Out of curiosity, what percentage of men do you think would prefer friends with benefits ***over*** a romantic relationship?

Pretending that they could get either one equally easily. We can even say exclusive FWB, to rule out anyone who only wants a relationship for the loyalty aspect.

FWB: have sex, hang out, enjoy each other’s company, but no strong emotional ties.

Romantic Relationship: physical relationship, but also emotional, meaning: you enjoy doing thoughtful kind things for each other, frequently have that person on your mind and how you can care for them, enjoy hearing about all their thoughts and feelings, want to share all your thoughts and feelings with them, get a lot of joy out of them feeling joy, are conscious of how your words/actions affect them and want to do whatever you can to not hurt them, when something happens they’re the first person you want to talk to, everything is better when they’re around, you miss them when you haven’t seen them, you love just lying in their arms staring into their eyes.

Why I ask this is because it seems like there are a lot of men who complain about “having” to talk to their girlfriends, “having” to go out on dates with their wives, “having” to do cute little things together that bring her joy…..and I have to wonder. Why be in a romantic relationship if you don’t like the ***romantic*** part? My conclusion is that these men would prefer FWB but there are just not enough women who want that set up so they settle for a romantic relationship.

There’s this assumption in dating discussions that women who refuse to settle or have high standards will eventually regret their choices and end up alone.
But that argument only works if you assume being single is inherently worse than being in a relationship.
For women who are financially independent, have fulfilling friendships, and genuinely enjoy their freedom, what exactly is the supposed punishment?
Marriage and relationships can also come with significant sacrifices, particularly for women. Research consistently shows that women tend to take on a disproportionate share of domestic labor and childcare, even when both partners work.
Pregnancy, childbirth, and the long-term responsibilities of raising children can also affect women’s health, careers, and financial independence.
So why is it automatically assumed that a woman who chooses to avoid those responsibilities is somehow losing out?
The argument that women will eventually regret remaining single seems to rely on the assumption that marriage and motherhood are universally desirable outcomes.
Some women genuinely prefer independence, friendships, financial freedom, and a life without children or romantic commitments.
Being single isn’t necessarily a failure to attract a partner. Sometimes it’s a deliberate choice because the alternative simply isn’t appealing.
If the goal is to convince women that relationships are worthwhile, threatening them with a lifestyle they may already prefer doesn’t seem like a particularly convincing argument.

I want to give some examples about how the majority of PPD posters are basically just anti-sex and are either deliberately trying to minimize the amount of sex that happens or they act in a way that is indistinguishable from that. I would be able to link multiple specific comments and posts for all of these things, but im not trying to get banned for personal attacks.

Lately everyone assumes that women just hate sex and its only ever used as a bargaining chip to get a commited relationship. This idea has inspired a lot of posts lately, and I rarely see either side male or female pushing back on it. Its a very gross transactional view of sex.

But theres so many more examples. I need to take a deep breath to type this all out...

No sex unless your in a committed relationship already, and you already fully know your intentions and plan on being in the relationship long term.

Never try, unless you are already mentally perfect, mature, and stable, is another big one. Oh, if you are focusing on your career, dont bother. I have also seen that one. If your life isnt already interesting, dont persue sex, get the interesting life first. I see stuff like 19 and 24 is apparently a predatory age gap. I also saw one (this also comes from both sides ocassionally) that men are gonna struggle to date when they are under 25 so they shouldnt worry about it until then. And the classic. If you are 30 and a virgin, theres no hope for you.

And obviously, the looks stuff, if you arent x or y standard in looks dont bother. If you have autism dont bother. Etc etc.

Also never try to change and improve yourself in any big way. Don't try to learn any game, it won't work anyway and anyone who claims it does is scamming. And when it does work its evil anyway. Don't approach, either because its desperate, harassment or wont work.

Just pretend PPD isn't a large group of individuals. Pretend behind every post and comment, is a hardcore religious fundamentalist whose goal is to minimize the amount of sex that occurs. It is completely consistent with what you see here.

They use red herrings, "learn to cook, it will get you laid, dont bother with all that actionable stuff actually related to dating." They try to demoralize you, saying none of the actionable things you can do actually work. They bring up an unlimited number of moral concerns at every turn. And ofc, there are occasional nice vague platitudes like "have good hygiene and be emotionally intelligent" so that way they don't seem too unhinged.

