Some guys have a tendency to want to normalize their personal preferences so at to feel less alone about them- but in doing so that make generalizing statements about the entirety of the male gender that may not be true and may be unfairly portraying other men in a bad light or inaccurately. It can be really strong opinions like “All men would cheat if given the chance” or “All men want to have children” or “all men prefer a stay at home wife over a working partner” or it can be really simple things like “all men think sports are cool” etc. anything you want to talk about. Just a generalization about the male gender that is commonly said by other men that you feel misrepresents you.

Yes, I know this isn’t a fresh new topic. There are probably numerous of other posts on this subreddit on this topic. But I feel like yapping about this topic at the moment.

After going on numerous dates, hooking up a couple of times (not because I wanted to), getting into situationships (not because I wanted to) getting to know women I’ve been with, and having close female friends and family members. I started seeing a pattern of thoughts and sentiments from a lot of women, and it’s that the majority of them don’t want to be in a relationship let alone a fulfilling one. This isn’t an issue of men not being good enough, and men need to improve themselves to meet their standards. This isn’t a nice guy vs bad boy situation, where men must develop an "edge/dark" persona. It’s not an issue of misogyny or male violence, where they rather be with a bear in the forest. Hell, it's not even an issue of physical attraction, because a woman can find you so hot/cute to sleep with one day and then completely ghost you the next. All those things are just a front to the simple truth that women don’t want to be in an actual relationship.

Most women know INTUTIVELY the types of men willing to put in their all for her well-being and they KNOW a couple of them are in their periphery, they're not collectively stupid or socially obtuse. If you're a woman over the age of 21 and you're struggling with reading men's intentions, character, and archetypes through compartmentalization, either you're an inexperienced/virgin, lying, or you're too incapable of navigating any type of social setting to the point where you might have considered hiring a round the clock social worker. And I will not debate anyone on that particular tangent.

The real issue is that a relationship where the end goal is to share your life with an individual requires a huge level of sacrifice, risk, and vulnerability that a lot of women just don't want to partake in. The current dating environment we're in exacerbates this very issue. Let me explain, we're in an environment where there are men throwing money at women who they never slept with let alone been on a few dates with for expensive dates, trips, bills, rent, etc. We're in an environment where women have an abundance of men of various stature at their fingertips on apps. Why as a young woman do you want to be locked down in a long-term serious relationship when you have a lot of time to learn, explore, and experiment without having to go through the trials of maintaining a relationship? Anyone in a healthy relationship will tell you that no relationship or marriage is perfect, there will be times of heavy turmoil that are so great that you'll wonder if you wasted your time and energy on this person. A lot of women don't want to go through that, and due to the current culture and environment, they want to be in a situation where they're given a level of comfort and security with impunity and little reciprocation. It's not that women aren't capable of understanding accountability, it's not intentional nor done with malice, it's basic risk assessment.

The overall point I'm making is that a lot of women don't want to be in a relationship or married because it's risky to their emotional and mental health. Women are very scared of getting hurt, betrayed, and traumatized so they want to preemptively take off as much emotional weight and commitment on their end to protect their wellbeing.

I want to you know your thoughts and contentions.

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 sort of a nature vs nurture question. Men and women behave differently, I’m curious how much of our differences are due to an inherent difference in the way our brains are wired and how much is stuff we’ve just been taught is how we are supposed to act? How different are men and women on a fundamental level and what are things we only do definitely because society taught us to act this way? Are men and women really that different or are we just taught to act differently?

What aspects of male and female behavioral differences do you believe are a result of our brain chemistry and what is a product of our environment?

Im so tired of this comparison. A period lasts for 7 days. A pregnancy lasts for 9 months. Going “Im a man, I cant help it” is a 24/7 excuse and just part of his personality.

If a man’s hormones are so intense that it’s actually causing problems that he can’t control, he should go to a professional instead of just accepting it and making excuses for it. Try to get medication or go to hormone therapy for if its that bad.

