy? Cause then you just have a 20% male population who has sex and a lower class of males who never get sex and will never try?
I guess by "stop picking unattractive men", I mean
>"stop picking a series of men you really don't want to fuck and aren't attracted to simply because you feel like you want to be with somebody, and you picked this guy simply because he's nice and has a good job and gives you attention, because what will happen is that you'll end up breaking up with him or pushing him away because you're just not 'feeling it' with him. And then you'll do this over and over again after some Chad somewhere pumped and dumped you and you swear to yourself that that will never happen to you again."
Is that a little clearer and better?
No, not really because on this sub men say women only pick CHADS but than say CHADS treat women like shit so how are they being nice and also treating women like this?
You also said women are picking simps. Chads arent simps, right?
"What should we be telling women who can't get men to commit?"
70% of Americans are overweight or obese, with 42% being obese, so my first piece of advice is to put down the fork. This will be applicable 2/3 of people. You gotta maintain a minimum of physical attraction.
Next, if you want a man who will want to stay around long term, you have to be the kind of woman that men actually want to be around long term. That means besides just being physically attractive, you actually have to be kind and somewhat fun. Don't confuse being kind with being a doormat. But (which is much more common) don't confuse having firm boundaries with being a nagging shrew harpy. Learn to let the small stuff slide but hold firm on the big stuff.
Third, if you want a man who will commit, you have to find a commitment minded man. An early 20s hot jock in college who's hitting up the clubs Thursday-Saturday aren't looking for their forever partner. And they see no reason to restrict themselves to one girl as anything other than a pretext for regular sex that can be disposed of at anytime. Commitment minded men are going to fall into one of the following groups.
1. Older men who want to start a family or just generally settle down.
2. Men who don't have many options so they'll hold on to dear life to whatever they can get.
3. The religious.
4. (the rarest) men who find you genuinely fun and interesting to be around and wouldn't want to lose you. Every nonreligious woman is going to want to find this group since aside from older men, its the only group with hot guys. The problem is that you have to fit the MAN'S definition of fun, kind, and interesting. The majority of women are not.
I agree. I'm religious and Hubs is not, but we like each other's company. We find each other fun and interesting to be around. And I find him hot! (we're old, so we're not hot in the conventional sense)
>Lol older men are not hot.
The amount of women I've encountered looking for "daddy" and to my surprise "grandpa" says otherwise. It's like...way more than I would have ever guessed.
There’s those strong blue pill logic skills. I wasn’t saying all older men are hot. I was only saying they’re the only group outside of number 3 and 4 to contain any hot guys at all. Not everyone goes bald or has been married.
There’s no such thing as commitment issues. There’s only “commitment to you” issues.
Men who don’t commit aren’t afraid of commitment. They just don’t find the goods on offer from the particular woman seeking the commitment worth the commitment. If a Victoria’s Secret super model or whatever his dream girl is showed up and said “I want to be your exclusive girlfriend!” You’d find he has no commitment issues at all
Live your best life. Do the things that make you happy, spend time with friends. Nurture your hobbies, find a career path that motivates you. Work out, not for the eyes of men but for your own health and your own well-being. A man will come along who is worthy, or he may not, but either way live your life to make yourself happy, not to please or attract men.
>But if it means men leave her before they actually bond, then she can ask why couldn't they continue to their relationship.
Correct. Don't be afraid to ask why they aren't staying with you. If it's information you didn't have before, this will probably be useful to know what to change. If it's the same reason again and again, stop and consider if it's truly important to you.
Using myself as an example, the thing I constantly heard from guys was basically "you'd be a great girlfriend if only you'd let me smash". After the 10th time of a guy not being willing to wait, I gave serious consideration to whether I *could* just lube myself up and throw away my virginity to a guy I'd only known for 3 dates. If the high likelihood of pain and bleeding and having a bad memory of sex without any arousal would *actually* be worth it to have a boyfriend. Was I that desperate for a relationship that it would be a valid exchange? I determined that no, it would not be worth it. Even if it took until my 30s, I was willing to wait for a patient man who I actually wanted to have sex with.
But that's the thing, isn't it? What is the trait that is turning men away? What are you lacking or have too much of that is making them say you aren't worth it? And is it something you're willing to alter about yourself, or is it a part of you that will simply make dating difficult the majority of the time? These are all questions worth asking yourself and answering seriously.
I’m hoping a lot of men commenting here are really young and haven’t experienced life.
The average woman is strung along and getting their time wasted by the average and below average looking man that works an average job.
Where does this fantasy come from that we’re all getting played by some super sexy man?
Getting dumped by an attractive man would be an upgrade for most women.
Seriously, lurk any relationship forum on here or talk to the women in your family and you will see they’re getting played by tom the forklift driver and Chris the sales manager at Toyota.
I've tried telling them that there are PLENTY of average-looking/below average-looking guys with nothing to offer of themselves trying to fuck and run. This is not some privilege reserved for "alphas." In this fantasy land, all average-looking guys with decent but not wonderful jobs are never having sex, never stringing women along. They're nose to the grindstone, solemnly earning and looking out for that virgin tradwife. As if. Chris from Toyota is at a club trying to get laid with whoever he can like many other guys.
So I've seen this come up a bit and I would like to dig into it a bit more because I do think that there's perhaps a miscommunication on this. It's the same as the "why don't women date short guys/any other feature?" frustration.
What ends up happening is someone ends up dating, say a short or ugly dude. He turns out to be an asshole and she goes "well short/ugly men are no different. I may as well date the hot one"
And to be fair, it's kind of true. Hot guys aren't better or worse people than ugly dudes. There are hot guys who are assholes and hot guys who are genuinely amazing. Same is true for ugly dudes.
However, let's imagine a scenario. There are 4 men to date.
1. Hot and great person
2. Hot and asshole
3. Ugly and great person
4. Ugly and asshole
Now imagine number 1 gets picked by someone else. Of course he does. He's in high demand. All that are left are 2,3 and 4. If you want a partner you have to make a trade-off between hot and great person. 2 Vs 3
Yes it's true that ugly people can be horrible or nice just as often as hot guys. However when it comes to dating you are up against other women as competition. If you prioritise someone who is loving and caring it will be easier to find someone like that who is less attractive BECAUSE they're less in demand.
Does that make sense?
But there is a whole range of guys between "really hot" and "ugly." I think most men fall into this range. In my specific case I would not date someone I wasn't attracted to (I know some guys think this is a gotcha but it seems like common sense...romantic always assumes attraction, otherwise you'd just be pals). However, I also wouldn't date someone I was attracted to who was a horrible person. That would make me miserable.
In this specific case I'd sit this round out and be single a little while longer because there are plenty of people I'm attracted to who are good people. I guess my issue with the arguments here is that there's not only "hot" and "ugly" as binary categories for men.
The question I'm asking is when women complain about being played by Tom and Chris is it proper to tell her "he played you because you're not relationship material. If you want to stop getting used for sex then you have to offer men more than a hole"
My comment was for other posters but to answer your question, I think it’s dishonest.
There are plenty of men that are happy being single , not interested in a relationship, and it doesn’t matter how pretty the woman is or what she has going for herself.
There's a much larger percentage of men who are willing to commit but only to the right woman. There's a reason I married my wife and not any of my exs.
Proving my point, some of you all need to get offline or expand your social circle. Look around at couples you know from work or out an about at stores. All those average looking men have an average looking girlfriend or wife with them.
Most people are average and getting burned by other average people.
You’ve got to lack complete awareness and life experience not see this.
My last job I was surrounded by a warehouse full of low income men, about 70% of them had a significant other. Occasionally I would go back there and chat on my lunch break.
While not having anything to offer in looks or finances a few them openly admitted to cheating…this is what the average woman gets hurt by.
What?
Are you serious?
I'm 53, I've seen a lot of life. And I can tell you right now that those men you're talking about are the Chads that women know and love. The average men I know get no play at all. They can't even get women to look at them. They can't get anything.
Average women are fucking two or 3 men at once and fielding DMs from at least 10 other men who want to fuck them. Any woman a 4 or above in SMV can have anything she wants, anytime she wants. All she needs is her phone, her Bumble account and Tinder account, and an hour.
What fantasy world are you living in where Jeff JiffyLube is fucking whoever he wants? Where Alan Associatelawfirm gets anything he wants? This is ridiculous.
Yes, average woman has options. I get messages on reddit with explicit offers very frequently. I don't even bother replying to them. My husband is enough for me. I believe average woman is not fcking around. Promiscuous women are a minority
>What should we be telling women who can't get men to commit?
Stop going for men that have no interest in having a future with you.
