This is something I've noticed goes both ways. Of course, the trope of the man who pressures the woman into not using a condom has basis in reality. A lot of men try to gaslight women into letting them not use a condom in very odd ways.

However, I think many women do this do. While this isn't obvious based on the Internet, many men are quite pro condom. You're sacrificing some sensatory pleasure for not having a child. I'm not going to bs you and say I wouldn't love that extra pleasure, but I do love not being a dad yet and much more importantly, I love having a form of birth control that is in my control specifically and to that point I have full power to verify it's there, whereas I wouldn't be able to do verify if a woman is on birth control.

I think as a general rule, men are more likely to want to avoid condom use in a ONS setting and both men and women are likely to apply some pressure in relationships to end condom use for themselves.

I think ideally, anyone who only wants sex with a condom, man or woman, should never be pressured otherwise and it strikes me as nuts how so many people hate on something that allows you to enjoy pleasure without the biological consequence of said pleasure.

A talking point that used to be fairly common here and on many other social media sites roughly said that "The first person to teach a woman to hate men is her own father" The idea goes that most women's fathers will warn them about the horrible evils of men when they are young, because deep down all men know of other men's true evil nature. Deep down they know how every single man on Earth really thinks, how even the father himself used to once think, and, though he may not acknowledge it otherwise, he cannot afford to keep up the lie when it comes to his daughter's safety

You can see several examples of this kind of thinking in the comments under this post from last year. One example is quoted:

https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/18n8bdm/why_do_fathers_react_so_differently_to_the_idea/

It's because most men will only acknowledge and downright admit that men are dangerous towards women until they prove they're not, and that the majority are straight up garbage to date because they only want sex, but only once they have a daughter.

As men get older and they have their own daughters, one thing becomes abundantly clear - men's standards for other men are significantly higher than women's standards for men.

Any other Reddit-ism like this would be treated as entirely indisputable, given that a large number of people profess to really, truly believe it and it is, by and large, unfalsifiable. Except this happens to be a rare case where the women of PPD have shared their own experiences concerning this topic! You see, it's easy to sit at your keyboard and pretend you have incredible, deep insights into how billions of other people think and live their lives. But what about you? What about your own life experiences? THE QUESTION https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1gj9dsm/do_you_generally_heed_the_advice_that_your_father/

When it comes to debating viewpoints on what men/women should do from the point of view of each gender, it can be difficult to see which is self-serving and which is genuine truth.

However, a father who actually cares about his children would warn his daughter about the predatory aspects of men, and if allowed, would try to vet his potential son in law to make sure his family is well taken care of. This is where the great nervousness of men meeting their partners' fathers usually comes from.

So my question is, what kind of advice has your father given you when it comes to selecting and dealing with men, and do you think they are valid?

THE REPLIES

My dad tried to frame it as looking out for myself. He didn't focus on the evil of men. He focused on how there are arseholes and predators. They come in all shapes and sizes and to look out for myself and my friends and to surround myself with people I trust and to always have a safety plan. So yeah I headed that advice.

Neither my mom nor my dad ever gave me dating advice, i also never asked

I never spoke to my father about boys sex and dating once in my life

My father never gave me any advice about men. All of that came from my mother.

Neither my dad nor my step dad has ever given me dating advice.

The highest voted comment says the exact opposite of the standard talking point and almost every other comment just said that the user got no such advice from their father. Most of the rest of the comments were unclear as to their father's beliefs regarding the "predatory aspects of men" as the OP phrased it. All in all, only 2 comments out of the total of almost 60 under that thread expressed clear agreement with OP about that aspect of the average "father's advice". I think the women of PPD have themselves given us a fair final verdict as to how true this talking point really was all along...

https://youtu.be/SKQKjiW2mig

A loooong time ago, this husband tracked how often his wife turned down his sexual advances in a spreadsheet. He confronted her, she was understandably upset and posted it online. It was all over the news at the time for a day or 2.

I think its a good example of why husbands shouldn't do this because of 3 reasons:

1. You are not entitled to your wife's body

2. You should not have access to this "data" when discussing matters

3. It's immature to collect evidence without your spouse knowing

Here is an image of the spreadsheet: https://imgur.com/husband-makes-spreadsheet-of-wifes-sexual-rejection-wife-posts-online-cSCdYL3

WDYT?

DISCLAIMER: this is not about this specific case. It's about tracking intimacy in general.

Im so tired of seeing guys here pat themselves on the back by saying “But atleast men are more honest!” There’s four popular examples from PPD to why that‘s bullshit.