When females talk about hormone imbalances affecting them, its being irritable, moody, and in pain.

Meanwhile, the “sex is a need for guys” crowd use male sexuality as an excuse for guys to be entitled, manipulative, and predatory…..then want to be shocked that male sexuality is percieved as more negative, evil, and dangerous than women’s.

Again, periods and pregnancy are TEMPORARY and nothing can be done about the changes until the time passes. Its not the same as “if only women let me fuck them, then I will be okay!”

I’ve noticed most of the stuff everyone complains about here both men and women do but we’re always trying to act like “no only this person does it”.

We can say that both men and women will often overlook or mistreat women they don’t find attractive.

Men and women both tend to lie about their preferences to seem more humble and deflect any accusations of being shallow.

Men and women don’t know how to communicate.

Men and women will often make poor decisions when dating.

Do both men and women make poor decisions and then complain about said choices? Yes.

Etc etc all of this can be said for men and women.

I think people suck at dating in general which is fine most people date when they’re young dumb and reckless.

A Brazilian acquaintance had this kind of a date a while ago and I wanted to ask women if they were in her shoes, would they go on a second date.

•while he owns his own business, he lives with his parents

•they split the bill, the restaurant was a mid tier American BBQ restaurant

•sex on the first date was bad, only he orgasmed.

•he was a bit weird, the date felt more like an interview

•he got braces

•he drove a cargo van

Both individuals are in their mid 30s. Would you go on a second date with this man?

Women seem to reference the orgasm gap like it's some great inadequacy of man that we don't want to, or are not aware of how to pleasure women. Men don't have anything to do with it. Some women's biology and feelings about sex can make it more complicated to have an orgasm beyond just friction in the right area. Any woman's complaint beyond this is their own issues and preferences. The first issue with women's orgasm is they can get off multiple ways and greatly prefer some methods to others.

Different Methods and Preferences Make Female Orgasms More Complicated:

Primary method is clit stimulation and friction. This type of orgasm is most similar to a man's where it's mainly about friction and they grit their teeth and curl their toes, and they tighten. One orgasm and then they want you to finish quickly.

Another method is the gspot, you focus more on the inside and up with your finger and keep rubbing you can get women to have an orgasm from that area. You can also accomplish this through penetration, but it's not very reliable. Orgasms seem more intense and deeper. Women seem to prefer this over the clit stimulation, it's a bit more complicated and takes more time.

Some women have the capability to have multiple orgasms, then build up to one big one. This method is like edging for women. This seems like far and away a more intense way to come than any man has ever been able to experience. I call the final orgasm the shadow zone, because it looks like they left their body and they are mostly silent and uncontrollably jerking. If you're with a girl that can have multiple orgasms, she lives for this type, and cares much less about the single clit one. However, building up to multiple orgasm, is hard and take a lot of time, most of the time you don't have sex for long enough to make it happen.

Women are Making a Conscious Choice to Not Care About Having an Orgasm Every Time They Have Sex:

Many times (and especially if you don't know each other prior) they don't want you giving a ton of focus down there. They'd rather see you be passionate about her in her entirety. If you just go down there and start testing her responses to poke and rubs like a science project, she's going to get turned off.

Women don't often communicate to guys how they like to get off. If they just said rub here or go down there and do this, most all guys would do it. They don't because for many women getting off every single time is not always her own priority.

Many Women Have a Sexual Preference Towards Men Who Act More Selfish in Bed:

I was with this girl for a month and the first couple weeks she was very focused on getting me off. Then she started this routine everytime where should get off and then roll over. I said what, she's like I got to stop it's too intense down there now, I'm tired. I said umm, okay well please do something here. She said no just go ahead and beat off. I broke up with her, didn't even feel bad I'm not spending my life with some selfish girl.

Women put up with this same behavior, in part because a guy that acts selfish in bed and acts on his own interest with her turns her on, it makes men appear more dominant if he's using her for his own pleasure. A woman is more turned on by how he acts towards her and his feelings of lust about her, more than she cares about the correct rubs and pokes in the right way. If women didn't think like this, they'd just break up with him for not giving her orgasms. However we all know women usually don't break up with him, and that's why it's either never a man's fault or the fact it's just biologically harder for women to get off.