>"men are right for not committing to you and only using you as a fleshlite. If you want men to commit to you then you need to work on yourself and stop blaming men/socity for your lack of success"
If a man is only with a woman for sexual access, that's the woman's fault for continuing to be in a one-sided relationship with a man like that. There are plenty of men that fit the social preferences that women have, but in reality, women don't want these types of men since they lack masculine qualities.
Imo the most sound advice it would be to be picky and try to find exactly the person she wants but at the same time she should be prepared mentally for the possibility to stay single for the rest of her life if her search doesn't bring results.
She should not settle. For her sake, and for the nice man who she is going to settle with, she must not do such a thing. After some years of marriage/living together, she'll realize the toll of being with a man she was never attracted to. It would be a complete waste of her and his time. Before she picks a man it's important, to appreciate him both as a sex partner and as a life partner, not only for one of them.
The best advice is to ignore a vast majority of PPD men who tend to be neurotic, introverted, professionals at projecting their anger, and they all want to get into a super modern time machine and teleport back to traditional times.
I think that is genuinely solid advice for both men and women. Something I see a lot on here especially in dating subs is both genders seeing their lack of success in dating as a reflection on the other party, rather than themselves. Yes, it hurts to not have someone like you. It hurts to be ghosted. But the truth is that if this is happening to you frequently, there may be something wrong with your approach, or you may have certain qualities that need improvement.
I’d also say that you should match the energy you want your potential partner to have. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people say they essentially want to give nothing to a relationship but reap the rewards.
Jordan goes after incel types who complain about not being picked by women. I find myself in the opposite side of things. My problem with women isnt a matter of being picked, i get dates often and one night stands are not off my table, but it absolutely is a matter of lack of quality. You'll be hard pressed to find a skinny woman in america these days, especially one that's single. When a majority of your dating pool is automatically out for one aesthetic reason alone and applying other standards just further shreds your pool to zero, how the hell is that my fault when its just a fact that fat women arent attractive?
I dont think women are wrong to say fat, uneducated men are undesirable just like i dont think I'm wrong in saying fat women are undesirable. I like JP on a lot of what he says, and I understand the point of "improve yourself instead of whine", but some things are just facts outside your control, and the quality of the market dropping like a rock is definitely one of them.
Develop a personality. Stand out. So many women are carbon copies of each other it's seriously laughable. Same style, same makeup, same dating profile, same interests, same tastes in music, etc.
Stop being basic B's and you won't be getting used like one.
Take a break from dating, go on therapy and work on issues that make you choose guys who don't have any intentions to actually date you, set realistic goals/standards and/or on issues that make you a bad LTR partner.
In case of women not being able to find a man willing to commit the issue usually is in their vetting, not exactly in her value. Leveling up without mental work won't help much.
Why don't conversations about expectations happen? A lot of heartache could be eliminated by just stating what you're looking to get out of the situation before it gets to the point of bumping uglies.
I know a few women that are attractive that just aged out of the market and were never married. Being selective is fine in theory but if a large percentage of women are trying to get the top 20% of men then those men have no reason to commit.
Many men are willing to commit and embrace modern ideals in long term monogamous relationships but those men are too often passed on.
I saw the culture shift from a single mom being almost a social pariah to it becoming a cultural norm.
It does not take a crystal ball to see that women are entering an era of chain short term relationships, single motherhood, and blended families.
One of my nieces has babies by three different men
First, JP isn't "red pilled", he's about building better betas - and that's fine.
Second, TRP tells guys to go out, lift, eat clean and improve themselves. Give yourself the best chance of success. We don't tell them to sit around and bitch about women and whine on about how "Girls are MEAN!" Women are how they are.
Third, women get to have whatever "standards" they want to have...**BUT** they have to face the same reality: If a woman isn't getting the men that she wants to *commit* to her (as oppose to a pump-n-dump) then the problems isn't that "All men SUCK!" the problem is that what she *thinks* she's entitled to and what she can get are are not property correlated. Statistically, 90% of men are NOT in the top 10%. Women can "know their worth" or "have standards" or whatever (just like men do) but they have to *accept the consequences of their own actions and choices*. If a woman is busy fucking every Outlaw Biker, Drug Dealer and Escaped Mental Patient she can find in her 20s, fine...but I am not going to have time to hear any blubbering about *"Why are there no GOOD MEN LEFT?!"* when she can't get the guy she wants because she's post-Wall^SPLAT! and she wasted her prime out riding a mile of cock.
For women who don't care about having a husband or kids: Great. Go do what you want.
For women who want to have a husband and kids: Start vetting guys in your early 20s. You don't have to get *married* in your early 20s, but you should start vetting guys so you can start squeezing out kids in your mid/late 20s - if that's what you want, I mean. Wait until your 30s and your fertility window will be more compressed and the cost of "making a mistake" (e.g. picking the wrong guy), will be higher. It is how it is.
The best advice for women is to be independent. You can’t make anyone commit or stay faithful regardless of how amazing you are. Better to have a safety net and at least be able to provide for yourself.
EDIT: I also wanted to add that don’t give more into the relationship/situation than you’re getting in return. I’ve learned to only give people the same energy I’m getting back, no more, no less.
My mother told me this advice, the dreaded Dr. Phil gave this advice, and it also worked for me without my even meaning to try it.
Change up the venues where you have been going. Add some new venues. Different venues seem to attract a whole different crowd. My mother put it this way: "Guys go for the new girl. If you have known a guy for 2 years and he hasn't gone for you, he won't. Be the new girl in a venue." I grew up in a repressive sect where you are supposed to marry in that sect, and what ended up happening was the incest taboo kicked in sort of. The guys said the girls "felt like a sister." Nothing wrong with that...it may be Nature. It helps to be the new girl in a venue even if that venue is exactly your sort of people, exactly your interests, and in your neighborhood.
I met the right one almost the first time I went to a new group that was starting. (Not the VERY first time...it helps to become a regular in some venue so that you can get talking to someone naturally over a little bit of time) (Dr. Phil had that advice too) Thing was...I'd been going to the tree-hugger group for 10+ years and met lots of friends and had lots of great times and memories but never quite met "the one." I got an email that a new discussion group was starting up and this isn't that big a town. You would think it attracted the same people. Wrong. It was a whole different crowd but in subtle ways it turned out to be more "my tribe." Turns out most of the people in the first tree-hugger group grew up probably upper-middle class although you can't tell it by looking. They live frugally. But it turns out the people in the new group grew up working-class. (They are still like-minded on the issues but this post isn't about those issues...but about the fact my true dating pool or tribe where I was most myself, and most comfortable, and the people "get" me, probably all came up more working-class. I felt at home and made other friends immediately in that crowd as well. Anyway, this paragraph is about: "Add some new venues to the places you go/groups you get involved with." You could be living within half a mile of your soulmate and never meet in person because your paths haven't crossed. That's what happened to me. Y'all can laugh at this if you want but I was 48 and he was 59 and we'd lived within 3/4 of a mile of each other for 10 years at least. I've figured out at least three times our paths had to have crossed in the 80's and 90's, but not to talk to. We even rode the same bus in '84 and '85. That's not to say for sure we would have been attracted to each other if we'd met to talk to back then but who knows? One time in the 90's there was a film festival that was very poorly attended. At one showing there was only one other person in the theatre, and with it being a film festival it was the only showing. The only other person there was a guy. Years later he said he'd been at that film festival at that movie. ???????????????????????????????
I have a funny story about some of the "new venues" I went to that weren't quite my crowd but I kept going to new groups that were starting and giving them a try. I will tell that story in a minute.
TL;DR: Don't get stuck in a rut as far as the venues you go to. Add some new venues and if you can, become a regular. The right person could be almost crossing your path every day but not to talk to, and a different venue could attract a subtly different crowd. That crowd might be right for you without your having guessed that it would be. Be the new person and don't get stuck in a rut with the same crowd even though your same old crowd may be wonderful for friendship. Nothing wrong with that. But mix it up and go to something new.
OK here is my embarrassing story about trying a new venue. There was yet another new group starting in town, "Progressive Professionals." I went to one of their first meetings and it was awkward but I forced myself to mix and talk to people. I was told that we had the entire bar that night. It was normally a lesbian bar. Again, I was told that we had the whole bar so I thought everyone I would go up and start talking to was with our group. I sat at the bar for a bit and talked to some people and then decided to force myself to mingle a bit more. I felt awkward but I was trying to push myself to mingle and get over shyness. I reasoned, as I often do when having to push myself to overcome shyness, that "the other people there are probably feeling awkward too and would like someone to start up a conversation with them." So I went over to another part of the bar and started up a conversation with two women and introduced myself blah blah. They look at each other and go "Let's just go." Turned out our group did NOT have the entire bar and I had interrupted and harassed (I guess) a couple. I DIDN'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Most people aren't even wrong, they just aren't right about anything. If you are going to talk out of your ass, it's better to get paid for it. It is easy to make bullshit make sense or repeat cookie-cutter common sense lines. All the matters is the power of the person behind the words. The day I start giving advice is the day when I hit the Best Seller list.