“I admit I just want a woman because she’s hot! Bad boys chasers wont admit they want bad boys!” but thing is, the results are the same. They chase terrible people and when the terrible people screws them over, its EVERYONE ELSE’S fault. You think being ‘more honest’ negates the fact you keep yelling AWALT just like those women keep yelling “Yes All Men”.

And men might THINK theyre being honest, but theyre not. For example, saying “I wont even consider a woman LTR if she doesnt fuck me immediately”, and wont admit they just want a hookup. I dont know if they deluded themselves to think they want a relationship or if theyre shaming women for not wanting to be pumped and dumped.

Then the infamous “Im a nice guy and gentleman”. but then gets very angry when its not rewarded with pussy and then goes on sexist rants about how women love being abused. Typically they have theor own definition of niceness or being good that women never told them is how they defined being nice/good.

I almost forgot the biggest reason men arent more honest! “Im not entitled… but I think its unfair and unjust when women wont fuck me!” and then act like its societal problem that he cant get the women he wants.

A lot of women these days like to cherry-pick the most beneficial parts of traditional social norms and modern feminism to gain optimal advantage. Some of these wild contradictions probably play a big role in why the dating/relationships world is so broken right now.

Examples?

Women still want men who make more money and have a more prestigious job, while at the same time complaining that it's sexist and oppressive if men, for any reason, including merit, make more money or have more prestigious jobs.

This is a big problem for obvious reasons.

Many women still think it should be men's job to approach, initiate, plan and pay for dates to show his "worthiness". Guys meanwhile are rightly wondering "wtf aren't we equal? why's it still on us to make everything happen?"

Some women will claim that to go out and have alot of sex with alot different men, experiment etc. is liberation and perfectly fine. But then some of these same women will also act like a man so much as talking to, looking at or touching them the wrong way is a violation of their sacred chastity.

Now look at the family court system. It's still set up as if women are totally helpless without men's money and personal property. I mean, we obviously know this isn't the case. And at the same time, we allow women to initiate a divorce because they just feel like it or "aren't happy". This no fault approach wS never part of the traditional structure.

I think we've reached a point where feminists need to commit to one lane or the other. This cognitive dissonance needs to be called out. It's doing a lot of damage to both men and women.

There has been lots of slogans that feminists have come up with in their "reign of terror".

"Believe women", "kill all men" are some of them. They are very problematic slogans. But when questioned, feminists argue that they don't mean it that way. By kill all men they don't really mean KILL all men. They are just blowing steam and men should not have bad feelings about it or they are misogynist or uneducated.

Same with believe women. They say it doesn't mean believe women but take women seriously and if men's feelings are hurt, they are misogynist and should suck it up.

Nothing is stopping feminists from changing slogans to something more civilized but they won't because they think men should not have hurt feelings or they are weak and weak men shoudnt exist. So they are forcing toxic masculinity on men by invalidating their feelings.

Feminists playbook regarding men's issues is like this.

1. Deny the existence- Deny that issues exist in the first place. eg. False accusations don't exist

This is easy to disprove because of course they exist.

2. Deny the likelihood- say that men's issues are rare and not worth your time. eg. False accusations are rare.

3. Deny the effect- say that even if men face issues, it doesn't effect them very much, eg. False accusations are harmless.

Feminists dont do it because of some conspiracy, they do it because they can't handle a man's suffering. Because it's weak men who have hurt feelings, it's the weak men who suffer and feminists HATE weak men.

That's what toxic masculinity is. Men are not allowed to be weak.

Feminists say toxic masculinity is spread by men. Men arnt allowed to cry, because other men would make fun of them. But other men generally don't do that.

It's the feminist who belittles a man for being a victim by denying his existence. Feminists will tell victim of a false accusation that either he doesn't exist or he is a statistical anomaly or it isnt that bad to be falsely accused and to just get over it.

Other men may sometime make fun of crying fella. Feminists are trying to erase the existence of a male victim because they can't handle a man with hurt feelings.

That is just evil

This daily thread is designed to be a place for all the funny discussions on PPD.

Feel free to post off-topic questions, information, points-of-view, personal advice and memes in this thread. Here you can post everything that doesn't warrant its own thread or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and things would be considered low effort posts are allowed in the daily thread.

Do not bring other PPD threads into the daily thread. Do not post PPD threads deserving of their own post in the daily thread. The intent of the daily thread is not that it should replace PPD and become a place where users can avoid the rules of the subreddit. Attempting to do this will be considered circlejerking and moderated as such.