Women are fine with all of this and they still enjoy sex otherwise they wouldn't do it. Blaming men for the orgasm gap like were incapable dummies or don't care about women's happiness, is just yet another form of gaslighting men for not being good enough for them.

Cold approach works for guys who are gifted in small talk and frankly, attracting women through mainly their looks. Most guys fail at cold approaches and most cold approaches overall are failures. Even if a guy manages to get the number they then still have to continue attracting the woman. The question then is, what are you attracting her with?

Most men don’t really have anything else going for themselves except their career which is most likely boring to women. Other than possibly resources and their status which most men also do not have, they are only relying on looks, and a lot of guys aren’t considered the most attractive so they’re essentially destroying any chances of attracting the type of women they want.

Men need to spend more time learning these “hobbies”. Because, they aren’t just hobbies, they are skills and in many cases careers themselves. A man needs to spend more time learning and developing these skills. Women are attracted to men who can take them out and do things. Hobbies should be the subject matter in conversations. Suggesting that women join you in doing great hobbies is a more reliable route than crying and pointing out the things you 100% can’t change.

https://datepsychology.com/the-most-and-least-attractive-male-hobbies/

Previously in this series: Men are worse off than women in all developed countries. This is so controversial that UN falsifies the Gender Development Index to hide this fact :

--------------

The Gender Inequality Index (GII) is published annually by UN's agency, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). It is supposed to measure inequality between men and women:

GII is a composite metric of gender inequality using three dimensions: reproductive health, empowerment and the labour market. A low GII value indicates low inequality between women and men, and vice-versa.

The three dimensions are represented by five indicators:

Source: https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2021-22_HDR/hdr2021-22_technical_notes.pdf

You may be asking, is the ratio of parliamentary sets a good measure of differences between genders? Well, maybe, but you should be looking at a different metric: if they measure maternal mortality (female health) and adolescent births (female health), how do they compare it to male health? The answer is: they don't give a shit about male health.

The UNDP puts it this way:

Health should not be interpreted as an average of corresponding female and male indices but rather as half the distance from the norms established for the reproductive health indicators—fewer maternal deaths and fewer adolescent pregnancies.

In other words, if women's reproductive health is below some arbitrary norm, then there is gender inequality, regardless of men's health.

UNDP even provides this neat example about Afghanistan:

The Heath inequality is simply the average of male and female indices (1+0.0138)/2 = 0.5069. This is considered very high. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that maternal mortality in Afghanistan is not a big problem. What I am saying is that you can not use maternal mortality in Afghanistan to measure gender inequality unless you take into consideration that you are - in Afghanistan. Citizens of Afghanistan die of preventable diseases all the time - both women and men.

How good a predictor of quality of life is reproductive health anyway? Let's look at another country from the GII dataset - New Zealand:

The MMR number is per 100,000 live births. In 2021, NZ had some 63,557 live births, meaning there were approximately 6 maternal deaths compared to 0 paternal deaths. Yet, in a similar period, NZ had approximately 105 fatal occupational injuries (source), of which 90% to 95% are usually males. That is 90+ dead working men. Why does the index care about 6 more women than men dying in reproduction but not about 80 more men than women dying in work accidents?

The GII seems to serve only one purpose: to paint women as victims, no matter what.

before you ask me "where" mainly by government intervention but also upbringing of children and gender dynamics generally in public in our society

We often talk about the top 20% of men (and, to a lesser degree, women). Do we actually care that these people are better than 80% of their peers, or does it just so happen that only around 20% of the population meets the minimum qualifications we've set for dating elligibility based on ideas we have about attractiveness, financial security, personality, and social status?

Using a different example: the obesity rate is increasing in the US. As more people become overweight, does the average value for people's looks go down, or does the average value stay the same, because "a 5" is always average relative to everyone else?