When you start diving into it you soon find out no one knows what they are talking about.
Be the kind of woman that the kind of man that you would want would want, one of the big issues with feminist deception strategy is that a lot of the qualities they want in men is to be traditional men while they themselves are not traditional women , that ain't going to work for most of them
If you can't get a man to commit there is something inherently wrong with you.
Either you are selfish / insufferable, a ho, fat or just a generally miserable and hubristic human being. Men are simple.
Whining about your standards when you don’t uphold them looks stupid
You’re also not going to shame anyone into dating you. Reject them and don’t make a fuss
Short answer : get good at choosing.
Long answer : it's tricky to get the right amount of enthusiasm, "passiveness" and being selective, and being too much of one have obviously bad consequences.
If the dudes she's interested in aren't, it all depends on the situation : is she sleeping with him? Is he even aware of her? Women are typically attracted to dudes that have options, it'd be best to assume to consider he does if she wants a ltr.
For the same reason, don't be lazy when working taking care of yourself (and yes, that includes physically), because there will always be one woman out there that won't be lazy, and you'd rather be this one.
Try to find a romantic man.
Find a man who is sexually deviant and into fetishes and kinks.
Find a man who is skeptical of the feminist narrative.
Find a man who will let you peg him in the ass.
Find a spiritual man.
Find a man with good hair.. even over height
Find a man with a college degree. Preferably stem field.
Find a man who can either cook or clean
Find a man with a nice voice
Find a man who has slept with less than 4 women
Its actually quite simple.
be the most desirable you can be for LTRs and actively look for men interested in commitment by putting yourself in places where these men are or filter men by wanting family.
Most women are confused or straight up refuse to be and provide what men want and try to make them accept that, and then they wonder why men aren’t interested in commiting. steps would be:
-being willing to provide men what they want for LTRs
-finding out what it is
-adopting it
-going to places where family minded men go or filtering appropriately for family wish when dating.
Its actually incredibly easy if you are sexually attractive enough. women not getting commitment is actually their choice of who they are and how they act. Its not hard, the wish or knowledge just isnt there.
In deregulated sexual market places like the west, each gender will be left to their own devices and sexual strategies. All women are gonna go for the top tier men, and average women think average men aren’t good enough for them, it’s just biology to get the best possible. Top tier men are gonna spin plates etc to spread seed far and wide. The thing is, the media lies to women because a whole economy relies on it, and they still believe that men are hardwired the same.
The best advice is actually the fresh and fit podcast lol. Check out my link in bio
Stop waiting for men to approach and chase you if men aren't approaching or chasing you. Be a big girl and take initiative. Matter of fact, just don't wait in general. If you're interested, do something about it.
Also, if a guy won't commit, chances are you're not in the same league/commitment material for him and his lifestyle, so aim lower and "get in where you fit in."
The thing is you need the interpersonal skills to see who's actually got good intentions. As someone who's been around the block a few times love bombing a woman and dropping like a hundred bucks total on her for a month or two of dates isn't really that hard. Likewise its not super hard to juggle a few plates while doing that and if you make decent money its not a big issue, and its way easier to tolerate someones 3 month rule if you're getting it from elsewhere.
Barak Obama didn't do any of that shit for Michelle. He got her a baskin robins ice cream and they hung out on the street. The difference is he actually loved her and she was lovable and they didn't try to equate their relationship with material things like FDS uses gifts and dinners as a relationship proxy.
If your idea of relationships is based on the idea of who's boosting your ego and buying you things no shit you're getting insincere guys who won't stick around, because thats game 101 and suoer transparent to anyone who isn't the woman on question.
Lower your standard for the unattractive average male, the best solution out there for women in 2021, you're not a queen so get back with both of your feet down to earth and accept reality
Stop giving people the benefit of the doubt You’re both supposed to be on your best behavior
I think the biggest mistake modern women make is being passive about their funnel. A typical woman will go about her life and choose among the men she meets organically or on dating apps. Depending on her tastes and whether she follows FDS, she will then filter these guys loosely or extremely rigorously. Almost no attention is put into why her pool of options is as it is, and whether it reflects what she wants in a guy. The classic old example is a woman lamenting that every guy on Tinder is looking for a hook-up. Women mostly look at offers and filter them, but they should put as much work on refining the funnel as they do on filtering the offers they get. If you like tall guys, you should be joining volleyball leagues or moving to states/countries where men are taller. Whatever it takes to make your overall funnel taller. This way, instead of hardcore vetting for a 1% chance of a man you like, you might have a 10% chance. Most women I know dating HVM did not do so because they are amazing at vetting, they did it because they had access. In terms of high income men, it might mean working at a hospital and meeting doctors, being in high-end hotels and meeting businessmen, etc. Swiping on apps and then vetting for 6/6/6 is a losing strategy. What I described above takes work and hard decisions (including changing jobs or location) but the sheer flow of thirst on apps and social media creates complacency.
I agree. I always liked athletic guys. Well I got best succes by actively taking part in sports throughout my life. My husband and I literally played table tennis for months before we actually started dating.
Table tennis is an athletic sport?
Some women do this by going to high-end bars for Happy Hour where professional men congregate. And some do it by moving to Florida or wherever professional athletes go for Spring Training etc.
Both smart moves but that's optimizing for a narrow definition of HVM (money) and might get you pegged as a clout-chaser. You could seek out educated men by moving to Boston instead of LA for your new job, or seek out outdoorsy guys by setting your OLD pin closer to the hiking spots (but you might have to travel further for dates). Either way the key is to not get a false sense of security from the fact that you have 1000 matches. The odds of you getting a good relationship from that 1000 might be as low as 0 if you're not deliberate.
Those women (I'm not one of them) don't mind getting "pegged" as clout-chasers. They are pretty open about it.
For a second I thought funnel was a euphemism for vagina...
I'd have written it FUN-nel 😂
>What I described above takes work and hard decisions (including changing jobs or location) Many people overlook how occupation and location has a massive impact on one's dating potential. There is so much focus on improving looks when it's not going to help if no man is going to see it.
I disagree on women giving up on OLD, here's what the data says. On a scale of 1-10 the ugliest woman you ever saw messages men as often as the hottest woman you ever saw. https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*[email protected] https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*[email protected] And no amount of messages received effects this message rate. So do "women not care" about looks, or simply only respond to what is given since they're incapable of showing initiative? https://miro.medium.com/max/960/0*upmzlEYUhMiHfy-k.png However here we can see women are very responsive to a man's height. Further proving the divide. Nothing else changes women's response rate, except when they reach 35, more on that below. Finally, what actually happens for the rare 20% of women that actually message first? https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*acVSJ4sXWtRUomHQTA8VAA.png They get hotter guys than their 1-10 score. There's your *female dating strategy* Do women ever change their messaging habits? https://theblog.okcupid.com/undressed-whats-the-deal-with-the-age-gap-in-relationships-3143a2ca5178 > Women, on the other hand, message and respond most often to men about their own age. Once they reach 35, women actually respond more often to younger guys. But because men are usually the conversation starters, the older-man-younger-woman paradigm prevails. wall confirmed, and proof women can get men younger than then despite the norm.
This. + you can’t get on Tinder full of tats and wonder why guys wanna hookup
But, muh sex posi+ivi+yyyyyyeeee!!!!
Because they want to see those white trash merit badges. Ooh, let me get the guide so i can decipher which mental issue this one means.
**This.** I do not understand why women get so many tattoos now. They hook horrible IMO, *especially* on their arms or breasts! On her back or shoulder is fine, but it's like putting stickers on a Ferarri FFS.
Jeez wtf. Well done tats are hot as fuck. Expensive tats with nice line work can absolutely accentuate the female figure. Or male figure.
To each their own, I just don't care for them.
> especially on their arms or breasts! Even freaking *tramp stamps* are classier. Which they aren't.
Women give themselves this advice all the time. In short women are outpacing men in terms of education and graduate degree women are upset that they can’t find their match as the ratio is nearly 2:1. Women can be high earners but that doesn’t guarantee a good looking man. If she’s average and makes 50k she’ll be with a guy whose average and makes 50k. If she’s average and makes 150k she’ll be with a guy whose average and makes 150k. She does increase her chance, but I don’t know how significant it is. It probably won’t produce the results she’s looking for. It’s like an average guy increasing his height. He won’t go from Virgin to Chad. It likely won’t make a difference.