Black Pill/Incel Content/Woe-Is-Me is still banned in the daily thread. Witch hunting and insults are also still banned in the daily thread. Relegated topics must still go to in the weekly threads for those topics.

Comments are automatically sorted by NEW - you can post throughout the day and people will see your comment.

If you'd like to see our previous daily threads, click here!

​

Please Join Us on Discord! Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.

​

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

I feel like there’s debate about looks, money, status and what not but how much does car truly matter? If you live in America, most likely you have a car and drive (exceptions like major cities) and as unfair as it may be, cars are a way for people to judge you. I have heard some women say they get turned off by guys who drive cheaper or beater style cars, but does that only apply to unattractive men who they weren’t attracted to in the first place? I get the whole “it’s shallow to reject someone for their car” thing, but it doesn’t make sense to say reject a guy who is good looking, tall, whatever who drives a 20 year old Honda Civic for some unattractive guy who drives an S class, especially when looks are supposed to be most important.

And honestly in my experience, I’ve known guys who have driven sports cars and luxury cars and the most attention they got in public were from others guys asking about their cars. Yet I see so many guys, particularly online in the car subreddits, saying stuff like “Oh you’ll get so much action if you drove this!” And even put down other guys for driving economy cars. Granted, the guys making comments like that on Reddit are probably not prizes to begin with and most likely projecting. So I’m curious how much do you guys think it matters? And I’m not necessarily talking about money being the topic because you can be wealthy but drive an older, cheaper car or be in debt by luxury car payments.

A lot of women on this sub emphasise how no <25 year old women would be interested in a +20 year age gap relationship. But that Isn’t point. The point is like any market, the dating market is determined by supply and demand. You take the best you can get, or you get nothing. Yes older men could go for older women, but it seems increasingly like they would rather stay single than be with a middle aged bossbabe. So the question is, would these same women be better off if they had married older men (of similar attraction to men they are currently attracted to) in their early/mid 20s? Or is being a cat lady really preferable to age gap marriage and family? Serious question.

Of course there are all the downsides of guaranteed decades of widowhood and such, but this is still and significant mark up then never having a spouse at all.

(All this assuming you can’t find a guy you’re attracted to at similar age in your 20s; maybe that demographic of guys just isn’t interested in settling down yet, or will only fully mature and grow into an attractive man as they age.)

So I've been going through the literature on male mental health (which has rather recently been picking up steam) and found a great article for discussion by Rob Whitley. Link here. It's a short editorial so it shouldn't take long to read. You can also read the publications he cites, other publications of his, and similar articles (yeah for internet access to academic literature!). He talks about the challenges men face in the mainstream mental health sphere and recommends that men need more "shoulder-to-shoulder" (more behavioral) rather than "face-to-face" (talk therapy) treatment. I've noticed many men recommend hobbies, activities, etc. for each other so this makes sense. He also mentions going beyond a victim blaming paradigm of male "stubbornness" or "masculinity" for being at fault for mental health problems and advocates for a more complex public health approach. I was wondering if people would be interested in reading this and having a debate. I want to hear if men and women think their experience with the mental health system tracks with his comments. I work with a lot of young men so much of this seems very familiar to me. What do you all think?

https://youtube.com/shorts/-8fcYmMg-Oc

Meet Lily.

Lily is a 23 year old online content creator who lives in the UK and likes long walks on the beach. She's also very friendly, resilient, in great physical shape, and conventionally attractive. She's gained notoriety recently from her sexual escapades and her dedication to making her fans happy - no matter what.

Assume she's done with that life and wants to settle down and get married. She's head over heels about YOU. Would you seriously consider marrying her?

Why or why not?

DISCLAIMER: Assume for this question the above is possible. If you don't struggle with dating this question is not for you.

It’s always funny watching the manosphere having viewpoints based on benefitting the man and talking down to women, even if there's contradiction.

“Girls think they matter just because Chad fucks them. You’re just a hole to him and you should stop thinking you have higher value than you do!“ That’s the typical view I see when the topic of hookups come up, especially about how ‘the fat ugly bitches’ think theyre too good average guys because they can get dick from Chad, but Chad doesnt care about them to LTR.

Then suddenly, “Women should fuck a guy immediately to show she desires him”. I understand the hypocrisy. Like I said, its about what benefits the man. These Non-Chads need women to not feel validated screwing Chads so these women should ‘humble themselves’. However, since these Non-Chad see sex as validating, they refuse to believe that women with Chad’s (alleged) mindset exist.

So women should understand that “Sex means nothing and you can just be a convenient wet hole”. But also, women cant ever think “Oh, I just need my pussy plowed and found a walking dildo to bounce on”? So sex shows men are desirable but never that women are desirable?