These examples are mostly stuff that I notice that are attempting to prevent men from getting laid. But this religious fundamentalist also doesnt want women having sex either. All men are predators who will screw you over in some way, sex isn't fun for women, your single life is better, dont settle, etc. Etc. Theres never Any legit girl game type advice here either. Besides maybe, wait a year before sex, again, super consistent with the sex hating theme.

And yeah I know theres some good pro-sex takes here. But in general, this model of the antagonistic sex hating religious fundamentalist can explain most of what you see on this sub. And across the "gender war" takes you see online in general.

Edit:

Forgot to add. More recently, a common response to the Cornell 7 issue is that frats/sororities, underage drinking, or even partying in general should be banned, or be viewed negatively or with suspicion. Now im not a fan of group sex with strangers on drugs, I dont even have a full opinion on that case specifically. But to jump straight from "something bad happened 2 years ago in a country of 300 million" to "partying in college should be banned" is clearly just an anti-sex take.

There are a lot of discussions online about dating standards, dealbreakers, and the difference between what people say they want and who they actually end up attracted to. Rather than debating whether women's preferences are reasonable or unrealistic, I'm interested in hearing about actual experiences. Have you ever had a strong preference or requirement that you ended up reconsidering after meeting a particular man? What was the original preference, and what made him different? Was there genuine attraction despite him not meeting that requirement, did the attraction develop with familiarity, or did other qualities simply outweigh it? I'm also curious whether the experience permanently changed your preferences or whether that particular man remained an exception.

If I could give one piece of dating advice to a guy nowadays it would be to look for the rejection early on. There’s basically 3 types of women low to no interest, medium interest and high interest. If you want a happy dating life I’d stay in the high interest dating zone as much as possible. I know guys love this “challenge” but that’s honestly what you should avoid. If you ask a woman for drinks or coffee and she suggest dinner instead just say “ok nvmd then” keep it pushing. If you’re 3-4 dates in and she isn’t interested in coming to your place yet, just keep it pushing. If you make a sexual joke or you go in for the kiss and she says slow down, just keep it pushing. Dating is much easier when you simply ignore the women who are only investing in your attention and energy into high interest women. The flakes are just there to waste your time and get resources from you. No need to complain, just accept it is what it is and move on.

Hi everyone, I am a 35-year-old college graduate with high-functioning autism, and I am non-binary. Politically, I am on the far left (Marxist/feminist) and strongly against fascism, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and Zionism. Because of how expensive NYC is and being unemployed, I’ve been forced back into a toxic, abusive family environment. Based on my lived experiences and broader data, I want to ask: is my situation normal?
The employment barriers for the neurodivergent community are stark. Neurotypical college grads face a 5–10% unemployment rate, while autistic grads face a staggering 85% rate. If a neurotypical pair applies to 30–40 jobs, both are usually employed within four months.

Now look at the neurodivergent experience. An autistic woman applies to 40 jobs, gets 3 interviews, and gets hired for 2. Meanwhile, my experience as an autistic male presentation involves applying to over 200 jobs in three months because I expect perpetual rejection—and I’ve been 100% right this past year. This is despite having a professional reel and a career coach confirming my resume and portfolio meet industry standards. I have decades of experience, including extensive volunteer work, yet I’ve secured only one interview in six months and zero jobs.

The dating gap is just as drastic. Neurotypical men and women have an 82% and 79% successful relationship rate, respectively. For low-needs, college-grad autistic women, it’s 55–60% (many are married or in relationships). But for autistic men, it drops to 10–15%. While an autistic woman might easily find a partner, I write 30–40 tailored messages a month to women and queer/non-binary people across 27 different dating and social platforms. I never get replies and remain perpetually single.

I write between 50 and 100 tailored messages per week with people that I like on Ok cupid but never get a single response even months later.

Given this data, the economic reality of NYC, and the systemic hurdles in job hunting and dating, is this trajectory normal for people like me, or am I an anomaly?

Do you believe I have a chance of ever getting into a successful relationship and or getting married?

I'm curious where women draw the line when evaluating sexual assault allegations, especially before concrete evidence is presented.

It seems there are two extremes: people who assume women are always lying and people who assume women are always telling the truth. I don't think either position is reasonable.

What interests me is how many behaviors that might initially seem suspicious are also considered possible responses to trauma.

For example:

- Waiting years to report an assault.

