Slightly off topic , but anyone know why men who is single or in a relationship, don’t shop as much and as often as women , women in a relationship or women who is single ?

Is it to get attention from men and women by wearing beautiful clothes?

Even if women are in a relationship already ?

If so why do women in a relationship already , want attention from other men or women?

Don’t men want that attention from other men or women too?

Or women try to show off their wealth?

They say men view clothes as necessary , women view clothes as something to express themselves.

What’s the reason men don’t do the same?

if women ( or women in a relationship )don’t buy so many clothes what will happen?

Do they get less attention from strangers, and become sad ?

So, a twitter user apparently debunked the stats used by honeybadger radio.

https://x.com/witchypills/status/1798720962118193661

Anybody who can make a detailed counter to this?

Link: https://lawandcrime.com/crime/wife-who-said-divorce-was-not-an-option-killed-sleeping-husband-with-38-special-before-kids-blow-up-her-home-invasion-story/

link to Missouri arrest warrant: https://www.jacksoncountyprosecutor.com/DocumentCenter/View/2020/MBiggins_Redacted

FYI:

• when Missouri man Ronnie Wiggs strangled his wife because he couldn't afford wife's medical treatment, the Guardian called it a "femicide"

Also FYI:

• Marcellius Williams was executed by lethal injection (after spending 24 years in prison) in Missouri for the 1998 murder of a white woman despite the weapon evidence being contaminated and racial bias in jury selection. Even the prosecutors and victim's family opposed the execution and called for a stay. The prosecutors moved to vacate the conviction, but he was still executed.

• Larry Johnson, also from Missouri, was sentenced to life in prison for the 1984 rape and murder of a white woman. He was exonerated in 2002 after serving 18 years for a crime he did not commit.

• Chirstopher Dunn, from Missouri, was exonerated after spending 34 years in prison for a 1991 murder. He was sentenced to life without parole.

• George Allen, also from Missouri, was sentenced to 95 years for a 1982 rape and murder in St. Louis. He was exonerated by DNA testing thanks to the Innocence Project after serving 30 years.

• Joshua Kezer, from Missouri, was sentenced to 60 years for a 1992 murder of a white woman. He was exonerated in 2009 after serving 14 years. He filed a wrongful conviction lawsuit that was settled for $4 million.

• Lonnie Erby, frm Missouri, was sentenced to 115 years for the kidnapping and rape of various girls. He was exonerated in 2003 after serving nearly 18 years in prison. He was awarded $312k in state compensation ($17k per year).

• Steven Toney was sentenced to life for the 1982 rape and sodomy of a white woman. He was exonerated in 1996, 13 years after conviction.

Full article:

A 42-year-old woman in Missouri will spend a decade behind bars for killing her husband of nine years, shooting him in the back of the head as he slept in their bed because she couldn’t afford to divorce him. Sixteenth Circuit Court Judge Jalilah Otto on Monday ordered Melanie Biggins to serve 10 years in a state correctional facility for the 2022 slaying of Etienne L. McEwan, court records reviewed by Law&Crime show.

Biggins was initially arrested in August 2022 and charged with one count each of first-degree murder and armed criminal action, meaning she was facing a potential life sentence. However, her lawyer, public defender Edward S. Berrigan, reached a deal with prosecutors in which she agreed to plead guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter. In exchange for the plea, the other charges against Biggins were dismissed.

As Law&Crime previously reported, officers with the Kansas City Missouri Police Department at approximately 1 a.m. on Aug. 31, 2022, responded to a reported shooting at a residence in the 1700 block of Gillespie Place.

Upon arriving at the address, first responders encountered the couple’s two young daughters, ages 10 and 11, who were waving their arms to flag down police. They entered the home and went upstairs where they found Biggins administering CPR on her husband, who was “laying on the bed in a pool of blood.” Emergency Medical Services arrived at the scene a short while later and pronounced McEwan dead.

Biggins allegedly told police that she “woke up to the sound of a gunshot and noticed her husband was shot but did not see who did it.” She claimed she then went downstairs and found the front door open.

Investigators said they quickly determined that the shooting was not a suicide and found no signs of forced entry.

“A pillow was located on the floor at the foot of the bed with apparent blood and a hole through it. Crime scene personnel were able to locate a projectile in the stuffing of the pillow. A blanket was also located on the floor with a hole through it and apparent gunpowder burns around the hole,” the affidavit states. “In the closet of the bedroom, an empty black handgun case for a Charter Arms .38 Special was located on the top shelf. In the next door room, a purple/black Charter Arms .38 Special, was located underneath a bunk bed. The firearm had one spent shell casing still inside of the cylinder in the top position.”

Two children, whose names are redacted in the document, allegedly told investigators that they woke up to the sound of a gunshot. The two then went downstairs and found their mother sitting on the couch, documents said. One of the girls allegedly said that Biggins looked “as if she had seen a ghost.” The girls then went upstairs and entered their parents’ bedroom, according to investigators.