This is also another example of men ruining things for other men. Devaluing women who enjoy fucking men and taking them for granted, so then the women who do care about being respected by guys are going to be more guarded about who they have sex with.

Now, back to the women with Chad’s mindset on sex (lets say FemChad for simplicity). Even if its not common, women are still capable of treating hookups as a form of masturbation and it barely has anything to do with the sexual partner being special. However, they still want a higher quality lover when they’re looking for a relationship. Just like the women that Chad hooks up with are mostly not relationship material to him, FemChads can have hookups that she would never want to spend with out of the bed.

I found this video by my beloved Dr. David Burns, the psychotherapist who developed and popularized cognitive behavioral therapy and the author of “Intimate Connections”: https://youtu.be/H9Mh57gaQSg?feature=shared

Apparently, Dr. Burns reads Reddit and in this video he answers a Redditor’s question about loneliness. I found his answer very enlightening. Do you know what his number one solution for loneliness is?

You would never guess it, but it is very counterintuitive. His solution is to actually learn how to be HAPPY alone, because if you are unhappy/afraid of being alone, you will be needy and you will always force others to reject you. Isn’t this an interesting concept?

Another thing he suggest is to practice getting rejected. You heard this right! Actually walking up to people and striking up a conversation telling them that you are very afraid of rejection but want to get over it and ask them to reject you.

It seems all his advice flies directly in the face of the general sentiment here, which is “men are so lonely and miserable and only a woman can solve that problem” or “getting rejected is the most terrible thing in the world”. The question is, do you think that a psychotherapist with over 50 years of experience who has also specialized in treating loneliness and romantic problems knows more about the subject than the average 20 something year old who browses PPD?

The terminology that men tend to use is 100% off (for women, not necessarily for men).

To most men “looks” is fairly synonymous with “carnal attraction.”

When guys say a woman looks good, it seems to mean he is actively attracted to her.

This is not the case for women.

For most women, it’s not that we think people are “ugly” or “top ten face card models.” It’s simply that until something “sparks” we don’t… FEEL much of anything at all.

Until a feeling is triggered by an external experience or her own thoughts/romanticizing, there is no compulsion. No arousal. And thus no “attraction ✨”

This arousing “spark ✨” I’m alluding to is usually a behavioral swag of his. The dude usually does something or behaves in a way to mentally trigger some form of arousal that MAKES US FEEL SOMETHING.

This is how female arousal is triggered.

TLDR: When it comes to women, “looks” IS NOT the end all be all of her carnal attraction. “Looks” is simply a litmus to enter into her orbit. It IS NOT the operative trigger for her active arousal.

Men often say they prefer a "natural" woman. No makeup, no fillers, no body mods, no plastic surgery etc. But it is my experience often that men have no idea most of the time if a woman has had work done. When they say no makeup/surgery, I feel like they only mean the ones that are cartoonishly obvious, like Kim Kardashian. They will then show a picture of Taylor Swift with "this is what I mean with natural", homegirl has about 20 different makeup products and is photographed under studio lightning. Uh-uh..

When I show a woman who has makeup on, but small amounts, they literally can't tell the difference. Also their 'no makeup' comes with conditions that she has an otherwise smooth and youthful face. Or when a woman has had botox or a little bit of filler, a lot of the times this is also not noticeable if done in small amounts.

So it should actually be, men prefer women to wear some makeup that makes her look good, but not so much that I can notice it (meaning you can get away with a lot actually).

Question for men, how do you actually feel about makeup/surgery? And out of curiosity, if a woman has had plastic surgery, should she be upfront about it? Do you want to know? Is that a deal breaker for a relationship?

Is it common for MGTOW/ black-pilled guys to engage with other men as an alternative to women?

Being gay, I still empathize a lot with the unfair struggles straight men face in modern dating.

Gay dating is much easier to access, so I was thinking it would make a lot of sense as an alternative to a life of celibacy, especially if you are at least a little bit bisexual.

I was wondering what is your experience in this regard, or if you ever heard of anything like this.

This daily thread is designed to be a place for all the funny discussions on PPD.

Feel free to post off-topic questions, information, points-of-view, personal advice and memes in this thread. Here you can post everything that doesn't warrant its own thread or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and things would be considered low effort posts are allowed in the daily thread.

Do not bring other PPD threads into the daily thread. Do not post PPD threads deserving of their own post in the daily thread. The intent of the daily thread is not that it should replace PPD and become a place where users can avoid the rules of the subreddit. Attempting to do this will be considered circlejerking and moderated as such.