- Continuing a consensual relationship with the accused.

- Voluntarily returning for another sexual encounter.

- Initially saying an encounter was consensual, then later describing it as assault.

- Maintaining friendly communication with the accused afterward.

I understand none of these automatically disproves an allegation, and trauma responses vary.

However, it sometimes seems like almost any behavior following an alleged assault can be explained as consistent with victimization.

So my question is: At what point does an allegation genuinely become questionable to you?

What inconsistencies, behaviors, or circumstances would make you skeptical enough to question the account rather than accept it at face value?

I'm not asking what automatically proves someone is lying. I'm asking where you personally draw the line between giving someone the benefit of the doubt and requiring more evidence.

The patriarchy exists, but it doesn’t exist for everyone.

Much in the same way that the financial elite and right-wingers like to push the narrative that immigrants are the big problem and that the working class will be saved if we deal with all the immigrants which distracts from the fact that it’s the 1% hoovering up all the wealth, the feminist narrative that men as a whole are the problem and that they should all be blamed and that all men are the enemy and the all men suppress women actually benefits the very very top men because it distracts from and minimises the fact that it’s not the majority of men at all, it’s the rich and powerful.

The gender war is promoted by the elite between women and men. But women actually have for the most part in the modern day way more power, they have more power socially and in the workplace and financially and most definitely in the realm of relationships and sexual dynamics. Women literally hold all the cards in every single way.

Now in the same way that yes, some crime and some economic issues do come from immigration the negative effects and act committed by these individuals are not the main reason that the economy is in the shitter. But it’s a convenient little enemy for the bottom 90% to have to blame because it stops them scrutinising and resisting the oppression from the elite.

Nobody benefits from the gender wars more than the top tier men. They get to turn the majority of women on the majority of men and make women feel like all their problems are coming from most men instead of the top tier men who have all the money all the power and also all the women.

On average being a man in the bottom 90% makes you the lowest tier of human. You are disadvantage in every way compared to the majority of women and yet women have the luxury of believing they are the victims because of Apex fallacy and the top 10% of men are pressing everybody but blaming it on males as a whole.

I’m sick of this bs narrative that a lot of women come on here and perpetuate about not knowing about the guy who’s a simp for them. You know that guy who’s constantly rubbing your feet, paying for your shit and texting you 24/7 wants you. Unless you were literally born in a remote tribe you know the guy is interested in you. I’m not saying you should be with the guy bc you absolutely don’t owe anyone anything but don’t play dumb. You’re simply milking it until you feel like you’ve gotten as much as you can out of the benefits of being on that side.

Recently, I spent some time browsing open relationship subreddits, and many of the experiences shared there reminded me of the arguments commonly made in redpill circles. A recurring theme was men expressing shock at discovering a different side of their wives and girlfriends after opening their relationships. Some described their partners pursuing men who were physically the opposite of them: taller, more muscular, and better endowed. What particularly caught my attention was that some of the outside partners also shared their experiences, describing women who appeared far more sexually submissive and enthusiastic with them than their husbands had ever imagined.

Some accounts went further, describing women belittling or emasculating their husbands in front of their outside partners, seemingly to impress them or satisfy their egos. Obviously, anonymous Reddit anecdotes aren't representative of all women or open relationships, but the recurring theme raises an interesting question: Do some men really know their partners' sexual preferences, or do they simply know the version of their partners they've experienced within their own relationships? Perhaps the most unsettling part isn't the existence of these desires, but discovering that your partner behaves differently with someone who possesses qualities you lack.

Not sure if you are aware, but many women online will try to paint guys who date young women as losers who can't date women their own age.

Personally I find this ridiculous since young women are on average the best looking and most sought after women with options and this unsurprisingly means the competition is harder to compete with.

I will acknowledge that there may be some types of men where it is easier for them Personally to date younger, but I argue this is an exception and generally going after younger women is going to be a lot harder than trying to date in your own age range (I know it has been for me).

Is this something something that this sub actually believes?

Modern feminism has for a few decades held considerable influence in academia, where women today are more prevalent. And it seems for sometime it's begun from this dichotomy of victim and victimizer. Instead of seeing men and women as interconnected people, it increasingly frames women as oppressed and men as oppressors. This perspective can validate genuine grievances; women often do really suffer at the hands of men. But it also encourages suspicion toward male temperament and, eventually, ordinary expressions of attraction.