From what I have seen of the “can men and women be friends” debate, many men claim that it is impossible to truly be friends with a woman, while many women say it is possible to be friends with a man. It seems that the men who think this way tend to only view women as the potential for romance/sex.

There is always the “what do you bring to the table” question, even within this discussion of purely friendship between a man and a woman. Is the answer not friendship itself? I have always wondered why it usually has to be that transactional/ beneficial for many men.

Additionally, in my own experience, there has been a trend of men befriending me with the intention of charming me into wanting more. I don’t intend to fault them for this, I have just found that falsifying a friendship is a tactic that some men use as a means of securing a date, rather than friendship being the main goal. I think that this may add to the way in which I have noticed that many men only “befriend” women that they find attractive.

That is not to say that this is the only experience I have with men and friendships. There are men that I take classes with that I would consider my friends. People within my major tend to group together, so we often eat lunch all together.

Ultimately, this isn’t that deep, but I am curious about your thoughts!

There are many cases where women will look at and describe men's dating behavior and judge it harshly when it actually works or it's the most viable way to do things, then also also no alternative.

For example, being adament on pursuing a person. When women are uninterested they want you to "take no for an answer... the first time". The issue comes when women play hard to get. There are more women than women probably realize that play hard to get. They will give you a "no" in a non-flirtatious way but also expect you to keep purusuing them because it illustrates how "you're a man who knows what you want and you're not afraid to go after it", or something along those lines. It can even end up appearing romantic in some situations because he liked her so much he was willing to pursue her. The Notebook fits has this trope. Women don't always mean no. However, because of this men are put in this gray area where they're out of luck if they do, criticized if they don't.

Another example, sexual messages. I've seen countless post where women complain that men send the sexual text, but offer no alternative for men who want sex. It makes no sense for a guy to talk to you for an extended period of time and hide his intentions for the purpose of sleeping with you. It's just going to waste your time and his. Sexual messages are always chastised unless it's reciprocated then all of a sudden no one has a problem with it. The majority of women who want to hook up want to be led into the scenario not asked "Hello ma'am, I hope you're doing well I was just making and inquiry about potential sexual relations with you and I hope I don't come off as disrespectful". Again, this leaves guys in another gray area talk about sex too early and you're a creep, talk about it too late you're a time waster and a manipulator, ask politely the women who don't are ok with it, ask politely and the women who do are no longer interested.

There are plenty of other examples like approaching women in public, making physical advances, double texting, etc. Women are not a monoloth and it just seems like because women are removed from the burden of pursuing they're allowed to be in a position where they can judge without having to deal with any of the concequences of pursuing or come up with any solutions to these problems. What am I supposed to do?

I recently came across a long video of a woman around 35 years old expressing frustration and a sense of lack of purpose. She seemed to feel like she missed out on certain life experiences, mentioning that a lot of women her age have children or have been married, while she’s still searching for that kind of fulfillment. She came across as sincere, looking for connection—not entitled, selfish, or malicious. That said, I only watched about half the video, so I don’t know her full story or her standards; she seemed to focus more on her internal state than her specific dating expectations. You don’t need to watch the video to answer, but in case you don’t want to take my word for it, I wanted to add that context.

It got me curious because a lot of Red Pill discussions tend to have a pretty fixed stance on older women who are single. There’s often this idea that older women that happen to remain single typically have something wrong with them, and they were "damaged" or "used up goods" that are not worth the investment in comparison to their younger counterparts. As a former red piller, I’m familiar with the general guidelines on older women and single moms, but I also know that there’s a lot of variety in how Red Pill concepts are applied. The Red Pill isn’t a one-size-fits-all ideology; it’s more of a toolkit to pick what works and leave what doesn’t. That’s why I’m curious to hear from different perspectives on where you all would stand in this situation.

Hypothetically, let’s say you’re a single guy, and you meet a beautiful, grounded woman in her mid-30s who’s genuinely interested in marriage. She’s attractive, down-to-earth, and you have a great connection. Would her age be a dealbreaker, or would you be open to seeing where things go based on her personality and alignment with your values?