Black Pill/Incel Content/Woe-Is-Me is still banned in the daily thread. Witch hunting and insults are also still banned in the daily thread. Relegated topics must still go to in the weekly threads for those topics.

Comments are automatically sorted by NEW - you can post throughout the day and people will see your comment.

If you'd like to see our previous daily threads, click here!

​

Please Join Us on Discord! Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.

​

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

This is a genuine question I’d like to discuss, no gotchas here.

Women have evolved with a hypergamous sexual selection, they date men who are higher status and “better” than them.

However, until very recently, they had no choice in who they mated with. Even when our modern instincts were being formed, they were honestly more or less at the whims of whichever man took them. After that, their marriages were mostly arranged.

So, my question is, how did they develop instincts to only be attracted to men who are better, if they never had a choice at all until recently?

Conclusions I thought of that maybe make sense:

This evolution was a recent development?

They simply cheated and actually had the baby of the man they were actually attracted to and had the arranged marriage man raise the baby. ( Plausible but this seems so dangerous and risky, as if the man finds out he will likely have killed her and the kids, and this would have had to of happened en masse to keep the selection evolution going ).

They simply didn’t have as many kids as the ones who were with men they did actually see as better?

I was reading this thread on a woman being asked for paternity test and top comment was telling the woman to say "NO" and tell her husband into get into therapy to work on his trust issues. Other women agreed with her.

This shows me how out of touch women are with men. Like women have decided that they don't have to empathize with men, like they are incapable of empathizing with men.

A simple DNA test will help her husband be sure and women want to rob him off because their feelings are hurt.

As important as women's feelings are, paternity takes precedence. What if the child is actually not his and years later he has no legal recourse because it's not in the best interest of the child. If he can't get justice via courts, he may decide to take law in his own hands and that's not in best interest of anyone, let alone a child.

Women who oppose paternity tests doesn't have child's best interest at heart, they just want to straddle another man's child on to the husband. Maybe it's evolutionary. Maybe not.

Imagine men fighting against criminalization of DV, paternity fraud is the biggest abuse a woman can commit upon a man.

A simple DNA test can save all but women want the license to commit DV on men.

This is such a tired myth peddled by older undesirable women - ie he can’t manipulate women his own age, they’re wise to his games/inadequacy etc.

None of this is true, and despite being glaringly obvious it somehow persists. Why would a man want to deal with emotional baggage from an older less appealing woman? It’s common sense, but we all know how little of that exists on the blue side.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTYndBRAk/

In this clip, a dating coach explains to other women how males don't actually like peaceful women (like they claim to). No, nice girls finish last - as the saying goes - and everyone knows that. Instead they tend to go for women who are confusing and bring stress to their lives.

Women is this something you've observed?

It would explain why so many males are stressed out in their relationships. They should be choosing better.

Males, would you agree with this?

After reading through this sub, I now understand why men think it’s an insult to say that a woman will be “forever alone” or become a “cat lady”. They cannot fathom that an adult person can be happy if they are not in a romantic relationship.

Men will chase after a relationship and intimacy, and will enter a state of despair if they do not get it. Many times becoming destructive to themselves and/or others. I’ve even just read a post where the comments were filled with those claiming that they would go insane if they do not have sex often. And even some stating that life is not worth living if they do not have a girlfriend :/

So my question is why? Why do men feel that they must be coupled up or sexually active to enjoy life? Why are homicidal incels even a thing?

Short answer: interpersonal dynamics are very different, and sometimes sexual chemistry is all there right away, takes time to build or isn’t there at all. (We will only focus on the first two cause if it isn’t there then this isn’t a conversation)

Long answer:

Different people illicit different emotional and even physical reactions. If someone sleeps with someone else on the first date, then weeks later or something meets you, goes on multiple dates then sleeps with you it isn’t something to be taken personal or to look down at yourself with.

Sometimes sexual chemistry is apparent right off the bat, sometimes it takes time to build as you get to know the person - nothing wrong with either instances and neither is indicative of how much the person is into you in the long run.

I always challenge this notion of “you have to be the most attractive” or “you have to be the best fuck” - cause frankly, neither are indicative of a good long lasting relationship. To be clear, you have to be attracted to each other and the sex has to be enjoyable, but “the best” isn’t a requirement. A part of it is that interpersonal dynamics differ and are multi-dimensional and another is that I frankly know that the person I end up dating isn’t gonna be the hottest in the world and I know that the best sex I had was probably with a person who I’d have a disaster of a long term relationship with. All of that is fine.