“She entered her parents’ bedroom and observed the victim lying on the bed so she turned on the lamp next to the bed. [Redacted] immediately noticed that the victim was bleeding, so she ran back into her room to call the police,” the affidavit states. “[Redacted] handed the phone to Biggins and the call takers told her to begin CPR. While Biggins was doing CPR, she could hear the victim gurgling blood.”

In a second interview with police later that day, Biggins claimed that she was awoken by the sound of a gunshot and found her husband bleeding next to her. She said that she never left the bedroom prior to police arriving at the scene, contradicting her daughters as well as her own initial statement in which she said she found the front door open.

Biggins initially stated that the only gun in the home was her husband’s rifle, which was stored in the closet, according to the affidavit. When confronted with purchase records, however, she allegedly admitted to buying the .38 Special in July of 2022. Police say she was “unable to explain” how the firearm ended up under a bed in another room.

Additionally, Biggins allegedly admitted that she wanted to leave her husband for another man.

“When asked about her relationship with the victim, she said they were legally married for 9 years. Due to financial problems, she has been in an intimate relationship with another man for a year and a half,” the document states. “Biggins has also wanted to get a divorce from the victim but due to their financial struggles, that is currently not an option.”

I am not a crowdfunder and have no personal project.

But I'm wondering if this is something that men would support.

I believe there's a large untapped number of men who would glady make a "fuck the current dating environment" donation to the development of sex robots.

Doing so achieves a few goals:

1) The funds could go directly to some developer.

2) It will signal to neutral capitalists that men want this.

3) It will make it obvious how bad the current dating is for men. It will demolish the idea that this is a small group of marginalized "weird men".

For example there's roughly 30 million men in America between 18-25. It's estimated that 70% of those men are single. So that's roughly 21 million men.

If half of those men donated $1 a month that would be roughly 10 million per a month towards sex robot developments.

Thoughts?

Watch the Honey Badgers video starting at 5:54

https://youtu.be/mYEFVEtjXOY?si=ykT44Qx5Bo87kIoZ

I need to rant about this Reddit Ad I get fed every single fucking day: Millennial women are not okay : u/theglobeandmail_com

It pisses me off because:

1. It completely dismisses men while infinitely victimizing everyday normal women who have to work normal jobs and live a normal life just like men, but because they are women they are struggling but yes us men aren't. Yes, both genders are struggling to live in this world, not just women. Being stressed at a job isn't a woman exclusive thing. Wanting to quit a job isn't a woman exclusive thing. Heavy workload is not a woman exclusive thing. Work-life balance issues is not a woman exclusive thing.

Also not to mention the ad relies on "stats" which is based on how someone "feels" about the facts. They make a misleading bar chart that makes it seem like women work more overtime than men, but really all it is saying is that women blame their workload on stress more than men do.
2) It shows up every single fucking day on my feed, and I can't get rid of it because it's a paid ad.
3) It's a paid ad. They are PAYING to shove it down our throats. They aren't even advertising a product or something we can buy or pay for. They are paying to brainwash people. This is like the equivalent of r/mensrights paying to permanently sticky a post at the top of everyone's Reddit feed against their will and giving them no option to close it. Imagine how pissed off the women would be.

Just because of some 5% mfs every man is a potential rapist, that's what a girl-friend told me today. I tried to explain her that no all men are like this but she just kept saying can't be sure of men now.

The Epidemic Among Young Men

The above substack article is your basic run-of-the-mill "the Dems/left need male votes to win" opinion piece. The TLDR of it is that it directs scant criticisms against the left for decades of anti-male propaganda, and it instead spends the majority of its time reinforcing negative portrayals of young men as "radicalized", "dangerous", "gullible", and "angry". The core criticism I have with the piece is shown best in just one sentence, which pops up over half way into the article:

These narratives create a dangerous cycle: young men’s anger is misdirected toward vulnerable groups, which leads to further polarization and societal instability.

The "vulnerable groups" phrase really jumped out at me, because in other sections of the article the author himself points out that young men are indeed one of the vulnerable groups right now in the US. The mess of arguments being attempted here contradict each other, which does not help men at all. Because when young men see themselves, their male friends, male family members, etc, suffering and experiencing significant challenges and barriers to achieving simple survival out in the world, and instead of support or help they get told their misfortunes are "deserved", then I believe some indignation and even anger at the state of society is wholly justified.

I mean, which is it? Can men be vulnerable? Or are other groups still only allowed to have this "victim" status?

Addressing the root causes of their struggles is not just a moral imperative—it’s essential for the future stability of our society.

If the left truly cared about everyone simply because their side had an intrinsic compassion for people, then being concerned about young men's struggles wouldn't have to be called a "moral imperative" like this. It would have already existed naturally for many years. As someone who once walked in these political circles, I admit that I too used to think that the left were the side with "empathy" and "compassion". However, I came to realize otherwise. Most of them cared only about whatever "downtrodden group" made them feel morally superior, which exposed them to me as selfish, hate-filled extremists who were as bad as those they claimed to oppose (or even worse in too many cases).