For those of you who may have personal guidelines around dating women in this age range, I’d love to know where those come from, or if there’s any room for exceptions. I’m genuinely curious about whether there’s more nuance here or if it’s usually a firm “no” and why that is.

Here are a few things I’d like to hear about, based on your dealbreakers or principles:

• Career & Lifestyle: Would her career path or lifestyle choices (e.g., child-free, career-focused) impact your decision?
• Values & Relationship Experience: Is there a difference in how you view a woman who’s divorced versus chronically single? Does her past with hookups or relationships factor into your discernment?
• Relationship Dynamics: Does it matter if she’s looking for a partner who can provide versus someone financially independent? Would you prefer someone who values a more traditional “leader” role or a partnership dynamic? Would fatherhood be on the table for you?
• Miscellaneous: Feel free to add any other factors that would influence your decision, like values on sex, “tradcon” dynamics, income, kids, body count, etc.

Of course, anyone can answer these questions if they have a solid enough opinion on it. I am just asking the Red Pill (because the subreddit's .... shhhh!) because they are often more opinionated on this topic. Just make sure you do in the appropriate spaces to not overshadow RPs. But yeah, just let me know what you think.

EDIT: some Grammarly edits for clarity.

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!

Guys know that most women don’t just go on dates with guys they don’t know and hookup for years on end. We’re fully aware that you find someone eventually or get in situationships.

I’ve never known a woman in my entire life no matter how unattractive or how attractive that went on dates with guys she didn’t know, that weren’t clearly above average to elite level desirable men.

Most women would like to have a passionate hookup or meet some random guy and go get some drinks. If you’re cute or got a lot of money. Otherwise, she already knows 20 other average guys that would probably wife her up immediately, you’re not on any radar of concern to any woman currently interested in dating.

The reason women can get dates so high up so easily is they only want dates and hookups at half the rate of men, and only in a spurt of a few months and up to a year. This makes casual sex a scarcity, certain attractive men like to go after women they don’t know, so the most desirable guys who are willing to go up and down the scale of desirable women capture the vast majority of the casual market.

On average, we know women who constantly date for long periods, but that’s not normal. There also are guys at the top that are interested in sleeping with as many women as possible, women are almost never like that. So the dating market with 2 people that don’t know each other skews towards women so much they leave out 80% of guys for casual romantic action.

In the end what guys complain about in dating is they wish they could date like women are able to so easily. The only way to tip the scales and make it even is not having players in the mix trying to get all the available women, who are willing to go out with guys they don’t know. Then guys need to stop being so easy and sleeping with girls he plans to ghost in a couple weeks.

Women who date know all this firsthand, they know it better than we do. They just don’t let their ego believe it, and want to keep it a secret from guys how much they’ve dated and slept around.

There’s only one study that can track what women do, you can’t get women to report on this. If you want to see the trend women with STDs has been rapidly growing the last 10 years as reported by the CDC.

https://cuehealth.com/blog/womens-health/2023/04/14/with-stds-in-women-on-the-rise-why-prevention-is-more-important-than-ever

“In comparison to heterosexual males, women are 1.7 times more likely to get chlamydia and 2.8 times more likely to get gonorrhea.” Also syphillis rates are exploding in women. Women are slightly more vulnerable, but a higher percentage of women are also having a lot more casual sex than men and these std rates keep rising in women. It’s just the much smaller percentage of men at the top are getting the vast majority casual access to women.

For anyone who doesnt know what a Blue Haired Feminist is: Woke, radical feminist, man-hating, thinking everything is oppressing her, and thinks an insult against her as an individual (and for her behavior) is an insult against all women.

Some quotes that inspire this post:

Call [Amber Heard] out for lying about abuse and rape got you labeled a misogynist for saying a woman would lie about that.

Black men are being accused of misogyny if we don't support Kamala.