But back to the first date stuff, sometimes the sexual chemistry is there off the bat, and sometimes the sexual chemistry builds as you get to know each other. This isn’t a slight on you, the person not being slept with on the first date.

I see men and women commit this mistake constantly. It is totally baffling to me because you shouldn't need god level powers of perception to figure this out.

A lot of men and women will say - with absolutely no doubts - that a person's desire for another person is a binary and inflexibly constant condition.

"She's either into you or you are chasing a closed door."

"If he wanted to, he would."

"She's not cornering you like a cat in heat, so she just wants your attention not your affection."

"He only took me out once in the last month, so he must only see me as a friend."

People cling to these hard nosed absolutes because the fiction of desire being an impenatrable barrier to relationships and sex is simpler, less scary, and more self indulgent than the truth. If you tell yourself attraction is binary, either it is there or it is not, then you have less information to assess and collate when compiling your social map of potential romantic options. You also have a ready-made excuse for avoiding any risk of failure or wasted effort.

However I think none of these 'benefits' outweighs the consequences of living in an arbitrary fiction or denying yourself any chance for growth and change.

A closer look immediately shows that attraction and desire are more accurately understood as a spectrum, one ranging between absolute obsession and absolute revulsion with indifference in the middle. Human beings experience the emotional compulsion to advance towards things are attractive to them and retreat from things which repel them - however the existence of the desire is not the only factor that predicts behavior.

Desire can exist in different magnitudes; you may feel repelled by both an annoying sunbeam in your eye and a pile of putrid dogshit in a burning paper bag - but it's safe to assume the latter is far more repellant than the former and will provoke more action.

Another factor that alters how a person reacts to feeling desire is the surrounding context of the thing which inspired this feeling. If a person has two options to date who are both equally physically attractive, but only one of them has a car, one of those options is going to be easier to date than the other. This category also includes social, professional, emotional, and behavioral characteristics which can build up or subvert a person's perceived masculinity or femininity - ie while it may be a problem for some men if a woman doesn't have a car it's still safe to assume plenty of men will not care at all about that because her lacking a car does not decrease how feminine she appears to them. In fact it may increase how feminine she is to them!

These two factors - that desire is experienced in different magnitudes for different things, and that desire for the same thing can change depending on the larger context of a person's experiences and values - already turns the black/white binary concept into a Venn Diagram of five circles:

• Not A Chance - the only feeling they inspire is repulsion, and no conceivable quantity of effort or differing circumstance can change this

• Who? Them?? - there is no feeling of desire that is passively inspired but also no repelling feeling, and the circumstances that contribute or detract from the potential relationship are all wrong. With the right amount of work and framing a relationship can happen, but would likely take a lot of effort to sustain without major changes to either person's identity and without passive attraction there is little initial reason to invest that effort.

• A Potential Maybe - still no passively inspired feeling of attraction or repulsion, but the circumstances surrounding this person are all aligned in a way which would make dating them pretty easy in practical terms. Would still take work, but there is real potential here IF both people want to realize it.

• A Good Problem - this person checks off more than enough boxes for them to be desirable, but the context surrounding them would make a relationship difficult to start or sustain. If the desire is great enough those difficulties become less of an obstacle, but they are still a problem which directly impacts the perceived value of the potential relationship.

• A Sure Thing - they are inarguably desirable, and you keep finding yourself looking for reasons not to date them but finding none. Doubt that they feel the same way is literally the only thing that is keeping you apart.

"But Markov you have only explained that desire can be broken down into 5 tiers, but not that you can move from one tier of desire to the next!"

Allow me to explain that as well. The capacity to change from one tier of desire to another is due to two primary reasons: it takes time to know another person, and people change over time.

The first is evident just by examining the first months of a brand new relationship. In general terms, barring the most positive and negative first impressions, most women's first impression on most men puts them in the A Potential Maybe tier for those men. This is because knowing fuck-all about a woman does not detract from her femininity to most men, who may even enjoy the novelty and excitement of figuring out more about a complete stranger.

Meanwhile most men's first impression on most women puts those men in the Who? Them?? tier, because knowing nothing about a man makes him both not 'successful' (if he's so successful why am I hearing about him for the first time now??) and a potential threat to her.

However, the first few seconds of in person interaction can dramatically change the tier of desire they end up in. While there are usually some limits on how many tiers a person can move through, for the most part I think it is more accurate and more practical to believe that anyone can become repulsive to anyone with the perfect storm of toxicity. It doesn't really matter how wet Bill Clinton made a woman in 1994 if that woman later learned about his connections to Epstien and has anything close to a functional moral compass - Bill Clinton might as well be Quato from Total Recall now.