Another good indication of this lack of moral principles on the left is how the article itself contains only vague references to how men are struggling. Since the title of the piece had the word epidemic in it, I fully expected to see at least a mention of the decades-long suicide epidemic among men and boys somewhere in its long-winded spiel. Suicide is the second leading cause of death (up until around the age of 34-45) in many countries for men, but it gets almost no attention, and it gets zero male-focused funding from left-leaning governments. And this article disregards it completely as well, along with any other specific issues for men, likely because including those details would make "their side" look bad for their role in ignoring, downplaying, dismissing, or even justifying men's poor outcomes in health, education, employment, etc.

I don't doubt that the author of this article would label the entire MensRights sub – because it questions and opposes anti-male ideologies and platforms – as one of the places that he believes contains "divisive content" and "fuels radicalization" online (which unfortunately is the major focus of this politically-charged piece). But, eventually, he will have to come to terms with the fact that the extreme ideologies that are embraced by the left are fundamentally antithetical to male advocacy, and the two cannot exist together in any unified political platform or party. Until that realization reaches a critical mass, I predict that we will continue to see many more examples of cognitive dissonance like this article.

Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)

Childhood

After the death of his father Carl Ludwig and his brother Joseph, who was two years younger, the following year, his mother and the two children moved into the house of his mother-in-law Erdmuthe Nietzsche.

The two unmarried aunts Augusta and Rosalie also lived in this household.

And so Friedrich Nietzsche, who was only five years old at the time, grew up in a household of only women.

He was used to the dominance of women in the family.

But his mother's worries were a psychological scourge that he wanted to escape (hospitalism):

“The free spirit will always breathe a sigh of relief when he has finally decided to shake off the motherly worries and vigilance with which women rule over him. [...]

That is why the milk that the motherly attitude of the women around him provides can so easily turn into bile."

Image of women

Women played a minor role in his private life, but they influenced his thoughts significantly.

And he also influenced the women of his time and thought about them and their position.

Nietzsche was not very impressed with the emancipation that was emerging at that time.

His image of women also reflects his image of culture and society.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra: "You go to women? Don't forget the whip!"

It says in the first part of Thus Spoke Zarathustra: "You go to women? Don't forget the whip!"

One interpretation is that Lou von Salomé embodies a kind of dominatrix and wields the whip.

Lou von Salomé is a kind of dominatrix

Perhaps it simply expresses the excessive demands on a man to constantly offer a woman a strong shoulder, which is lived out and balanced in lovemaking.

With the breakup of Nietzsche's friendship with Lou von Salomé, it seems that the time has come not to forget the whip when approaching women.

With the man as the whip-wielder.

If you want, you can interpret this as disappointment over the breach of trust by Lou von Salomé by Nietzsche.

It is about the humiliation of the man, which goes back to a fable by Aristotle.

Humiliation of the man

Fable by Aristotle

Nietzsche's sister explains the scene of the whip as the game of a young woman who is loved by both father and son at the same time.

The beautiful woman prefers the powerful, brutal father who beats her.

Hybristophilia, or more generally the apparent paradox that women prefer dominant men, is not only contrary to what feminists say about love and passion, it is a sobering game of confusion for nice young men when dealing with girls of the same age.

Many women are overwhelmed by and unable to deal with their power over men at a young age and leave the decision to dominant men.

It is formative and at the same time painful for young men to realize that dominance and violence are decisive in choosing a partner.

Nietzsche initially wants nothing to do with this use of whips.

But then, as she tells us, his sister brings him back to the ground of the gender hierarchy.

She believes she knows that there are women who need a dominant man, but she distances herself from this desire.

When young men experience how women's hearts soften when they meet a macho, they begin to doubt their own behavior.

In a later report by her sister, she admits that it is she who is being described by her brother.

The relationship between men and women has always been fraught with tension, and anyone who unilaterally and arbitrarily pushes the boundaries with force without ensuring balance is responsible for the consequences and reactions.

Quotes from Nietzsche

Most philosophers naturally assumed that there are fixed differences in nature between the sexes. (Not yet empirically proven at the time).

And the same motif keeps cropping up: the woman is the more sensual, natural or sexual creature, the man the more intellectual.

For Nietzsche, there is something wrong with the sexuality of a woman if she has "learned inclinations".

Everything about a woman is a mystery, and everything about a woman has a solution: it is called pregnancy.

What inspires respect and often enough fear in a woman is her nature, which is "more natural" than that of a man (...).

The surface is the woman's mind, a moving, stormy skin on a shallow body of water. The man's mind, however, is deep, its stream rushes in subterranean caves: the woman senses its power, but does not understand it.

The man's happiness is: I want. The woman's happiness is: He wants.

How many men here have this experience? Or similar experiences?

Never been seen as a romantic interest but have someone else just given up because you don't understand women and they don't understand your problems?

Nobody ever contacts you first, you’ve never had romantic experiences nor girlfriend in your life, your work or effort in anything in life is never appreciated, you are always either forgotten or ignored, you are treated like just another statistic. Nobody actually cares about you. You are desperate because you want answers to your problems but cannot seem to find them or you know how to fix some of your problems but the solution is currently out of reach. Your problems have been going on for years, the longer they go on, the worse it gets. People sense your desperation or can somehow spot all your problems or flaws, then they slowly abandon you thus making everything worse. It seems nobody will help you, or if they do then the help you get is a lie, something you’ve already tried or even whether unintentionally or intentionally, the help or advice you get can harm you or make the problems ever worse. You have one major problem such as loneliness, but you also have several other problems, there are some problems you know about, and some you cannot pinpoint exactly what is wrong. I can go on, but is this an experience for most men here? Just several problems you have in life, and you’re just scrambling to find solutions for?