You get labeled misogynistic and fatphobic for calling out fat acceptance.

So I noticed that there’s two types of guys who complain “You can’t say shit about women without backlash!”

1. Guys who are creepy misogynists who dont want to admit he’s in the wrong.
2. Guys who care way too much about what blue haired feminists say/think.

Already addressed the first type, now to address the 2nd type.

Why do guys get so upset that obviously crazy women dont like them? If these women will basically say “I hate men and women can do know wrong”, why put value in their words? You’re telling me throughout your entire life, the only women you have ever met are blue haired feminists who think anyone who is a cis male is the embodiment of evil and think Amber Heard did nothing wrong?

However, I theorize it is a tactic to feel like a victim, similar to what those blue haired feminists do, for pity points. Also, avoiding personal responsibility seems to be human nature, especially a sign of lack in maturity.

“Arent you being a hypocrite?” There’s a difference between addressing SPECIFIC types of people and acting like its a whole gender, allowing it to distort one’s perception of people IRL.

Similar to the Blue Feminist, I think conflating all women with radicals is a victimhood tactic. Its like when these women do that “I choose the bear” bullshit by listing off brutal SA cases, as if most men would do that shit instead of a couple of psychos.

So when you ask for advice about how to act when dating there are two main responses. First one is to don't go with the intent of dating but with intent to be friends and be hopeful to land a date that way. Second one is to be direct that you want to date and stuff. And now both of them have counterarguments. As for the first one, it is malicious as you don't actually want to be friend but to be a sneaky fuck and get to a date that way, and for the second one it is also wrong because you treat women like meat because you only care about dating her, not being friends and it's wrong. So I wonder how both of these advices float around when they exclude eachother?

Two men:

Adam is 5’11, very physically fit and active. He has degrees and is very social. He makes 120k a year at 26 and has a solid friend group of both men and women similarly successful. They are always making plans and traveling together. He seems very happy with his life.

Jensen is 6’4, very physically fit and active. He has a degree but runs his own company. He has a network of business associates but not friends. He makes 340k a year at 29 and he has hobbies that keep him occupied. He doesn’t really travel nor hang out with anyone (if he does it’s either family or work related). He’s a lone wolf but he seems very happy with his life.

Which guy would fit you more? In terms of your ideal lifestyle?

Especially redpill men there is a lot of hatred for single moms, I want to know why ?

I have 2 theories

1: It could be because single moms get much more love from society compared to single dads, I don't think this is the main reason but it si worth addressing

2: I think men project a lot of their issues with women onto single moms and see them as emblematic of women's impacts on society that they perceive of as negative.

Basically there is many men have that women aren't willing to compromise or settle and that they would rather hurt other people, relationships, society and less directly themselves before we would. I think when a lot of men see a struggling single mom they see a woman that had a good relationship with the child's father and ended it over a stupid disagreement or ick.

They also feel that there are tons of good men who would be good fathers for the kid and the woman won't date them because she wants chad or she prefers child support for her.

They see it as women's refusal to settle or compromise even at the expense of society condensed down to a refusal to settle or compromise even at the expense a child.

Let me define the difference between the two.

A traditional wife; Stays a virgin until marriage, gets married young, spends her twenties and thirties having multiple children back to back, and lives to serve her husband (3 home cooked meals a day, laundry, cleaning, childcare daily etc). No degree, no career. Complete financial dependance of her partner, submissive to all his wants and needs (even if you don’t agree), obedient.

Or “Modern woman”; Has sexual and romantic partners, goes to university, takes birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, keeps her financial independence by having her own income and career. Has a child or two possibly maybe, but later on in her life or has the option of staying childfree.

• If you disagree with my definitions tell me why.

I dont know why but there seems to be this rhetoric that men love way harder and would do anything for the women they love. I call bullshit!

And heres why:

-Men confuse love and lust. This shows their absolute inability to love if they cant even differentiate it.

-Men's "love" is conditional on the provision of sex.

-Men drop their partners that they have "loved" for years if they get sick. While women often become full time caregivers when their partners get sick until the day they die.