Consider male sexuality. It's reasonable to acknowledge that sexual desire motivates much of men's interest in women. But if you begin with a belief in innate male pathology, which feminists seem to, that desire gets isolated from the broader context and treated primarily as a source of danger.

Yet women have motivations of their own, namely romance. They want to be courted and made to feel special. We could characterize these desires as egoism, just as easily as we characterize male sexuality as predatory. But what would we gain from interpreting every difference between the sexes as a power struggle?

The relationship between men and women is better understood as complementary than antagonistic. Male sexual desire can motivate pursuit; romantic courtship can transform that initial attraction into affection, trust, and attachment. A man may approach a woman out of desire and find himself becoming emotionally invested along the way. These aren't universal roles, but they're a meaningful dynamic.

What's hilarious is that feminists demonize male sexuality without offering an alternative to the courtship dynamic they criticize. Approaching and courting are traditionally masculine behaviors, yet many women still prefer to be approached and courted. If male initiative becomes inherently suspect, who initiates? How do women receive the romantic attention they still desire?

Women's complaints about the dearth of masculinity partly reflect a culture in which men have grown wary of expressing it, fearing their initiative will be interpreted as a threat. In my experience, women can be quite clubby, sometimes treating one another's judgments as gospel. Make the wrong impression, and you risk being permanently cast in an unfavorable light. Other men have responded by cultivating indifference toward women altogether. Neither response is necessarily harmful in itself, but narratives that frame the sexes as adversaries risk encouraging both. The result is growing alienation and sometimes hostility between people who, despite their differences, still desire one another.

The healthier strands of feminism seek to understand women, challenge patriarchal norms that harm both sexes, and improve relations between them. But those begin not with antagonism, but with a desire for mutual understanding.

I understand not wanting to take on the male role of romance pursuer. There are many downsides, like men misinterpreting your openess.

And I understand women who have exactly the type of men they want pursuing them saying "I am fine just the way things are, I get what I want".

Sure.

But what about all the women who are lonely or who are not satisfied by the men who pursue them.

If you want a certain type of man and have standards, are you seriously just going to remain single if you are only approached by men who don't have what you want. Or are you seriously going to just choose one of those men, one of the ones who approached you. Choose the "Best" of them even though you want better?

I don't understand womans romantically suicidal notion that if the man she wants doesn't approach her, then she will just be alone. And an even more pathetic outcome is that they choose "the best of the worst", ie. she just picks one of the guys who actively pursues her, when her dream husband could have just needed a simple opening, or a little conversation to come into her life.

As a man I just cannot image being so PASSIVE in my dating life.

So women, what is up with this? Would you really rather choose a subpar man just because he "approaches" you, compared with god-forbid, starting a conversation with a man who superficially has what you want and seeing where things go???

The whole thing feels very gross to me. Like instead of having your own agency, and workin towards being with an amazing man, you just limit yourself to a group of horn dogs that throw themselves at you.

I am not saying you should choose passive men, I am asking why you wouldn't CONSIDER a passive man if the men approaching you are not exactly what you want. Is passivity in men really that disgusting to you? That you'd rather shack up with an average guy, when starting a conversation with the tall hottie, could win you exactly what you want out of a man?

Is this a female gender role that women need to break down to have more satisfaction from relationships?

I'm starting to wonder whether the principle in many gender debates isn't “don't judge people unfairly,” but “women shouldn't be negatively judged by men.”

A comedian jokes about women wearing extremely revealing gym clothes and it's misogyny. Meanwhile, men have been mocked forever as gym bros for grunting, posing, filming, staring, or dropping heavy weights.

A man insults a woman's appearance and it's misogyny. Billie Eilish tells women to stop dating “ugly men,” and it's treated very differently. Imagine a male celebrity saying, “Men, stop dating ugly women.”

Men are told we're responsible for challenging toxic men around us sometimes even blamed for unknowingly associating with abusers. Yet women can knowingly date, defend, stream, and turn problematic male celebrities into trends without the same collective responsibility.

Then there's “women aren't a monolith.” Neither are men. Yet “yes, all men,” “men are trash,” and similar rhetoric gets defended with “obviously we don't literally mean every man.” Fine,extend that same nuance when women are discussed.