On the other hand, there are plenty for women, which are usually taken over/hijacked by misandrists and feminists to express their extremist thoughts and purely hatred against men or anything that doesn't fit them in general. They usually get away under the half-assed guise of free speech.

Take Reddit for example. Yes, I know it's bitching over the Donald Trump presidency for the past 3 months, but let's not divert this conversation to politics (I'm not from US so I don't really care). That post saying "male loneliness isn't our (women's) problem/doesn't exist" and the mods of that particular subreddit doubled down on the "go fuck yourself" statement? How about site admins denying misandry is a form of harassment? That men is not a vulnerable group? Don't even get me started on dating advices or women dominated subreddit. IT'S JUST MISANDRISTS PROPAGATING MISANDRY EN MASSE IN DISGUISE. (I know fully well I'm risking being shadowbanned - a form of censorship in itself for speaking up against subreddit mods - which are self proclaimed tyrants on this platform)

Or how about TikTok, the platform in which I already said in my previous post. Yes, a lot of development has took place since my last post. Now instead of it being a breeding ground for misandry, it's a breeding ground for extremism [against govt.]. And guess which group celebrated and further fueled this movement the most?

I am glad that I'm not from the US because I can't imagine opening an app to see goofy cornballs thinking that writing some stupid words on banknotes, spamming "kill the rich/all men" comments (they slipped under TikTok very strict filter, that's a wonder in of itself!) will do something.

So, what is the solution? Well, do NOT interact (even if you want to say something the evil algorithm on every social media will think that you are interested and keep feeding you hate fuel) Click on Do not interested everytime you see those content pop up.

I know, this is a statement, not a question. There is no solution as it is deeply rooted in Western culture itself, and brought down any empathy/kindness with it.

A former student sued Vassar College, claiming it expelled him for a night of "clearly consensual sexual activity," because of policies that "invariably" find men guilty of sexual misconduct.

Peter Yu claims in Federal Court that he suffered emotional distress, loss of career prospects and earnings and damage to his reputation. He wants the expulsion reversed and his disciplinary record expunged.

Reading the articles and other sources about this Vassar allegation situation, it is disheartening to see that nothing ever happened to help him recover, and he just became another name of the falsely accused that the media purposely chooses not to cover. The MeToo movement has become so strong since 2015 that cases like this are brushed under the rug and framed as "one-offs" when I know there are many more like this, whether it's falsely accused through social media nowadays vs college expulsion.

It's common for feminists to say that men's loneliness is men's fault and they often mock and ridicule lonely men. They constantly use stories of a woman being murdered and use it to generalize lonely men, despite the fact that the offender may have not necessarily been a lonely man, let alone motivated by loneliness. In fact, there's no evidence that lonely men who struggle with dating are more misogynistic, and if anything, they're less misogynistic. Misogynistic men were found to be far more promiscuous than other men, and often are short-term mating oriented. They have relationship experience and a high amount of casual sex experience. The incel online community is just an overemphasized minority of misogynists.

This so-called "dating expert" named DatePsych on Twitter has spent a lot of time portraying lonely men negatively, and cites studies to try to "prove" it. He cites a study he conducted himself showing that almost half of young adult men have never approached a woman before, but he even acknowledges himself that his sample probably had a sampling bias. He believes people who pursue dating more were overrepresented, but I think it's the opposite. It could be people who were blackpilled, love-shy, or lacked dating opportunities disproportionately responded to the study. He also cites studies saying that men playing videogames or not socializing is why casual sex is declining (but many people still DO have casual sex, regardless of whether it is less common). The problem is that this could include people who are sexless because they're not interested in sex or who are very introverted or not interested in social gatherings as much, not people who are interested in these things but lack the occasion. Also, it could be that people who struggle with dating have less social lives and struggle with meeting people because many grew up ostracized or rejected by peers, and because they lack a social life, might play videogames in their free time when they don't have anyone to hang out with. It's not that they aren't looking for a social life, but when they have a weekend without anyone to talk to, they'll spend time playing videogames to fill the void. Maybe there's more introverts than they used to, maybe people are taking more time to adjust to adulthood these days (i.e.: a slow life history strategy), and maybe more technology gives people more things to do indoors. He even tries to say that men aren't interested in being friends with other men and that's why they are isolated. Well no, that's not it.

Men who are lonely or isolated aren't the types who just refuse to be friends with other men, and if they refuse, they're probably not lonely out of it.