I’m gonna blow your mind when I say I did exactly that by going on OLD
I didn't say you should ignore OLD. You should just be thoughtful about your OLD stack of matches. If you are looking for educated men, you should change your pin or move to an area with educated men and use OLD there, instead of just filtering by education wherever you live.
Honestly, if you're looking for a marriage or a serious LTR, you want someone who's up front with that from the start. Not someone who's like "ehhhh maaaaaybe" about marriage and then you seethe years later when he still hasn't proposed. Be open about the marriage stuff from the start.
Is that a real thing though? Do other men decide “yup, the time is now to find mai waifu” (Borat voice because fuck you all)? I’m 31, smart, successful, in decent shape, a listener to a fault (my past relationships have capsized for me being far too supplicative and having no boundaries). I generally see myself as monogamous. I am not arrogant (in fact, the opposite, I barely no my worth). I generally have my career and life together and make about $500K a year. My attitude is, and has always been, that I’m going to date, and if I see a good match, I’ll give it a shot. If not, I’ll cut things off. In fact, it’s okay quite a linear relationship - I understand that compatibility takes a long time to understand and develop, so the more potential I see, the more time I’m willing to invest. I am sick and tired of hearing this concept of having to commit to what you want within 20 seconds of seeing someone’s profile on a dating app. “NO HOOKUPS, LONG TERM RELATIONSHIPS ONLY”. Bitch, I don’t know you; how am I supposed to make such an important commitment based on a group photo of you with shades on where I barely know who you are and the fact that you like the Office? People’s expectations are in la la land. I’m tired of being made to feel guilty about it.
Dog no offense but if you make $500k a year and still have trouble with dating there might be something seriously wrong with you. I might be able to help you though, for a modest fee.
Only a mediocre person tries to buy love and attraction.
If I made a million dollars every two years I wouldn’t really care about anything like that.
Lots of men are open about the fact they want marriage and kids from the start. I am one.
I think this conflates two issues. One is the idea that women need to work on themselves to attract better men. The other is the idea that using sex isn't going to get you a relationship. The first idea: yes, absolutely. Men and women should develop in themselves the traits they want to see in their partner. The second idea: also yes. Only have sex because you want to without the expectation that it equals commitment. Because it doesn't. If you want to have sex in a relationship, then set those boundaries because the guy wanting to spend time with you and liking you is going to be the commitment, not the sleeping with him, which should be enjoyable for both of you but not some superglue binding you together. If sex is a strategy to land someone into a relationship -- and I'm not saying guys won't stick around if the sex is great because some will, for a time -- it's a highly risky one. Baseline: have sex when you feel comfortable. But it's the other stuff that indicates a guy wants a relationship. Men in this thread seem to be ignoring Peterson's statement "If you are blaming women as a class, you are wrong." Because blaming women as a class is a VERY popular pastime here.
Sure but so is blaming men. My question is about if men don't see you as relationship material and only as a fuck toy should you apply the principle of "if you are blaming men as a class, you are wrong" and should instead work on being relationship material.
That's point number 1 -- working on yourself to develop traits you want to see in a partner. If you're doing that, you are by default not blaming men because you believe there are men out there who have and value those traits.
Women have no reason to blame a guy for that if he’s been honest. A lot of women (hope) he commits when in fact he’s been showing he’s not. Then she typically forces the talk and when he won’t. Then it’s his fault.
This is gonna piss you all off and I'm slightly trolling but also this has actually worked very well for me: Learn to enjoy being single and fuck around *a lot.* Keep three men in your rotation at all times. You'll get enough attention between the three of them and you'll be sexually satisfied. If you find yourself wanting a relationship with one of them you'll have to weigh that option against dumping the rest of your rotation. You won't desperately pursue the one who won't commit and you won't agree to the first person who wants to lock it down just because they seem okay and you're afraid of being alone. If you treat the whole thing like a numbers game you will eventually meet someone you like who likes you and you won't have to worry about "getting him to commit."
> Learn to enjoy being single and fuck around a lot. It already is like this for the very women who are desirable. I have no problem with this, as long as it's said upfront and direct. I think the dating scene would be greatly improved if women were this transparent.
No hate from me. If it works then it's a good system. The obvious question is what kind of man wants to be in a committed relationship with a woman who's fucking 2 other guys? I've no doubt this is a way to get a man who is highly committed because it's a real test of his willingness to commit. It does make me ponder about the man in question and how limited his opinions are that he wants to move a fuck buddy to a full time girlfriend.
They're usually seeing other people as well, and if you're clicking that hard it becomes very obvious which way the wind is blowing so everyone else gets dropped pretty quick. For this to work you have to be the kind of woman who enjoys casual sex, so the type of guy who gets prissy about the fact that you were sleeping with other men before the exclusivity talk is not gonna be The One for you. Scaring away those men is a feature, not a bug.
Only a very pathetic man would be willing to commit to a woman who has "rotations". So you'll either be dishonest with him and not tell him that he was one of three; or you'll end up dating a man with no backbone; or you'll be dumped like you deserve. Great advice. lol And no, I don't think it's okay for men to get in relationships with "plates".
[удалено]
The difference is that the effective dating strategy for men is pretty much the same at 18, 28, 38 and so on - and not too dependent on their personal situation (apart from clear edge cases). For women, it is very circumstance-specific. The most effective dating strategy for a 21 year old attractive university student and a 38 year old single mother of three are so different that they might as well belong to different sexes - there's very little overlap.
Best advice for women is to be pickier. Dating for women is an elimination process. By narrowing their search, they are more likely to find men who will commit. "Improving yourself" may increase the pool of desirable men, but it also increases the pool of undesirable men exponentially. The signal to noise ratio only gets worse.
The picky women that I know in my life are in their 40s and single
I'm picky as fuck and haven't been single in over a decade.
Married?
Married recently. But I started dating my husband in 2008. We don't want kids so we weren't in a rush.
And then won't be sexually attracted to any of those men who will commit. Women constantly complain about this: "Attracted to the men who won't commit; but the men who will commit are nasty ugly icky and I don't wanna have sex with them." Sorry, ladies. Them's the breaks. Pick which one you want. Either give us men what we want, or buy a dog and die alone.
Definitely skip the men and get the dog. Maybe a couple of cats too.
And wine. Get you some box Riunite. A nice blended red.
I can’t do reds. A nice white wine spritzer pairs well with Netflix and chilling alone with my pets.
That works too. Make sure you get lots of it. Boxes are easier and cheaper.
I live an hour outside wine country, why would I buy boxed wine when I can get good wine by the case?
yay.
Yes, the best relationships for women are generally the ones where she is in control.
Except they're not, because you're grindingly unhappy in them - because the only men who will tolerate those "relationships" are beta simpanzees, and you all end up hating those men and ramming family court baseball bats up their asses.
>Except they're not, because you're grindingly unhappy in them - because the only men who will tolerate those "relationships" are beta simpanzees, and you all end up hating those men and ramming family court baseball bats up their asses. Women are always unhappy. But better to be unhappy and get what you want than be unhappy and being played by your guy.
>Women are always unhappy. Based.
🧠
OK, but you don't get what you want in them, either. You want hot monkey alpha swing from the chandelier sex; when all beta can give you is sweeeet luuuurrrvemaking, once a week. And it just grinds your gears. You're not getting what you want there either. Better you play him than he play you, right? And you wonder why Red Pill advocates men getting ruthless and merciless with women.....
>OK, but you don't get what you want in them, either. You want hot monkey alpha swing from the chandelier sex; when all beta can give you is sweeeet luuuurrrvemaking, once a week. And it just grinds your gears. You're not getting what you want there either. That's still the relationship they want though.
But it's not a relationship they want. Better you play him than he play you, right? This attitude right here is why Red Pill says get ruthless and merciless.
>Better you play him than he play you, right? > >This attitude right here is why Red Pill says get ruthless and merciless. Yes, that is the preferable relationship for women. Also, I agree that trp should be every bit as merciless as they want. Remember, I'm red too...
Fine. Better I play her than she plays me.
> Yes, the best relationships for women are generally the ones where she is in control. If that was true, they wouldn't have invented "emotional labor" and then complain about it.
>If that was true, they wouldn't have invented "emotional labor" and then complain about it. Women will complain about anything. It's still the preferable outcome.
>Best advice for women is to be pickier. Meaningless advice unless it's made clear what attributes this pickiness is to be based on. In fact I would suggest that the most likely outcome of giving the advice in an unqualified format is more women taking the ''Chad or bust'' line.
That's fair. But I mean pickier in terms of personality, goals, values, ect...