False rape accusations are sometimes dismissed as too rare to warrant attention, while postpartum psychosis affecting roughly 0.1–0.2% of deliverie is rightly considered worthy of awareness. Rare suffering apparently matters until the wrong group brings up theirs.

I'm not arguing women shouldn't criticize men or defend themselves from unfair criticism.I'm asking what makes criticism “unfair.”

Because if the answer changes depending on which sex is being judged, fairness isn't the principle.

Maybe the objection isn't sexism

Maybe it's men being allowed to judge women at all.

For starters, the blue pill mob can't automatically write these men off as involuntary celibates due to their looks.

Because these men are physically attractive enough to get attention from women.

The problem is that they simply don't care about pursuing women or participating in the dating scene.

And I think this genuinely pisses off certain women because these men aren't adhering to traditional male gender roles.

Men are still expected to approach women, initiate conversations, flirt, ask women out, and pursue romantic relationships.

But attractive asocial men aren't interested in performing those roles just because society expects them to.

And that's where the irony comes in.

We constantly hear about how women don't exist to entertain men or provide men with romantic and sexual attention.

Yet some people suddenly have a problem when attractive men adopt that exact same attitude toward women.

An attractive asocial man can be perfectly content minding his own business.

He isn't necessarily shy, insecure, socially incompetent, misogynistic, or afraid of rejection.

He simply doesn't have much interest in socializing, dating, or seeking validation from women.

And that's something certain people apparently have a difficult time understanding.

Because society has normalized the idea that men are supposed to constantly desire female attention.

Especially attractive men, who are often assumed to be interested in taking advantage of their romantic opportunities.

But being physically attractive doesn't automatically make someone interested in dating.

And having opportunities to pursue women doesn't mean a man is obligated to take advantage of them.

Just like women, men have the right to decide whether romantic relationships are worth their time.

This also exposes another contradiction involving traditional gender roles.

Some women claim they want men to stop bothering them, approaching them, or seeking their attention.

But when an attractive man genuinely leaves women alone, his lack of interest can suddenly become something to question.

And notice how quickly people can start making assumptions about these men.

They must secretly be gay, arrogant, emotionally damaged, socially awkward, or hiding some kind of insecurity (small D).

Apparently, a heterosexual or even demisexual man simply being uninterested in pursuing women is too difficult for some people to comprehend.

And I think attractiveness makes this situation even more interesting.

Because an unattractive asocial man can easily be dismissed as someone who supposedly couldn't get women anyway.

But an attractive asocial man challenges that narrative because his lack of participation isn't necessarily caused by a lack of options.

That's why these men can expose how deeply traditional male gender roles remain ingrained in people's expectations.

Men are supposed to pursue, compete, impress, initiate, and constantly demonstrate their interest in women.

And when attractive men refuse to participate, some people interpret that refusal as something being wrong with them.

The irony is that these men are doing exactly what society constantly tells men to do: leave women alone and stop making everything about getting female attention.

Yet certain people still find a reason to criticize them because they're not performing the traditional masculine role of the pursuer.

Apparently, men rejecting traditional gender roles is only acceptable until women stop benefiting from those roles.

Source: Me. This is my experience.

I have no problem with women who have an OnlyFans account that they keep totally separated from their personal life and influencer social media account. There is nothing wrong with creating an account totally devoted to OnlyFans so that only men who actively look for it see it.

The problem is that both among my acquaintances in real life and in gaming, I see more and more girls who start to mix their content on Instagram and elsewhere with incredibly sexy pictures (miniskirt, cleavage, playing video games in underwear) and gain much more male followers. Several days later, you see a link to their OnlyFans accounts.

Because of testosterone and other factors, men are on average bound to strongly react to visual stimulation. So if you're an average geeky guy who isn't a virgin but struggles with relationships (as women are now very demanding and complicated) and you see a girl you know wearing a cute thong bikini, you'll be completely blown away and delighted.

And when you see she has an OF account, it'll be extremely hard for you to resist the temptation to become one of her fans. I talked with a lot of other guys who are in the same boat. I first tried to unfollow some of them, but given the way social media algorithms work and the behaviour of these women, you just can't avoid it. So I gave in.

To be fair, I do find my interactions with the one I follow pleasurable, but it frustrates me to know that (when they're single or in an open relationship), it's very unlikely they'd ever sleep with me. And above anything else, it feels horribly frustrating to know that I have almost no control over that; the urge is just too hard to resist.