The truth is, both men and women are less interested in being friends or hanging out with men compared to women. Women tend to be more socially popular. There's even evidence showing that people socially stigmatize autistic men more than autistic women even when controlling for autism severity and masking, and that the neurotypical women were rated the most socially likeable, with autistic women being just slightly less socially liked than neurotypical men and far more socially liked than autistic men. They conclude that being a woman is a protective factor against social stigma for autistic women. This can be explained by the fact that people are more interested in being friends with women and this can explain why women get more attention on social media. In fact, men tended to prefer a higher number of friends but less close or intimate, whereas women preferred a few very close friends. Women were very close with their friends and would discuss personal issues with them, whereas men preferred doing things with their friends, especially as a group. This can include drinking at bars, playing sports, or going to the gym together. Many men even were willing to cancel plans with male friends to spend time with female friends, and were more interested in sharing their emotions and personal problems with female friends the way women do with each other. This isn't due to "toxic masculinity", but men tend to enjoy doing things together as a group and often prefer a high number of friends who do things as groups rather than be close friends.

So why is this? It's not due to "toxic masculinity". In fact, cross-culturally, it was found that universally across societies, men have a hierarchal preferences of many male friends with a few closer ones than others with less intimacy, and women have preferences for a clique of a few close friends with dyadic relationships. This is for evolutionary reasons. Men might need to form clubs of men together during the sexual division of labor to fight against attackers or to hunt together or protect their community. Women were hardwired to prefer same-sex dyadic friendships for multiple reasons: Given the likelihood of ancestral patrilocality (where the woman would live in the husband's home or near the husband's parents or community), young women often would enter communities where they lacked kin. For women, kin is fitness-enhancing, which is shown in anthropoid primates and humans. As a result, women were hardwired to find close same-sex friendships where kin did not exist so they could be safe and have someone to talk to in case they deal with aggression from others whether it's aggressive men or inter-female aggression in the new community where she lacks kin. In patrilocal bonobos, the female bonobos will enter foreign communities in adolescence and bond with other females, especially older ones. The researchers elaborate:

A second explanation posits that, since females are the driving agents in human pair- bond formation, it may be a female-specific sexual strategy to form exclusive dyadic relationships. In this framework, the high frequency of female-female dyads in women’s lives might be a by-product of a preference for pairbonding. A third explanation focuses on females’ unique capacity for intense empathic relationships, derived from the mother-infant bond. In this model, heightened female empathy creates an emphasis on individual relationships as a consequence of the psychological toolbox of mothering. In comparison, males generally neither have nor require this capacity, and hence they form less emotionally close bonds, those of friendship included.

The researchers even said that this difference in friendship styles between men and women was discovered cross-culturally and among the closest related species, like chimpanzees and bonobos.

A study finds that men tend to value sexual attractiveness in an opposite-sex friend a lot, and women value it to some degree in opposite sex friends, but less than men do. Men viewed sexual attraction as a somewhat important reason for initiating friendships with women, and women valued it as not very important. Nonetheless, men did not find it that important to initiate a friendship with women to pursue sex, and women did not find it important at all, whether she was single or taken, and certainly not if she was taken. Sexual attraction was viewed as fairly important in an opposite sex friendship by men, especially single men, and even women, although not as often, viewed it as somewhat important (at least single women). Although men, unlike women, viewed desire for sex as somewhat important in a friendship with women, they did not usually have it as a reason to start a friendship with women. Neither men nor women view lack of sex as a reason to end an opposite sex friendship. Nonetheless, some men viewed loss of attraction as a slightly, but not very important reason to end a friendship with women, but not many viewed it as that important of a reason. Women valued physical strength in a partner as somewhat important, and viewed it as a somewhat important reason to befriend a man. Both men and women, at least when single, considered someone being a potential romantic partner as a slightly important reason for initiating friendships with them. Men were more likely to value friendships with a woman due to sexual attraction than women, but that doesn't mean they prioritized it. Women were far more likely to desire a male friend for protection or end her friendship due to lack of protection, but that doesn't mean she prioritized it in male friends. The biggest predictor of why one valued sexual attraction or desire for sex in a partner was sociosexuality. Men have a less restricted sociosexuality than women (unless women ovulate). Sociosexuality was also a bigger predictor than gender for why one initiated a friendship by viewing someone as relationship material. Men and women's reasons for ending opposite sex friendship were usually due to arguments or falling outs or betrayals (e.g.: they tried to turn others against me), and men rarely ended friendships because of a lack of sex, and women were actually more likely to end friendships because he wasn't able to protect her than men were to end a friendship because she wasn't sexually interested in him.

This myth feminists make up of a man who pretends to be friends with women to have sex with them does not exist. While men might value attraction to a woman to some extent in why they befriend them, they don't prioritize it and they don't usually end the friendships with them if they don't become a relationship or a fling. If they do, it might be due to the awkwardness after her not reciprocating interest rather than not valuing the friendship. Women value protection to some extent in why they befriend men, but that doesn't mean they usually end friendships just because he couldn't protect her nor does that mean she's using him for protection. Men and women, particularly when single, can value a potential relationship to some extent when befriending the opposite sex. Men might do it more because they have less restricted sociosexualities and pursue more, but that doesn't mean they prioritize it or end friendships off of no relationship or fling happening. Additionally, research shows most relationships began as friendships and they didn't usually have feelings at first or that they developed feelings after a couple years knowing each other. That's why people often get ghosted when dating, because people often look for dates by asking out people they just met or on apps, which only works more for short-term flings unless you meet someone very similar to you. People, especially if single, might value relationships to some extent when looking at befriending the opposite sex, but it doesn't mean they prioritize it. Many friendzoned men may have eventually developed feelings into the friendship and then wanting a relationship by that point, and she didn't reciprocate. It doesn't mean he never valued a friendship with them. It's not that simple.