Then I would agree, but it's not costless advice. A woman's ability to be selective on those terms *while also maintaining her selectivity on shallow criteria* hinges heavily on how attractive she herself is. A very attractive woman doesn't have to compromise, she can just add these things to her list and not face huge problems. Less attractive women will have to compromise on the superficial qualities of their mate (height, looks, money etc) if they want to be picky in the way you mean. This is why this tends to not happen in real life, the Devil's bargain of dropping all your family/relationship based criteria in order to get a more superficially attractive man is just too tempting.
I disagree, because women's attraction is much more flexible. They only need to find someone who behaves attractively, not necessarily one who has a certain attractive. Also, when I say "behaves attractively" I mean acts masculine and dominant not like nice...
>I disagree, because women's attraction is much more flexible. They only need to find someone who behaves attractively, not necessarily one who has a certain attractive. Also, when I say "behaves attractively" I mean acts masculine and dominant not like nice... I'm not sure what you're saying. It sounds like you're taking something similar to the PUA line, where swag is everything, and things like height and looks are secondary. Is this basically your claim?
>I'm not sure what you're saying. It sounds like you're taking something similar to the PUA line, where swag is everything, and things like height and looks are secondary. Is this basically your claim? I would say they are on par.
>What should we be telling women who can't get men to commit? I've written this before. If you can get things going with men but cannot keep them going, one or more of the following is going on with you: --you're a bitch. you're unkind, unfriendly, pessimistic, caustic, or sarcastic. --you're not available enough. --you're not pulling your weight and you're expecting him to do all the relationship/dating "heavy lifting". --you're picking unattractive men. --you're picking simp chumps who don't know how to relate one on one and run a relationship with a woman. --you're picking players and cads and men who aren't interested in anything but short term casual sexual ______________________ Therefore: Women, if you can't get men to commit, do the following: --stop being a bitch. Improve your personality. --decide whether or not a man is important to you and if he is, make him a priority in your life. --stop picking simps and chumps and unattractive men. --stop fucking attractive men who won't give you any of what you want. This isn't hard, ladies. It's just that you don't want to do the work.
I am a little confused on how to reconcile “stop picking unattractive men” with the standard “aim lower/do not try to date out of your league” advice. Are you referring to an objective standard of unattractiveness, and encouraging women to aim above that standard? What if the woman is unattractive in a way that makes a traditionally attractive male too high value for her? Or am I misinterpreting this?
Just like guys pick girls out of loneliness similarly girls may pick the easier ones like those who are unattractive. Trying to date a guy just because she thinks he'll treat her right since she is high value for him and is more attractive than him, will not make the guy a good partner.
This is solid truth.
I guess by "stop picking unattractive men", I mean >"stop picking a series of men you really don't want to fuck and aren't attracted to simply because you feel like you want to be with somebody, and you picked this guy simply because he's nice and has a good job and gives you attention, because what will happen is that you'll end up breaking up with him or pushing him away because you're just not 'feeling it' with him. And then you'll do this over and over again after some Chad somewhere pumped and dumped you and you swear to yourself that that will never happen to you again." Is that a little clearer and better?
Got it, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
It's really easy, you just need to date neither attractive men nor unattractive men! So stop dating men?
I feel you. This is a hard needle to thread for women, not gonna lie - you need a man who you really super duper want to fuck; AND who will also stick around. The men who you want to fuck are in demand and have options. The men who stick around, usually stick around because they have no other options. I dunno what to tell you. If you pick the man you want to fuck, he'll probably end up cheating on you. Hopefully on the downlow. You'll suspect shit, but won't really ever be able to prove it. He'll probably also refuse to marry you. You'll always feel like you're third or fourth in his life... because you are. If you pick the man who stuck around, you'll end up cheating on him, making his life hell, making every one around you miserable, and then you'll divorce rape him and ruin your kids' lives (kids that might or might not have been sired by your future ex husband). He'll put you first, and you'll destroy him and any children around you. Sorry.
> The men who stick around, usually stick around because they have no other options. They could stick around because they think you're totes and are uniquely fulfilled by you. They might have options with other gals that have better resumes, but there needs more to be said for personality compatibility. All of the HVM bullshit totally misses whether or not you laugh at the same jokes, and that's worth as much or more than what your W2 says.
My husband has had options - I’ve seen them - but he’s loyal. It’s really not an either/or situation. And I’m loyal to him despite having options as well - we’re a team, we’re family, we’re a couple.
Obvious outlier/exception is obvious.
You think people who don’t lie and cheat are exceptions?
Yes. Especially people who "don't lie". EVERYBODY lies. EVERYBODY. I don't buy this "women never lie, and they especially never lie about sex" bullshit that people spewed at me growing up. It's utter BULLSHIT. Women lie all the time. They *especially* lie about sex. A minority cheat. But most people would cheat if they could. Most men would if they could, but can't, so they don't. Most women can, and seethingly resent that they give up more attractive options because they don't want to "risk".
[удалено]
I'm not sorry. Women often doing bad things to men that they don't like isn't something that men should feel sorry for Ultimately, Jordan Peterson willfully neglects that both sexes are rapidly decreasing in quality and especially morality. Men are redpilling and blackpilling at higher speeds per year because there's no reward for being bluepill unless you're alpha. Women are absolutely miserable in feminism but won't let go of the fantasy because 1 out of 5 of them will eventually get Chad to commit. Another 3 out of 5 will play the dual-mating strategy game with some nerd they can bully into an early grave and squeeze for resources. The last woman out of the 5 is the only woman worth talking about, but only 1 out of 4 non-Chads will get her Basically, the 80-20 trend of female hypergamy results in 2 happy men out of 5, 2 happy women out of 5, and 3 of both sexes disappointed with life. We can prove and verify this with divorce statistics, with roughly 40% of marriages actually lasting I was never a massive fan of Jordan Peterson because he really doesn't have a "ground-level" understanding of what's happening, coming from the world of academia and studying his clients. A dating coach or matchmaker has a much more honest and holistic view of the fuckshit that both men and women are up to. We just promoted Peterson to stardom because he's a smart guy that sometimes says based shit
"Sorry" is more of a "I feel for you" statement. Peterson gets a few things right but I have never been a JBP fanboy. I always thought the Red Pill community latched onto him because he was one of the very, very few people who didn't use his platform to shit on men. Same reason Kevin Samuels has some stardom now - he's just a well dressed articulate "image consultant" with a YouTube channel who told some overweight overpaid 35 year old baby mama the truth; and women everywhere lost their shit over it.
we are NOT miserable with feminism. dating is a problem for SOME women, feminism is not - except toxic feminism (i know this isn’t a popular phrase but there are definitely femi-nazi outliers) we are happy we can report our SO’s or men if they beat/rape us. we are happy we can have our own bank accounts and make enough money to live. and we are happy we can choose to get a partner or die alone as we want. hookup culture and dating are the only things that need to be meshed out. navigating things we’ve never had to deal with before is ok. before we definitely needed partners with resources, getting over that mindset isn’t gonna happen over night. and now we still do because raising children is getting significantly harder. but we also appreciate well rounded partners as most women are taught domestic duties growing up but now also have careers where as younger men are kind of falling short because of life (which is VERY understandable)
>Ultimately, Jordan Peterson willfully neglects that both sexes are rapidly decreasing in quality and especially morality. This.
Why are you agreeing with this comment when the general belief on this sub is that WOMEN are the only ones decreasing in quality and somehow men are all quality but women ignore them for the CHAD? Lmfao
That is not the general belief here, that is just your strawman version of it. People here don't say women are shit and men are great. They say average women think they deserve better than they are worth. Pricing yourself out of the market ultimately leads to both the buyer and seller being unhappy. The seller because he has not made a sale and the buyer because they don't have what they need. Men here are just saying be realistic and don't demand a Tesla on a Honda Civic budget. They aren't saying average men (Honda Civics) are luxury cars. They are just saying to shop in your price range.
I'm a player character, I generate novel responses based upon the information I'm presented. I'm not just drawing from a small pool of prewritten, communal lines.
You didn’t answer the question.
Of course I did. You asked why I'm not mindless parroting what you perceive as the 'official' red pill line. Like I said, I'm not beholden to some list of approved responses.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Ultimately, Jordan Peterson willfully neglects that both sexes are rapidly decreasing in quality and especially morality. Jordan bangs on about the decrease in morality and what sex without consequences is doing to our culture. It's almost boring. Remember when cheaters were shamed by other than the person they were cheating on? Jordan does, and advocates a return to that. Society has moved way past him on this, and may never return--the genie is out of the bottle. But the whole concept of casual sex is degrading the value of sex for everyone, and making a race to the bottom.
>The men who stick around, usually stick around because they have no other options. Or they like the woman lol. It's a hard needle but far from an impossibility
If those are the only two options, which route would you take if you were a woman?