But it is also possible to climb those tiers towards being more desirable. Say a woman's first impression of a man puts him firmly in the Who? Them?? tier. He's average or worse in looks and social presentation, and she's not very curious to change her impression of him. But then he successfully hides his desire for her from her, thus instantly distinguishing himself from all the fawning people pleasers who are nothing but forgettable to her. Because he stands out she becomes curious - and he already has moved up a tier to A Potential Maybe because remaining secure in himself and inspiring curiousity in women are firmly masculine traits. This is usually not enough to ignite passive desire, but it is enough to change the perceived viability of a potential relationship with him since she now believes he would not be clingy or insecure in that relationship. And he made that move up by literally doing nothing but keeping his feelings under control!

Now bro's got his foot in the door, but he hasn't actually inspired passive sexual attraction yet. She sees him as intruiging, not hot. This is the end of the line for his climb towards ultimate desirability, and he can't ascend another tier, right? Wrong!

What people value changes over time as we learn more about the world and ourselves. She may not have seen him as hot while she was focused on just exploring her sexuality, making connections, and having fun - but say a toxic partner or bad breakup reveals to her how men who engage in casual sex tend to categorize women into 'temporary fun' and 'permanent wife' groups. After a little reflection she realizes her short term trysts never made her feel satisfied much less fulfilled or happy, and in fact as she gets older they start to make her feel less and less safe because the absence of commitment is a direct threat to a woman's social status and long term quality of life (especially if she wants kids). As she puts more work into understanding what she actually wants and how to attract men who want the same things, she comes to the conclusion that she had prioritized the wrong things and her values start to shift.

Abruptly, she discovers that the qualities which used to keep a guy in the A Potential Maybe tier are the same characteristics that are now inspiring passive attraction. He was boring, but now he's stable. He was annoying when he asked too many questions about what she wants him to do, now he's mature enough to invite criticism or instruction for the sake of being a better partner. He was cheap when he didn't take her out to a fancy dinner for the first date, but now the retry first date at a coffeeshop shows he's responsible about saving his assets so he can leverage them towards the best life for his future wife and kids.

I can already hear the "She hasn't changed, she just hit 'The Wall' and she's still the same selfish shallow slut!". Sure, that applies to some women no doubt. But ask yourself what is more impactful on your happiness and quality of life: failing to call out and criticize every immoral woman you encounter in life? Or giving everyone - possibly including the woman you may eventually want to marry - the impression that you invariably and reflexively assume the worst about others?

Anyways, back to my point. Major turning points in a person's maturation into adulthood can redefine their interests and values so much that someone who used to inspire no feelings of attraction can become someone who is completely unforgetable. This can happen for both sexes, and is ultimately why a strategy of publicly performing your sexual role combined with a neutral respect for those performing the opposite role to yours works best over the long term.

As a final note, there are obvious limits to how far a person can ascend through the tiers of desire. A gay man is never going to get much further past Who? Them?? with a straight man, and a strongly masculine woman is going to have a hard time getting above A Potential Maybe with most straight men. Likewise an effeminate man has to put in a lot of work to climb out of Not A Chance for most women, and will only experience A Sure Thing within the tiny minority of women who can feel raw attraction to him.

Yet despite those limitations, I think the impulse to assume desire is a binary state is clearly inaccurate. Those who cling to that assumption are choosing to reject reality in favor of an assumption which indulges laziness and despair. Life is a lot more nuanced, not to mention far less bleak, than that.

I will start by saying that there is nothing wrong with genuinely being into casual sex and the like. It is indeed a path that many people enjoy and it is all good.

But the main problem with promiscuity is not even that they are bad, but that often women and men do not get into them entirely of their own free will.

Desire for promiscuity can be caused by traumatic events and be a form of self-harm or escape from pain, rather than a conscious choice for pleasure.

It can be caused by depression, bullying, past sexual abuse, low self-esteem, PTSD, addiction, or even under duress.

And what is even more terrible is that as a result of a dissolute lifestyle, such a person can be constantly exposed to the risk of violence and aggravation of mental trauma.

This leads to the fact that a person completely loses faith in other people, has strong problems with self-esteem and even problems with mental and physical health, which also deprives such a person of the ability to build good relationships with people.

Important note: This is assuming it’s someone you barely know or just met when you want on the first date.