It's hard for men to make friends compared to women because people are not interested in getting close with men.

There's evidence that men are less likely to have a best friend than women but this switches when people become elderly. Men's social circles decline when they turn 30 or older and marry, and this could be because they have a family to protect and no longer need to form a club of men who can fight outsiders or hunt together historically. Young women often need female friends for alloparental care and emotional support, which is good for their fitness and motherhood. Although men lose their male friends when marrying as they get older, women don't lose their female friends for aforementioned reasons, but women have less friends or social contacts after age 50 when they begin to focus more on becoming a grandparent and taking care of grandchildren (especially when her husband might be more likely than her to die before her). As a result, women have to focus more on taking care of grandkids.

It's harder for men to befriend others because lonelier men do want a social life, and without one, it's hard to meet potential partners anyways. Unfortunately, many people are more interested in befriending women than men, and many men might have friend groups or might not be able to become close friends with new men, so they might not be able to hang out one on one and get to know each other. This is a factor in why research shows men are more isolated than women up until old age, but it's not an isolated man's fault because it's harder for him to attract new friends when he wants to. Remember: what men in general think like is not the same as what isolated or lonely men in particular think like.

Conclusion

Feminists should quit blaming lonely men for their loneliness or isolation and accusing them of blaming women. Research has shown that misogynistic men tend to be promiscuous, not virgins, and involuntarily sexless men are less misogynistic, not more. Also, antisocial (not to be confused with asocial) behaviors were positively correlated with more male friends for men, and misogynistic men have more antisocial traits (i.e.: sociopathic traits). Many isolated, lonely men do want friends and are not the same as men who don't, and they often have been bullied, ostracized or rejected by peers growing up and struggled to socially integrate, which severely increases the risk of adulthood virginity. While they were socially withdrawn growing up, it could be it's either due to severe shyness/social anxiety (which is unchosen) or because of their negative social experiences. It's not their fault.

And few, if any, of these men say it's women in general in particular's responsibility to fix them. This is a myth made up by feminists to have an excuse to demonize these men. They put words into men's mouths just to demonize them so they can ridicule or shame men who fail to conform to traditional masculine stereotypes. Society doesn't like men who open up or who struggle with dating, and feminists hate these kinds of men and will make up lies about them to excuse ridiculing them, even though misogynistic men often were found to be promiscuous, beer-drinking jocks or frat boys rather than lonely virgins without friends. Male loneliness/isolated is not a man's fault or a result of his own actions, but a result of unfair circumstances. It's nobody's fault. If feminists think women are owed support by society, then so are men owed support. Feminists just think men need to tough out their issues independently because they are men, and believe women should be protected. They don't admit to this mindset, but they imply it.

Some of you might have realized this already, but this just suddenly dawned on me.

A society gives priority to either personal freedom (mostly prosperous societies), or duty (mostly societies under survival pressure) . It is impossible to prioritize both at the same time.

If personal freedom is priorotized, everyone should be able to do what they want. The woman and the men should have the freedom to go to college, start a business, have sex with who they want etc. This rules out conscription (Selective Service in the US and conscription in other countries).

The only way conscription should be allowed is if duty is prioritized over personal freedom. Then the grounds for selecting only men for conscription is that the men are naturally stronger and are built for combat. Then by the same logic, women should be kept barefoot and pregnant, cooking in the kitchen, because they are built for it.

So to be fair to both men and women, any country that conscripts men must take away all educational and employment opportunities from women and keep them in the kitchen. But we only see conscription, not the kitchen.

Aizeman & Kelley, 1988 – 14% of men (and 29% of women) reported they had been forced to have intercourse against their will

Anderson 1998 – Survey of 461 women (general population) 43% secured sexual acts by verbal coercion; 36.5% by getting a man intoxicated; threat of force – 27.8%, use of force – 20%;  By threatening a man with a weapon – 8.9%.

Anderson and Aymami (1993)- 28.5% of women reported the use of verbal coercion, 14.7% had coerced a man into sexual activity by getting him intoxicated and 7.1% had threatened or used physical force.

Fiebert & Tucci (1998) – 70% of male college students reported experiencing some type of harassment, pressuring, or coercion by a female

Hannon, Kunetz, Van Laar, & Williams (1996) – 10% of surveyed male college students reported experiencing a completed sexual assault perpetrated by a female intimate partner

Hogben, Byrne & Hamburger (1996) Lifetime prevalence of 24% for women having made a man engage in sexual activity against his will.