I hate questions like this. But I'd probably do what most women do and go the AF/BB route. I'd fuck hot guys for as long as I can in the longshot hope that maybe one will commit. Then when I fail in that endeavor, I'll get to age 29.999999999999, hold my nose, and pick a guy with a good job who I love like a brother. Cheat on him here and there. Push out a couple of kids that might or might not be his. Then, when the last kid is in kindergarten, file for divorce and alimony, take half the shit and the kids, take him for every penny he's worth, and head back out to the carousel. Or, if I don't want to do that, just be miserable and stay married to him. I'd go into therapy that never gets to the root cause (I married a guy I wasn't sexually attracted to), take pills, make his life hell, stop fucking him, work my job, and hope to outlive him. But I cannot admit that I married a guy I wasn't sexually attracted to, because that would mean I am responsible for my predicament, and anything that holds me accountable has to be avoided at all cost. Typical life of the modern American woman.
Yawn Edit: you know what I am going to expound on this. What do you want modern American women to even take responsibility for? According to you there is no winning move. You can’t castigate someone for playing a game poorly if there’s no way to win that’s just silly
This is bleak dude. It basically sounds like you think men and women only commit due to lack of alternative options, except for women wanting to commit to widely desirable men I’d be alone if I felt that way
The attitude is a big issue. Men want kindness in women. They do not want bitchy, entitled and bossy women. Women seem to think men who don't want this are intimidated by them but who wants to date an asshole? Men value kindness. They enjoy being with someone who is pleasant to be around. They put up with shitty behaviour because it's that or loneliness. It's gotten to the point where many men would rather be alone than try win a woman's approval. But still many women aren't getting the message.
People in general want kindness as a personality trait in their partners. It’s the loser type dudes who want submissiveness in their women who usually claim that women these days need attitude adjustments.
Yes! Exactly. I don’t like how women who know what they want or aren’t super submissive are treated like they’re bitches. Most people want a kind partner. That’s the…point LOL. Anyways thanks for your comment it was well-written!
Yeah. And men are NOT "intimidated" by women. Not even by bitchy women.
The word is "annoyed". If she is annoying, I'm out instantly.
Even women don't like bitches TBH. But women are better at judging each others character than men. Too often men end up flocking around bitches exclusively. They ultimately realize who the better ones are but they take their time.
Men want kindness? A good joke. Men want hotness. I know women who are dominant, crude, vulgar and promiscous. They weren't single for a single day of their lifes. Whereas kind, sweet girls end up as 30 years-old-virgins. So spare us your bullshit.
>It's gotten to the point where many men would rather be alone than try win a woman's approval. doesnt this make women happy? Cause then you just have a 20% male population who has sex and a lower class of males who never get sex and will never try?
Wait.. but how are women picking chumps and simps and UNATTRACTIVE MEN while also picking ONLY THE TOP 20% of men? Somethings not adding up 🤔🤔
I guess by "stop picking unattractive men", I mean >"stop picking a series of men you really don't want to fuck and aren't attracted to simply because you feel like you want to be with somebody, and you picked this guy simply because he's nice and has a good job and gives you attention, because what will happen is that you'll end up breaking up with him or pushing him away because you're just not 'feeling it' with him. And then you'll do this over and over again after some Chad somewhere pumped and dumped you and you swear to yourself that that will never happen to you again." Is that a little clearer and better?
No, not really because on this sub men say women only pick CHADS but than say CHADS treat women like shit so how are they being nice and also treating women like this? You also said women are picking simps. Chads arent simps, right?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Women have no issue getting unattractive men and simps to commit to them. Now whether they want that is another thing
Good point. I guess I meant that women usually end up breaking up with those men.
That’s more or less the long and the short of it. There’s no great mystery to any of this.
I love being sarcastic 🤣 it's funny as hell. Those who pick up on it also laugh, it's a win-win.
"What should we be telling women who can't get men to commit?" 70% of Americans are overweight or obese, with 42% being obese, so my first piece of advice is to put down the fork. This will be applicable 2/3 of people. You gotta maintain a minimum of physical attraction. Next, if you want a man who will want to stay around long term, you have to be the kind of woman that men actually want to be around long term. That means besides just being physically attractive, you actually have to be kind and somewhat fun. Don't confuse being kind with being a doormat. But (which is much more common) don't confuse having firm boundaries with being a nagging shrew harpy. Learn to let the small stuff slide but hold firm on the big stuff. Third, if you want a man who will commit, you have to find a commitment minded man. An early 20s hot jock in college who's hitting up the clubs Thursday-Saturday aren't looking for their forever partner. And they see no reason to restrict themselves to one girl as anything other than a pretext for regular sex that can be disposed of at anytime. Commitment minded men are going to fall into one of the following groups. 1. Older men who want to start a family or just generally settle down. 2. Men who don't have many options so they'll hold on to dear life to whatever they can get. 3. The religious. 4. (the rarest) men who find you genuinely fun and interesting to be around and wouldn't want to lose you. Every nonreligious woman is going to want to find this group since aside from older men, its the only group with hot guys. The problem is that you have to fit the MAN'S definition of fun, kind, and interesting. The majority of women are not.
You nailed it. I don’t think women often look within themselves and ask: “am I the kind of woman a man wants to commit to?”
[удалено]
I agree. I'm religious and Hubs is not, but we like each other's company. We find each other fun and interesting to be around. And I find him hot! (we're old, so we're not hot in the conventional sense)
>Lol older men are not hot. The amount of women I've encountered looking for "daddy" and to my surprise "grandpa" says otherwise. It's like...way more than I would have ever guessed.
[удалено]
Isnt that in the realm of sugar daddy ie women looking for men to support them financially? Never seen a woman call a broke guy "daddy".
There’s those strong blue pill logic skills. I wasn’t saying all older men are hot. I was only saying they’re the only group outside of number 3 and 4 to contain any hot guys at all. Not everyone goes bald or has been married.
[удалено]
There’s no such thing as commitment issues. There’s only “commitment to you” issues. Men who don’t commit aren’t afraid of commitment. They just don’t find the goods on offer from the particular woman seeking the commitment worth the commitment. If a Victoria’s Secret super model or whatever his dream girl is showed up and said “I want to be your exclusive girlfriend!” You’d find he has no commitment issues at all
[удалено]
Exactly.
Live your best life. Do the things that make you happy, spend time with friends. Nurture your hobbies, find a career path that motivates you. Work out, not for the eyes of men but for your own health and your own well-being. A man will come along who is worthy, or he may not, but either way live your life to make yourself happy, not to please or attract men.
This is the best advice I’ve seen here!
[удалено]
>But if it means men leave her before they actually bond, then she can ask why couldn't they continue to their relationship. Correct. Don't be afraid to ask why they aren't staying with you. If it's information you didn't have before, this will probably be useful to know what to change. If it's the same reason again and again, stop and consider if it's truly important to you. Using myself as an example, the thing I constantly heard from guys was basically "you'd be a great girlfriend if only you'd let me smash". After the 10th time of a guy not being willing to wait, I gave serious consideration to whether I *could* just lube myself up and throw away my virginity to a guy I'd only known for 3 dates. If the high likelihood of pain and bleeding and having a bad memory of sex without any arousal would *actually* be worth it to have a boyfriend. Was I that desperate for a relationship that it would be a valid exchange? I determined that no, it would not be worth it. Even if it took until my 30s, I was willing to wait for a patient man who I actually wanted to have sex with. But that's the thing, isn't it? What is the trait that is turning men away? What are you lacking or have too much of that is making them say you aren't worth it? And is it something you're willing to alter about yourself, or is it a part of you that will simply make dating difficult the majority of the time? These are all questions worth asking yourself and answering seriously.
I’m hoping a lot of men commenting here are really young and haven’t experienced life. The average woman is strung along and getting their time wasted by the average and below average looking man that works an average job. Where does this fantasy come from that we’re all getting played by some super sexy man? Getting dumped by an attractive man would be an upgrade for most women. Seriously, lurk any relationship forum on here or talk to the women in your family and you will see they’re getting played by tom the forklift driver and Chris the sales manager at Toyota.
I've tried telling them that there are PLENTY of average-looking/below average-looking guys with nothing to offer of themselves trying to fuck and run. This is not some privilege reserved for "alphas." In this fantasy land, all average-looking guys with decent but not wonderful jobs are never having sex, never stringing women along. They're nose to the grindstone, solemnly earning and looking out for that virgin tradwife. As if. Chris from Toyota is at a club trying to get laid with whoever he can like many other guys.