But I never wanted to pay for OF content or looked for it; it just came to me and now I'm hooked, and so are many of the guys I talk with. I wish they'd just realise it's immoral to exploit the lack of sex men suffer from in modern society.

P.S.: this post shouldn't be misunderstood as a criticism of women as a whole, there are decent women out there too.

Whenever the topic or certain cases about abusive women abusing men comes up, theres always people that are quick to come in and say "why are you making this a gendered issue, both genders abuse and isolate their victims", which subverts the discussion away from bringing awareness about male victims of abuse.

Yes, both genders abuse, and get abused. But the tactics, social contexts, and vulnerabilities leveraged to achieve isolation and abuse often differ significantly due to gender socialization, societal expectations, and structural inequalities.

Abusive men lean on physical fear and enforce domestic roles to isolate women, we all know this. Although this can also exist with abusive women, its not the primary method they use to abuse men.

Abusive women instead lean on social stigma and shame to isolate men.

• They frequently isolate men by attacking their identity as independent, capable men. they may mock a man's career, finances, or status, making him feel inadequate and too embarrassed to talk to colleagues or friends about what is happening at home.
• Men are aware that society takes male victimization less seriously, that police or public systems may misunderstand the dynamic, or that he might be disbelieved or even laughed at. Abusive women exploit this by explicitly threatening, "if you tell anyone, i’ll tell them you hit me, and no one will believe you."
• If children are involved, female abusers often leverage traditional family structures to cut men off from broader social circles by controlling access to the children or framing social outings as a neglectful abandonment of the family.

Let me introduce you to the Northwestern European Marriage Pattern (EMP), often delineated by "Hajnal’s Line" (the line in red) running from Saint Petersburg to Trieste. EMP describes a unique demographic regime characterized by exceptionally late marriage ages (typically mid-to-late 20s for both sexes), high rates of definitive celibacy (10–20% never marrying), and strictly neolocal household formation, where couples were expected to establish an economically independent home upon marriage relatively far away from their parents' home (like the next village over). Historically dominant from the late Middle Ages through the 19th century across England, the Low Countries, Northern France, Scandinavia, and German-speaking regions, the system relied heavily on life-cycle servitude. Young adults spent 10 to 15 years as wage laborers or farm servants in other households, accumulating capital before marrying (generally, Middle Age men started working at 14, so 10-15 years later means that they are 24-29. Note that if you start working now at 20-21 after college, 10-15 years later means 30-35). This created a rational, homeostatic "preventive check" where marriage and fertility rates naturally fluctuated in response to real wages and economic constraints: if the economic situation is bad, people delayed marriages and childbirth.

The foundational text defining this phenomenon is British demographer John Hajnal’s landmark 1965 paper, "European Marriage Patterns in Perspective", which established the geographical boundaries and structural features of the EMP. Historical anthropologist Alan Macfarlane expanded on this in "The Origins of English Individualism" (1978) and "Marriage and Love in England" (1986), linking the pattern to deep-rooted English legal individualism, consensual spouse choice, and pre-industrial capitalist development.

You may think "why Northwestern European Marriage Pattern" in particular while this is basically the norm almost everywhere in the world, and well, it has spread and become the dominant cultural ideal in much of the world thanks to the dominance of the Anglo-American empires, but it's not the only system. Traditionally, Eastern Europe, Southern Italy, Ireland, and Southern Spain had different systems: they are more extended-family oriented. Further beyond Europe had even more variations and differences. Technically, you don't need to "have your life in order", or in the formal definition: "Young adults spent 10 to 15 years as wage laborers or farm servants in other households, accumulating capital before marrying". Outside of this area, people marry into a bigger family and rely on established farms and estates to make a living, as part of a clan, tribe, or extended group. You have cousin arranged marriages in the Islamic world, or traditional match-making/arranged marriages. You can do it today, if you family is rich and want to do it.

This is by no means a "new" phenomenon. It's a few hundred years old. It's easy to dream or talk about a totally free and completely blind to everything, and only "love and personality"-oriented marriage, but realistically, it has always been wealth and status-based, either personal capital, or familial/clan/tribal capital.