-Men are visual. If their partner gains weight or ages this so called love men have for their partners often vanishes. Real love is not dependable on physical attributes.

-Men aren't romantic. The amount of women who never receive flowers or sweet gifts in a relationship is honestly astonishing, I would make a better man than biological men.

-Men never make sacrifices in relationships. If he wants to play video games all day that what he does, men never give up on what they want to do in order to nurture their relationship with their partners that they "love".

-Women are WAY more selfless, they are often the ones to sacrifice themselves for relationships. Women are the ones who often ruin their bodies so that they can have kids, or working a full time job while also doing the cooking cleaning, child rearing etc.

-Modern men say they love their partners yet wont financially provide. This shows they're just out for themselves and dont love strong enough to fulfil women's deepest biological desires.

-Men say they can still love their wives and cheat. Big nope. No one who actually loves someone would willingly break they heart of the person they "love". This is a big tell that men dont even know what the hell love is.

-Men who say they would "do anything for the women they love" is actually just a figure of speech to make them look good. Do these men ever actually make sacrifices for their partners or do really nice things for them? NOPE.

Men's love is conditional, transactional and fake. Women's love is deep, selfless and consistent.

Happy Spouse, Happy house was right within reach... But happy wife happy life became the popular advice. The secret to a good marriage.

Why?

What does it mean to you?

Women's attraction is a self-fulfilling prophecy when it comes to interactions with them. If a girl is attracted to you, you can do no wrong, and all the naughty things you say are funny. If a girl is not attracted to you, you can say and act the same way, and she will view you as a horrible person and how dare you have the audacity to talk to me like that. There really is no universal way to "game" women. Women will just gas up guys they like by laughing at everything they do and give the cold shoulder to guy's they don't by refusing to laugh at even the most innocent of jokes. This is why I think it's funny when people talk about "wow that guy has rizz" or "wow that guy has negative rizz". It's not really even about what the guy is saying, it's about how the girl reacts to what he's saying.

In essence, I am curious if all or most men actively find fulfilment and happiness in providing for someone, or if it's something that's entirely personality-dependent. In short, the question is, if you had an ideal partner, would you want to provide for them physically and financially, and how much joy would it bring you? How much does the act of making her happy, make you happy? Furthermore, given this ideal partner, how comfortable are you with asymmetry in how much money she brings in vs you? Say that she has a degree in fine arts or has a disability that prevents her from working, or she seriously dislikes it and it distresses her.

When I say ideal partner, suspend any disbelief for a second, and imagine someone you have no or very few complaints about. Essentially, someone who:

• you love and loves you back
• is attractive in your opinion and is attracted to you
• is nice to you, interested in your interests, how your day went, etc
• is very grateful when you get them nice things, pay the bills, etc
• has as much sex with you as you want
• does not have any big negative qualities that annoy or frustrate you
• is reasonable during disagreements
• will not screw you over in some larger conspiracy (e.g. cheating or divorce)

In other words, your hypothetical partner is someone who would be very pleasant to provide for (I'm a woman and I would not mind buying nice things for the above person either). I emphasise "ideal partner" because I'm curious how you feel about providing in a vacuum, without considering how "typical" women behave in your experience.

Given this is your partner, from 1 (reluctant to part with your money) to 10 (finding extreme fulfilment and happiness in making this person happy), with 5 being "yeah I will get her things and her reaction makes me happy, but I wouldn't say it's an important part of my life or identity", where are you from 1 to 10?

Thanks for answering everyone!

---

The context for this question is my husband's childhood friend recently got married to a woman who is both incredibly obese and unlikeable unattractive and borderline abusive. When I asked why this marriage happened (the guy is a normal-looking, relatively accomplished dude in his early 30's), my husband's answer was "Sometimes you just want to have someone to be nice to". This answer was kind of baffling to me - if I had excess money to the point of needing to split it in half with someone, I can think of a million other places to put it than a romantic partner who is nowhere near the ideal I described. This got me thinking if "wanting to provide for someone" is a generally male trait, or just personality dependent.