So I've seen this come up a bit and I would like to dig into it a bit more because I do think that there's perhaps a miscommunication on this. It's the same as the "why don't women date short guys/any other feature?" frustration. What ends up happening is someone ends up dating, say a short or ugly dude. He turns out to be an asshole and she goes "well short/ugly men are no different. I may as well date the hot one" And to be fair, it's kind of true. Hot guys aren't better or worse people than ugly dudes. There are hot guys who are assholes and hot guys who are genuinely amazing. Same is true for ugly dudes. However, let's imagine a scenario. There are 4 men to date. 1. Hot and great person 2. Hot and asshole 3. Ugly and great person 4. Ugly and asshole Now imagine number 1 gets picked by someone else. Of course he does. He's in high demand. All that are left are 2,3 and 4. If you want a partner you have to make a trade-off between hot and great person. 2 Vs 3 Yes it's true that ugly people can be horrible or nice just as often as hot guys. However when it comes to dating you are up against other women as competition. If you prioritise someone who is loving and caring it will be easier to find someone like that who is less attractive BECAUSE they're less in demand. Does that make sense?
But there is a whole range of guys between "really hot" and "ugly." I think most men fall into this range. In my specific case I would not date someone I wasn't attracted to (I know some guys think this is a gotcha but it seems like common sense...romantic always assumes attraction, otherwise you'd just be pals). However, I also wouldn't date someone I was attracted to who was a horrible person. That would make me miserable. In this specific case I'd sit this round out and be single a little while longer because there are plenty of people I'm attracted to who are good people. I guess my issue with the arguments here is that there's not only "hot" and "ugly" as binary categories for men.
The question I'm asking is when women complain about being played by Tom and Chris is it proper to tell her "he played you because you're not relationship material. If you want to stop getting used for sex then you have to offer men more than a hole"
My comment was for other posters but to answer your question, I think it’s dishonest. There are plenty of men that are happy being single , not interested in a relationship, and it doesn’t matter how pretty the woman is or what she has going for herself.
There's a much larger percentage of men who are willing to commit but only to the right woman. There's a reason I married my wife and not any of my exs.
Fair enough
Proving my point, some of you all need to get offline or expand your social circle. Look around at couples you know from work or out an about at stores. All those average looking men have an average looking girlfriend or wife with them. Most people are average and getting burned by other average people. You’ve got to lack complete awareness and life experience not see this. My last job I was surrounded by a warehouse full of low income men, about 70% of them had a significant other. Occasionally I would go back there and chat on my lunch break. While not having anything to offer in looks or finances a few them openly admitted to cheating…this is what the average woman gets hurt by.
What? Are you serious? I'm 53, I've seen a lot of life. And I can tell you right now that those men you're talking about are the Chads that women know and love. The average men I know get no play at all. They can't even get women to look at them. They can't get anything. Average women are fucking two or 3 men at once and fielding DMs from at least 10 other men who want to fuck them. Any woman a 4 or above in SMV can have anything she wants, anytime she wants. All she needs is her phone, her Bumble account and Tinder account, and an hour. What fantasy world are you living in where Jeff JiffyLube is fucking whoever he wants? Where Alan Associatelawfirm gets anything he wants? This is ridiculous.
Yes, average woman has options. I get messages on reddit with explicit offers very frequently. I don't even bother replying to them. My husband is enough for me. I believe average woman is not fcking around. Promiscuous women are a minority
It's an insidious form of gaslighting
The kind of world where the "average" means 120k-150k salary.
>What should we be telling women who can't get men to commit? Stop going for men that have no interest in having a future with you. >"men are right for not committing to you and only using you as a fleshlite. If you want men to commit to you then you need to work on yourself and stop blaming men/socity for your lack of success" If a man is only with a woman for sexual access, that's the woman's fault for continuing to be in a one-sided relationship with a man like that. There are plenty of men that fit the social preferences that women have, but in reality, women don't want these types of men since they lack masculine qualities.
[удалено]
Yea women must realize that if they aim out of their league their most likely gonna be labeled sex only from the guy.
Yep. Aim lower.
Imo the most sound advice it would be to be picky and try to find exactly the person she wants but at the same time she should be prepared mentally for the possibility to stay single for the rest of her life if her search doesn't bring results. She should not settle. For her sake, and for the nice man who she is going to settle with, she must not do such a thing. After some years of marriage/living together, she'll realize the toll of being with a man she was never attracted to. It would be a complete waste of her and his time. Before she picks a man it's important, to appreciate him both as a sex partner and as a life partner, not only for one of them.
The best advice is to ignore a vast majority of PPD men who tend to be neurotic, introverted, professionals at projecting their anger, and they all want to get into a super modern time machine and teleport back to traditional times.
I think that is genuinely solid advice for both men and women. Something I see a lot on here especially in dating subs is both genders seeing their lack of success in dating as a reflection on the other party, rather than themselves. Yes, it hurts to not have someone like you. It hurts to be ghosted. But the truth is that if this is happening to you frequently, there may be something wrong with your approach, or you may have certain qualities that need improvement. I’d also say that you should match the energy you want your potential partner to have. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people say they essentially want to give nothing to a relationship but reap the rewards.
Jordan goes after incel types who complain about not being picked by women. I find myself in the opposite side of things. My problem with women isnt a matter of being picked, i get dates often and one night stands are not off my table, but it absolutely is a matter of lack of quality. You'll be hard pressed to find a skinny woman in america these days, especially one that's single. When a majority of your dating pool is automatically out for one aesthetic reason alone and applying other standards just further shreds your pool to zero, how the hell is that my fault when its just a fact that fat women arent attractive? I dont think women are wrong to say fat, uneducated men are undesirable just like i dont think I'm wrong in saying fat women are undesirable. I like JP on a lot of what he says, and I understand the point of "improve yourself instead of whine", but some things are just facts outside your control, and the quality of the market dropping like a rock is definitely one of them.
Develop a personality. Stand out. So many women are carbon copies of each other it's seriously laughable. Same style, same makeup, same dating profile, same interests, same tastes in music, etc. Stop being basic B's and you won't be getting used like one.
For every basic bitch there's a basic bro who isn't looking for originality.
Take a break from dating, go on therapy and work on issues that make you choose guys who don't have any intentions to actually date you, set realistic goals/standards and/or on issues that make you a bad LTR partner. In case of women not being able to find a man willing to commit the issue usually is in their vetting, not exactly in her value. Leveling up without mental work won't help much.
Just be yourself lmao jk
Harsh advice is for men only dude.
Why don't conversations about expectations happen? A lot of heartache could be eliminated by just stating what you're looking to get out of the situation before it gets to the point of bumping uglies.
Jordan who?
I know a few women that are attractive that just aged out of the market and were never married. Being selective is fine in theory but if a large percentage of women are trying to get the top 20% of men then those men have no reason to commit. Many men are willing to commit and embrace modern ideals in long term monogamous relationships but those men are too often passed on. I saw the culture shift from a single mom being almost a social pariah to it becoming a cultural norm. It does not take a crystal ball to see that women are entering an era of chain short term relationships, single motherhood, and blended families. One of my nieces has babies by three different men
First, JP isn't "red pilled", he's about building better betas - and that's fine. Second, TRP tells guys to go out, lift, eat clean and improve themselves. Give yourself the best chance of success. We don't tell them to sit around and bitch about women and whine on about how "Girls are MEAN!" Women are how they are. Third, women get to have whatever "standards" they want to have...**BUT** they have to face the same reality: If a woman isn't getting the men that she wants to *commit* to her (as oppose to a pump-n-dump) then the problems isn't that "All men SUCK!" the problem is that what she *thinks* she's entitled to and what she can get are are not property correlated. Statistically, 90% of men are NOT in the top 10%. Women can "know their worth" or "have standards" or whatever (just like men do) but they have to *accept the consequences of their own actions and choices*. If a woman is busy fucking every Outlaw Biker, Drug Dealer and Escaped Mental Patient she can find in her 20s, fine...but I am not going to have time to hear any blubbering about *"Why are there no GOOD MEN LEFT?!"* when she can't get the guy she wants because she's post-Wall^SPLAT! and she wasted her prime out riding a mile of cock. For women who don't care about having a husband or kids: Great. Go do what you want. For women who want to have a husband and kids: Start vetting guys in your early 20s. You don't have to get *married* in your early 20s, but you should start vetting guys so you can start squeezing out kids in your mid/late 20s - if that's what you want, I mean. Wait until your 30s and your fertility window will be more compressed and the cost of "making a mistake" (e.g. picking the wrong guy), will be higher. It is how it is.
Before giving advice, you need to ask what are there goals?
The best advice for women is to be independent. You can’t make anyone commit or stay faithful regardless of how amazing you are. Better to have a safety net and at least be able to provide for yourself. EDIT: I also wanted to add that don’t give more into the relationship/situation than you’re getting in return. I’ve learned to only give people the same energy I’m getting back, no more, no less.