Krahe, Waizenhofer & Moller (2003) – 9.3% of women reported having used aggressive strategies to coerce a man into sexual activities.  Exploitation of the man’s incapacitated state: 5.6% Verbal pressure: 3.2%. Physical force: 2%. An additional 5.4% reported attempted acts of sexual aggression

Larimer, Lydum, Anderson and Turner (1999) 20.7% of male respondents had been the recipients of unwanted sexual contact in the year prior to the survey. Verbal pressure was experienced by 7.9%, physical force by 0.6% and intoxication through alcohol or drugs by 3.6%.

Muehlenhard and Cook (1988) 23.8% of male respondents had engaged in unwanted sexual activity as a result of threat or physical force, and 26.8% reported unwanted sexual contact as a result of verbal pressure. For unwanted intercourse, the prevalence rates were 6.5% for physical force and 13.4% for verbal pressure.

O’Sullivan, Byers and Finkelman (1998) Overall incidence of 8% of women reporting sexual aggression for the academic year preceding the survey. Intercourse due to use of threat or physical force 0.5%, by use of alcohol or drugs 0.5% and attempted intercourse due to threat or use of physical force also 0.5%. Of male respondents, 18.5% reported having experienced sexual aggression. Specifically, 3.8% reported experiencing unwanted sexual intercourse due to use of alcohol or drugs, and 2.3% reported attempted intercourse due to threat or use of physical force.

Poppen and Segal (1988)- 14% of women reported lifetime incident(s) of perpetration (including both verbal coercion and physical assault)

Russell and Oswald (2001)- 18% of women in a college sample reported engaging in sexually coercive behaviors, ranging from verbal threats and pressure to use of physically aggressive tactics.

Russell and Oswald (2002)- 44% of college men in their sample reported being subjected to a sexually coercive tactic.

Shea (1998)- Women’s reported lifetime prevalence – 19% for verbal coercion; 1.2% reported having physically assaulted a man.

Sorensen, Stein, Siegel, Golding and Burnam (1987)- Lifetime prevalence rate of 9.4% and an adult prevalence rate of 7.2% for men’s sexual victimization (male self-reports).

Struckman-Johnson (1988) – 2% of 355 female college students reported they had forced sex on a dating partner at least once in their lifetime.

Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson (1998) – 43% of college men reported experiencing a coercive incident, of which 36% reported unwanted touch and 27% reported being coerced into sexual intercourse.

Feel free to add to the list!

If a woman gets pregnant, she has full control over whether to keep or abort the baby. If she chooses abortion, she's often praised for "making the right choice for herself." But if she keeps the baby, she alone decides that the man now has to provide for it, whether he wanted the child or not.

Why is it that men have no legal way to opt out of parenthood, while women can? If a woman wants to keep the child, shouldn’t she be the one responsible for it? Why is a man forced to "step up" and pay child support for a decision that wasn’t his?

It just seems like a double standard—if women can choose to walk away from parenthood, why can’t men?

I've been a long-time lurker on this subreddit. I used to have a Reddit account years ago but phased it out when I decided to quit social media. Over the past year, scrolling through this subreddit has made me reflect on my own life—both my childhood and my journey as an adult man. The experiences I’ve gone through have shaped me, for better or worse. It guts me to see younger men struggling with issues that society mocks, ridicules, or outright denies. I went through many of the same struggles and, in some ways, still do. So, I wanted to share my perspective.

I’m a white guy nearing 30. My childhood was traumatic and abusive—my parents divorced when I was born, my biological father was far from a good dad, and my stepfather was little more than a paycheck to my family. My mother was (and still is) a misandrist with untreated BPD. When I was 13–14, I was groomed by two separate women—one in her early 20s, the other in her 30s. In my early 20s, I was a victim of forced penetration and sexual assault. I’ve faced false rape accusations and a host of other traumas in between. That’s just the gist of it.

The rhetoric that white men have it easy, or that we don’t face real hardships, is ignorant at best and deeply harmful at worst. When society mocks, ridicules, or trivializes the struggles men go through—just because they’re men, or because they’re not a person of color, or not part of the LGBTQ+ community—it only alienates them further. This is one of the driving factors behind young men turning to the far right, giving up on themselves, or, in the worst cases, choosing suicide. Anytime we bring these issues up, we’re met with statistics about trans suicide rates. That’s a terrible issue too, and I support people regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, or race. If you’re a good person, you have my support. But acknowledging one crisis should never mean dismissing another. Men are human beings. We deserve to be seen as such. Now, more than ever, the world needs that kind of understanding.

I’ve always leaned left—I consider myself a modern socialist. I believe in universal healthcare, a living wage, union rights, and individual liberties. I recognize that many Democrats are corrupt, though I support the few who genuinely fight for what’s right. But I also believe the left as a whole needs to take a hard look at itself. Alienating young men with hateful rhetoric does nothing but push them away, and it’s deeply hypocritical coming from a side that claims to champion inclusivity. I’m not, nor will I ever be, conservative—especially given the state of that party today. But I also recognize that the right sees an untapped market of young men who feel abandoned and is preying on that vulnerability. Radicalization is rampant—not just on the right, but on the left as well.