I've been watching a lot of women-oriented videos on Youtube lately, mostly out of a how-the-other-half-lives curiosity, things like: corsets and rom-com analysis video essays. Almost without fail there will be women in the comments referencing the "unrealistic beauty standards" set for women by society. I'm not contesting that those standards exist or are realistic for most women. The standards I see mentioned mostly revolve around always:

• Having perfect skin
• Having perfect hair
• Having perfect make-up
• Having a perfect body, though the definitions for this seem to vary substantially
• Having a perfect outfit
• Being white
• Being blonde-haired and blue-eyed (this is mentioned occassionally but not always)

Of course in Hollywood actresses can lose parts for not being attractive enough, but these are women aiming to get jobs where being attractive can promise investors increased returns. Besides the obvious question of who actually meets all those standards (Sydney Sweeney, maybe?), no one ever says what ordinary women have suffered as a consequence of not meeting them.

In the same women-heavy spaces women will also complain of the infinite deluge of male attention no matter how they dress or act. It's well known at this point that any women can open a new profile on a dating app and gain access to a consistent supply of new men until they find one they like. Even the ones who are very far from the standard still find men, though they call them "chasers" to devalue their attraction. What does it actually mean then for society to uphold these standards against women? No university, neighborhood, or workplace is denying admission based on people's appearance so what is the real harm? Further, what is the actual gain? If both ugly women and pretty women have a surfeit of male attention than what's the point of trying to meet beauty standards supposedly imposed by men?

Contrast this to male beauty standards where satisfying them grants a few men a vastly increased dating pool and falling short in just a few domains can be a romantic death sentence and I'm just not seeing the problem.

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!

Women want equality when it comes to men who they are not romantically interested in. Their co-workers, average men. In fact, I would argue that not only do they want equality, but they actually want privilege.

When it comes to a romantic mate though, women want someone superior to themselves to submit to. In my opinion, it is in a woman's nature to submit, but to submit to the right mate. So they naturally seek someone better. Taller, richer, more successful, more educated, with better social circle, etc.

Women nowadays are doing quite well though. Better than men. So the more they move up, the less options they have. This is misinterpreted as women having heightened standards, but it is simply the byproduct of women doing well socially, financially, in terms of education and careers too.

Women as a general rule, will not date down. Their own success is what lowers their options. Many of them think though that men value their career, education, and status. Very few men value that. On the other hand, a man that has those, also has lots of options so he looks at younger options.

I made a graph to illustrate this.

The more she goes up on this pyramid, the less options are available for her. On the other hand, the more a guy goes up this pyramid, the more options he has.

Marriage seems to be a primal goal of most people, but theres usually zero questioning about what the goal of each individual is looking for or is it really gonna improve somebody elses life. People seem to do it just because it is what is next, or at least pursue it.

Seeing divorce statics and how many marriages are happy, it seems to me marriage is a very very bad bet as goal to pursue to improve your life.

Now here is where my question comes, How many really happy marriages do you know? Percentage wise speaking. And if the percentage is so low why do you think people keep pursuing it? Is it just ignorance and lack of self awareness of what people are getting into?

In my experience and from what i have read/seen trought my life:

• 70-80% of marriages suck (50% are bad enough to end on divorce, and theres a lot that stay even if it sucks for the kids or financials, or religious reasons).
• 15-20% are ok, they dont suck but are not great. They arent Heads over heels about their couple. They get along well and stay because its comfortable, for the kids, etc.. Most would, cheat or would cheat if they know wouldnt get caught Or already cheated. .
• 1-2% Are great, Heads over heels about their couple. Will not cheat.

So theres a 98% chance your life will be "comfortable" at best with a good marriage. With a high risk of carrying a big burden if things go wrong like a divorce.

Is the 1-2% chance of a great marriage worth it?

Have the hollywood movies Indoctrinationed us so much to pursue something that is not realistic?