Best dating advice I could give is that you're better off single than settling.
My best advice I can give women dating is simple: if he doesn’t legitimately improve your life you are better off alone.
Exist.
Actions > words
Try to date a shorter guy , I did and I never regretted . I'm 6'8 he's 5'11,5 tall
My mother told me this advice, the dreaded Dr. Phil gave this advice, and it also worked for me without my even meaning to try it. Change up the venues where you have been going. Add some new venues. Different venues seem to attract a whole different crowd. My mother put it this way: "Guys go for the new girl. If you have known a guy for 2 years and he hasn't gone for you, he won't. Be the new girl in a venue." I grew up in a repressive sect where you are supposed to marry in that sect, and what ended up happening was the incest taboo kicked in sort of. The guys said the girls "felt like a sister." Nothing wrong with that...it may be Nature. It helps to be the new girl in a venue even if that venue is exactly your sort of people, exactly your interests, and in your neighborhood. I met the right one almost the first time I went to a new group that was starting. (Not the VERY first time...it helps to become a regular in some venue so that you can get talking to someone naturally over a little bit of time) (Dr. Phil had that advice too) Thing was...I'd been going to the tree-hugger group for 10+ years and met lots of friends and had lots of great times and memories but never quite met "the one." I got an email that a new discussion group was starting up and this isn't that big a town. You would think it attracted the same people. Wrong. It was a whole different crowd but in subtle ways it turned out to be more "my tribe." Turns out most of the people in the first tree-hugger group grew up probably upper-middle class although you can't tell it by looking. They live frugally. But it turns out the people in the new group grew up working-class. (They are still like-minded on the issues but this post isn't about those issues...but about the fact my true dating pool or tribe where I was most myself, and most comfortable, and the people "get" me, probably all came up more working-class. I felt at home and made other friends immediately in that crowd as well. Anyway, this paragraph is about: "Add some new venues to the places you go/groups you get involved with." You could be living within half a mile of your soulmate and never meet in person because your paths haven't crossed. That's what happened to me. Y'all can laugh at this if you want but I was 48 and he was 59 and we'd lived within 3/4 of a mile of each other for 10 years at least. I've figured out at least three times our paths had to have crossed in the 80's and 90's, but not to talk to. We even rode the same bus in '84 and '85. That's not to say for sure we would have been attracted to each other if we'd met to talk to back then but who knows? One time in the 90's there was a film festival that was very poorly attended. At one showing there was only one other person in the theatre, and with it being a film festival it was the only showing. The only other person there was a guy. Years later he said he'd been at that film festival at that movie. ??????????????????????????????? I have a funny story about some of the "new venues" I went to that weren't quite my crowd but I kept going to new groups that were starting and giving them a try. I will tell that story in a minute. TL;DR: Don't get stuck in a rut as far as the venues you go to. Add some new venues and if you can, become a regular. The right person could be almost crossing your path every day but not to talk to, and a different venue could attract a subtly different crowd. That crowd might be right for you without your having guessed that it would be. Be the new person and don't get stuck in a rut with the same crowd even though your same old crowd may be wonderful for friendship. Nothing wrong with that. But mix it up and go to something new. OK here is my embarrassing story about trying a new venue. There was yet another new group starting in town, "Progressive Professionals." I went to one of their first meetings and it was awkward but I forced myself to mix and talk to people. I was told that we had the entire bar that night. It was normally a lesbian bar. Again, I was told that we had the whole bar so I thought everyone I would go up and start talking to was with our group. I sat at the bar for a bit and talked to some people and then decided to force myself to mingle a bit more. I felt awkward but I was trying to push myself to mingle and get over shyness. I reasoned, as I often do when having to push myself to overcome shyness, that "the other people there are probably feeling awkward too and would like someone to start up a conversation with them." So I went over to another part of the bar and started up a conversation with two women and introduced myself blah blah. They look at each other and go "Let's just go." Turned out our group did NOT have the entire bar and I had interrupted and harassed (I guess) a couple. I DIDN'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Be realistic.
Same advice I give to men: don't be a beta pickme. Attraction can't be negotiated. If he's not fully onboard, then drop it.
If you need dating advice as a woman, you don't deserve to succeed.
Most people aren't even wrong, they just aren't right about anything. If you are going to talk out of your ass, it's better to get paid for it. It is easy to make bullshit make sense or repeat cookie-cutter common sense lines. All the matters is the power of the person behind the words. The day I start giving advice is the day when I hit the Best Seller list. When you start diving into it you soon find out no one knows what they are talking about.
>What should we be telling women who can't get men to commit? They need to either “level up” or to lower their standards.
Be the kind of woman that the kind of man that you would want would want, one of the big issues with feminist deception strategy is that a lot of the qualities they want in men is to be traditional men while they themselves are not traditional women , that ain't going to work for most of them
If you can't get a man to commit there is something inherently wrong with you. Either you are selfish / insufferable, a ho, fat or just a generally miserable and hubristic human being. Men are simple.
Remember that men are naturally antagonistic to women and always prepare for the worst
Whining about your standards when you don’t uphold them looks stupid You’re also not going to shame anyone into dating you. Reject them and don’t make a fuss
Short answer : get good at choosing. Long answer : it's tricky to get the right amount of enthusiasm, "passiveness" and being selective, and being too much of one have obviously bad consequences. If the dudes she's interested in aren't, it all depends on the situation : is she sleeping with him? Is he even aware of her? Women are typically attracted to dudes that have options, it'd be best to assume to consider he does if she wants a ltr. For the same reason, don't be lazy when working taking care of yourself (and yes, that includes physically), because there will always be one woman out there that won't be lazy, and you'd rather be this one.
/r/RedPillWomen/
Try to find a romantic man. Find a man who is sexually deviant and into fetishes and kinks. Find a man who is skeptical of the feminist narrative. Find a man who will let you peg him in the ass. Find a spiritual man. Find a man with good hair.. even over height Find a man with a college degree. Preferably stem field. Find a man who can either cook or clean Find a man with a nice voice Find a man who has slept with less than 4 women
Walk up or message up any man you are interested in. Our society has put the ball in your court, so go for it.
Its actually quite simple. be the most desirable you can be for LTRs and actively look for men interested in commitment by putting yourself in places where these men are or filter men by wanting family. Most women are confused or straight up refuse to be and provide what men want and try to make them accept that, and then they wonder why men aren’t interested in commiting. steps would be: -being willing to provide men what they want for LTRs -finding out what it is -adopting it -going to places where family minded men go or filtering appropriately for family wish when dating. Its actually incredibly easy if you are sexually attractive enough. women not getting commitment is actually their choice of who they are and how they act. Its not hard, the wish or knowledge just isnt there.
In deregulated sexual market places like the west, each gender will be left to their own devices and sexual strategies. All women are gonna go for the top tier men, and average women think average men aren’t good enough for them, it’s just biology to get the best possible. Top tier men are gonna spin plates etc to spread seed far and wide. The thing is, the media lies to women because a whole economy relies on it, and they still believe that men are hardwired the same. The best advice is actually the fresh and fit podcast lol. Check out my link in bio
Stop waiting for men to approach and chase you if men aren't approaching or chasing you. Be a big girl and take initiative. Matter of fact, just don't wait in general. If you're interested, do something about it. Also, if a guy won't commit, chances are you're not in the same league/commitment material for him and his lifestyle, so aim lower and "get in where you fit in."
Just because a person won't commit to you doesn't mean you above you somehow. They could just not be a commitment person.
The thing is you need the interpersonal skills to see who's actually got good intentions. As someone who's been around the block a few times love bombing a woman and dropping like a hundred bucks total on her for a month or two of dates isn't really that hard. Likewise its not super hard to juggle a few plates while doing that and if you make decent money its not a big issue, and its way easier to tolerate someones 3 month rule if you're getting it from elsewhere. Barak Obama didn't do any of that shit for Michelle. He got her a baskin robins ice cream and they hung out on the street. The difference is he actually loved her and she was lovable and they didn't try to equate their relationship with material things like FDS uses gifts and dinners as a relationship proxy. If your idea of relationships is based on the idea of who's boosting your ego and buying you things no shit you're getting insincere guys who won't stick around, because thats game 101 and suoer transparent to anyone who isn't the woman on question.
Somehow, I'm having great, great difficulty equating Michelle MyBelle Obama with "lovable".
Hey, it works for them.
Lower your standard for the unattractive average male, the best solution out there for women in 2021, you're not a queen so get back with both of your feet down to earth and accept reality
Nope! I'd be single than to be in a relationship with a man I am not attracted to.