To younger men out there: Don’t let hate consume your heart. It’s easy to meet hate with hate, especially when you’ve suffered through terrible circumstances, been ridiculed, or had your pain swept under the rug. But at the root of all that anger is genuine hurt. And trust me fellas—I know what that hurt feels like. Whether you’ve been a victim of grooming, sexual assault, false allegations, or just the crushing societal expectations placed on us as men, I hear you. We must continue advocating for ourselves, standing by one another, and building strong, supportive social networks. Most of all—don’t give up. No matter what social media tells you, the world needs you.

Specifically wondering how to “financially discourage” my ex to not be able to hire a lawyer to screw my kids up further? She is already 14k in debt, tanked her credit score to 460 and is in collections, yet is still taking me to court regularly for stupid things like randomly asking to take every weekend so she “can have more time with the kids” and not wanting me to allow our kids to do extracurriculars or travel. I have no idea why her boyfriend is ok with this and just blindly supports her not even working lol. I am thinking of filing for child support and just reaming her with costs until she gives up.

Have primary custody after 5-6 years of fighting in court and putting up with ridiculous lies and accusations. Put me 30k in the hole, but it was the right thing for the kids considering she was neglecting them and moving them all over the place in terms of schools. Sees the kids as her property and only wanted custody “to buy a house with the child support” and “because the children are my babies and belong with me”. Went on a whole alienation campaign and still guilt trips our teenager for telling the courts he wanted to live with me and “not trying hard enough at school with her which caused her to lose custody (he was 12…)”. Even now she manipulates him by “comforting him” and spoiling him any time he complains about having rules at my house.

She has told my younger child that when his brother turns 18 she is going to go back to court and “try to get him back”. I really do not want to go through or put our son through this again, and risk him having to uproot himself again in a good school district to her low income shitty area with 2/10 rated schools.

Any men been through this? Any advice on what to prepare for in these next 3 years? The courts seem heavily biased towards keeping the kids with the mother and I am genuinely concerned she will somehow lie and manipulate a judge into saying our younger son needs to go back to her in 3 years to be with the kid she pooped out with her boyfriend (half sibling).

26M, I been on pretrial house arrest since 2021 because of accusations of “date rape” with someone I been talking to for a year on Snapchat and had relations with. Would I recommend trial no, unless you know you are innocent and can use resonable doubt in your defense because the experience of trial it is traumatizing. Prosecutor attacked my character in front of my parents and gf of 3 years but I know it’s just his job but my lawyer saw too many inconsistencies in the victim and main witness story. DA did overkill and tried making me look so bad and it worked only because of the expert witness so that’s why I was anxious. They had photos of me and put it on the projector including the bed sheets my room etc but didn’t really prove much im a young male who workout often and takes care of himself.

Jury selection was the first day Monday , then second and third was evidence and the last day was the verdict Thursday Jan 30th. My lawyer did a great closing argument it would be too much to type out everything but can’t believe the jury said no guilty on all 3 counts. It was very emotional I couldn’t control my breathing I broke down crying. I’m just blessed and grateful the truth prevailed I was looking at 10 years if found Guilty.

EDIT: PSYCHOLOGY, NOT PSYCOLOGY (apologies for the typo haha)

There’s always a big push to get more women into traditionally male-dominated spaces—STEM, construction, carpentry, etc. And that’s great!! But why do we never talk about encouraging men to enter female-dominated fields, like psychology, therapy, and social work?

Men’s mental health is a massive issue, yet a lot of guys can't find help from therapy or just avoid it entirely because they don’t feel like there’s a space for them in it. Part of the problem? There is an overwhelmingly large lack of male therapists/psychologists out there, and for many of us, opening up about personal struggles can feel easier with a same sex therapist who further understands their unique experiences. I used to have a female therapist and she was wonderful, but I always felt that a male therapist would suit my experiences better. There’s a reason why many people prefer to talk about their personal struggles with someone of the same gender—it’s not about being exclusive, it’s about comfort and shared experiences in a sense. It’s easier to connect when you feel like the person listening can relate to your issues, especially when it comes to deeply personal topics like mental health.

But instead of addressing this, our society just tells us to “speak up” without actually creating the spaces where we'd feel comfortable doing so.

It’s frustrating because many people claim to care about men’s mental health, yet:

The conversation around "toxic masculinity" focuses more on policing men’s behaviour rather than actually supporting struggles.

Men who suffer from depression, addiction, or trauma are often blamed for their suffering instead of being given the right support.

There’s this notion especially spread on social media that “men would fall apart without women” when, in reality, men could turn to self-destructive behaviours because they lack accessible support networks.

If the general public actually wants to help men, we should be encouraging more males to enter psychology just like we push for women in male dominated fields. Having more male therapists would make a huge difference in normalising therapy for both genders and giving them role models in the field. We are more likely to open up when they feel understood and supported by someone who has walked a similar path. Of course it's harder than it sounds just to encourage more of us to get into a field that could easily be full of judgement towards us, completely get that, but personally I believe it's achievable to push for a better, more inclusive network for supporting both men and women ✌️

Instead of just telling us to be vulnerable, let’s actually build the spaces where we can be!!

Thoughts? Why do you think this issue gets ignored?