I find it weird guys get all upset that ‘they have to wait while other guys didnt’. Well, those guys were hookups and you’re clearly too much of a pussy to admit you want a hookup too. If sex is that important to you, why the fuck are you waiting? Just figure out if you want to be around each other after you fuck and if you dont, no harm done. I value my time, so I see no value in wasting my time, effort, or money on someone I just want to fuck around with. I dont even consider someone my friend if I’ve only known them for a month (or only hang out with them 3 times), so thinking someone is boyfriend material at that time is ridiculous.

In my opinion, ‘withholding sex’ is a great way to filter out fuckboys who think the world should revolve around their dicks. Then will act selfishly and impulsively because “I HAVE NEEDS! Im a man I can’t help it!” and who wants that type of headache in their lives? Personally, it’s hilarious how many guys got angry with me because I wouldn’t go to their house and ‘cuddle with them’ immediately. They never listened to a single thing I communicate with them and got mad I remind them I have a life outside of seeking a relationship. And I’m not even including the guys that ignored the fact I gave NO INDICATIONS that I was DTF at our first ‘Hello’.

This daily thread is designed to be a place for all the funny discussions on PPD.

Feel free to post off-topic questions, information, points-of-view, personal advice and memes in this thread. Here you can post everything that doesn't warrant its own thread or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and things would be considered low effort posts are allowed in the daily thread.

Do not bring other PPD threads into the daily thread. Do not post PPD threads deserving of their own post in the daily thread. The intent of the daily thread is not that it should replace PPD and become a place where users can avoid the rules of the subreddit. Attempting to do this will be considered circlejerking and moderated as such.

Black Pill/Incel Content/Woe-Is-Me is still banned in the daily thread. Witch hunting and insults are also still banned in the daily thread. Relegated topics must still go to in the weekly threads for those topics.

Comments are automatically sorted by NEW - you can post throughout the day and people will see your comment.

If you'd like to see our previous daily threads, click here!

​

Please Join Us on Discord! Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.

​

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

Currently, they are still falling back on the whole “red pillers are a fringe minority of âwkwárd outcasts blaming women and typing angry things in the basèment” deflection.

I’m not sure how they are still expecting this narrative to be taken seriously, however with social media and how open everything is exposing reality to men of all walks. If “most ‘normal’ men” were having romantic success and a loud minority were responsible for TRP’s large online presence, a growing majority of men would not be adopting it.

Men who don’t want to get married, what are your reasons?

Is it personal, societal, financial, or related to past experiences?

For example, do you feel marriage no longer holds the same value it once did, or is it a concern about the legal and financial implications?

Maybe it’s about personal freedom, trust, or simply not wanting the commitment. Whatever your reasons, I’d love to hear your perspective and understand the thought process behind your decision.

Let’s have an open and honest discussion!

For a sub that’s filled with men complaining how unreasonable women are with dating, way too many of these guys are beggars, thinking they can be choosers. It’s like the concept of being content or weighing your pros and cons doesnt exist here.

This was mainly inspired by the amount of complaining I see about women not going 50-50, but I’m gonna reference other constantly brought up topics by guys here too.

With guys complaining about it, I theorized its because the women they actually desire are far less likely to tolerate 50/50 splits. Though, it seems the bigger reason is that guys know their options will be lower. Instead of complaining about gender roles, sit down and figure what’s more important to you, you paying for yourself or having more options? Remember, BEING SINGLE IS AN OPTION.

Now to list the other issues:

The other big example, which thankfully I have seen less of, is whining about high n count women but also whining about not getting laid immediately. And yes, there are guys out there who seem to have this mindset. I caught one of them.

If you’re looking for an easy lay, expect her to be easy with everyone else.

If you’re looking for a low n count girl, there’s a reason she’s low n count. She doesn’t want to sleep with everyone. She’ll be pickier about who she’ll sleep with.

“But I want to be special to a low n count girl that she’ll fuck me immediately!” well, you actually have to be special yourself.

You want a hookup? Guess what? Most women aren’t into hook ups like that. Even with hook ups, it’s typically with people women knew prior to entering the sexual relationship. So if you’re that desperate for a hookup, yes. You might have to “fuck an ugly fat slut”.

You want a tradcon woman? Be a tradcon man.

You want a hottie? Be hot and/or be rich.

You want a girl who’s not shallow? Have a good personality and she’ll most likely not be hot.

“I dont want to waste time courting woman”, then whip out your wallet. There’s different tiers of gold digger that don’t get dig for gold.

There are more examples I can give, but the point is simple. Think about what you’re looking for on when dating. Think about what is nonnegotiable in your preferences and what flaws/consequences you can tolerate.