There is a wrinkle and a new addition to this and that's women have been gaining in higher educations and earnings over their male peers. I read about Malaysian university students staying in universities longer and graduating at higher rates than the male counterparts 20 years ago. This is a pretty widespread phenomenon. Simultaneously, as Melissa Kearney pointed out (if you don't want to read the book, she did a lot of talks on YT. I recommend the earliest book launch talk at Brookings. She's cringey when she's invited to conservative outlets and podcast bros' podcasts), marriage in the US has solidified along class lines. Female college graduates marry at a higher rates than non-college graduates (only about 18% never-married at 40-45 compared to 33% in non-college peers) and their marriages last longer (~78% first time marriages in female college-graduates survive at 20-year mark, compared to 40-50% in non-college-graduates' marriages). College didn't make women unmarriageable. It made them the hottest bacheloretes around who get to pick the best male stock possible for marriage, in terms of education or earning.

That being said, I need to admit that I wrote all the above from a position of privilege: my parents have money, I have post-grad degrees, and I'm married. I did not experience the struggle for very long. In the 6 years between I decide that "I should start dating" to "I'm married", I spent may be 2 months being single.

https://youtube.com/shorts/IfJQPL1uLrU

In this clip you can see two fitness enthusiasts sharing details about their new gym attire purchases. It got me to thinking, they are going to have killer workouts because they put energy into their outfits and it helps them feel confident. But men seem unaware of these benefits. Or unable to take advantage of it?

But IDK why... There's all kinds of clothing options out there to accentuate biceps, chest, traps, shoulders, abs, lats, you name it!

But guys (for some reason) don't know how to boost their confidence through their gym fits. Y'all will spend all this time on pre-workouts and energy drinks and workout playlists to get in the zone....

But you're leaving this untapped source of performance untouched for some reason.

My question is why don't men show off their gains in the gym for themselves?

DISCLAIMER: not all men, not all women, etc.

My side issue is if these are actually feminists or simply liberal woman. Because there’s a difference between “I support liberal policies and am socially liberal” and “Hey! Let’s talk about patriarchy, toxic masculinity, freeing Palestine, intersectionality, rape culture, and oppressive beauty standards”. 

I digress.

I don’t get the obsession with women expecting men to pay for the first date. If it matters that much, why not make your first priority dating women that pay for themselves? I do sometimes wonder if it’s because not paying for dates contradict what guys are actually looking for, but won’t admit it.

Contrary to popular belief, the "Male Loneliness Epidemic" is not a concept from TRP or the manosphere, it comes from mainstream media, which is why you'll find most people bringing it up here and elsewhere are women and bluepill feminists, who have seen it from MSM or their favourite story time tiktoker.

So its unsurprising how flawed and disingenuous its premise is, where at its core it conflates 'mens dating issues' and 'mens lack of emotional support'. (Two different issues)

This way they regularly try to draw the conclusion that men who are unsuccessful in dating can just replace that empty void by getting more male friends. In doing so they dodge the big issues entirely, of feminism, and issues with modern women, and instead make it about a male mental health crisis, and men not being social with each other.

Loneliness and lack of emotional support is not a male specific issue, it applies to women as well, but they frame it in this way so that they don't have to touch the subject of whether there's something wrong with women today regarding intersexual dynamics.

Mainstream society can never blame women for anything, they can only blame men, and even if they do attempt to say theres something wrong with women, they will always qualify it with saying it also applies to men.

What is a friend if not someone you can open up to, lean on?

It seems most men have friends, just not friends they can share their problems with and find some sort of solace.

They hang out but don't talk about anything on what's going on with each other's lives, what problems they're facing.

It seems to be the norm for male relationships.

Some of them think the obvious solution is to find a woman, a person with her own problems, and offload all of that onto her.

They bottle that inside and suffer from loneliness, from loneliness epidemics. They lack a community, some die alone.

There is a loneliness epidemic and it's serious, but we can tackle it by checking in on our friends, asking what's up, and having a talking beyond just asking if they catched last night's game and spending the rest of the hour staring silently into the distance together.

Obligatory not all men, not even most men, just talking about what seems to be the norm.

These men envy people who have access to sex and are secretly furious about their inability to attract a sexual partner. They turn to religion to make their shortcoming a virtue.

Rather than learning from the people they begrudge, they've used the slave mentality to make it a vice to be sexually attractive to the opposite sex; they’ve made it a vice to have access to sex. Instead of living in reality they’ve created a fantasy world where it is more virtuous to be a loser who can't get laid.