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.

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've heard this statement ad nauseam. Men prefer younger women, and it has nothing to do with societal expectations but it's a hardwired preference founded on evolutionary biology. I get it, and I believe it. I've seen it with my own eyes. I have seen the way older (and married) men look at very young girls. What men don't understand, though, is that just because they prefer younger women, it doesn't mean that younger women prefer older men. The typical counterargument I encounter when I raise this topic is that Leonardo Di Caprio is dating models under 25. First of all, none of you is Leonardo Di Caprio. Second of all, how do you know that those young women are genuinely attracted to Leonardo's aging body? Maybe the dissociate during sex like tons of women who are in relationships with men they are not truly attracted to. Third of all, are you even certain that Leonardo Di Caprio is heterosexual? Has it ever dawned on you that his relationships are just a marketing strategy to project a fake heterosexuality? But that is beside the point. I have seen plenty of older men marrying younger women, and these younger women use the old guy for resources while cheating on him with younger studs.

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’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.

it is rare to see women actually care about what men say about anything. i believe actually that women even pretend to be offended by men say anything about women. you can argue that is reasonable to be annoyed but when men complain i have never seen women say yes i will change this thing. the women that do are treated like enemies by women.

half of men content complaining about women even on reddit will still end with this is how you should change so they will like you anyway. i think women only respond so they can collect data for narrative.

if you ignore it men will continue to complain and it will die out when we dont see any result. i know because even i stop being delusional when i realise everything is because of interest disparity between men and women.

blame yourselves.

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.

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.

Some General Statistics of Porn:

Among U.S. adults 18-35, about 87% of men and 28.5% of women view porn at least once a week.

On average, boys are exposed to porn by age 10 and girls by age 13

88% of the 50 most viewed videos depicted physical aggression.

48% of 50 most viewed videos displayed acts of verbal aggression.

90% of these videos contained real physical, sexual, or verbal violence against women.

It's pretty obvious porn is bad and watching it can lead to addiction and negative affects:

It can lead to depression, isolation, erectile dysfunction, relationship breakdown, distorted sexual expectations, and reduced well-being—eroding real-life sexual activity, intimacy, and self-esteem.

Hence to address this it would be ideal if porn was banned and only AI porn was allowed that people had to pay for and provide ID and login to access.

This would prevent children from accessing porn and the harm that comes from it. It would also prevent porn of women who were forced into it being displayed and the negative affect of porn on women's careers.

"“Women are lured in, coerced and forced to do sex acts they never agreed to do… [and given] drugs and alcohol to help get [them] through hardcore scenes…The porn industry is modern-day slavery.”

https://youtu.be/VVHJW5j7cYQ?si=McqRLlqTpJGIh1z6

"That day, she would become one of the hundreds of young women who had been exploited between 2015 and 2019 by GirlsDoPorn (GDP), a wildly popular "amateur" porn production company that garnered well over a billion views, ranking around the 20th-most popular channel on Pornhub, and reportedly generated an estimated $17 million dollars in revenue."

https://youtu.be/wxz300TepIE?si=85Hkma0RgR_hbISk

Dr. Mahri Irvine, Adjunct Professional Lecturer at American University, said, “I really wish that people who watch porn knew more about that. Because I think they believe that they’re engaging in this activity in a very passive way. And they’re like, ‘Oh, I’m doing it in the privacy of my own home and this is just a video that I’m watching’. And they’re not associating it with the fact that pornography is very often the filmed rape of sex trafficking victims.”

Another option is for women to refuse to date or sleep with men who still watch porn. This would create real change in culture of society if women put their foot down on the matter.

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.

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?

I want to preface this by saying I’m not posting to argue with men or rage bait anyone. I want to talk about how certain attitudes toward women can make it harder for men to build the relationships they want.

I’ve noticed some men experience rejection or a few unsuccessful attempts at dating and conclude that all women are cruel, shallow, or asking for too much. Rejection can hurt, but turning that hurt into resentment toward women can sabotage future connections.

Women being selective isn’t inherently unreasonable. Dating can involve concerns about physical safety, and for women who want children, pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum recovery involve significant vulnerability. Wanting a partner who is emotionally supportive, financially responsible, and dependable makes sense. It doesn’t mean expecting someone to be rich or perfect—it means wanting someone you can rely on.
If you want a healthy relationship, look at what you’re doing to become a healthy partner. Take care of your hygiene and health. Work toward stability and learn to manage your finances. Develop your emotional intelligence: listen, show empathy, communicate honestly, and handle rejection without hostility.

None of this guarantees a girlfriend. Relationships require mutual attraction and compatibility, but just laying down in your bed commenting how much you hate women and saying all sorts of derogatory slurs isn’t going to increase your chances of getting into a relationship.

If you dismiss women’s concerns while refusing to work on yourself, it’s worth considering whether your own attitudes are making connection harder. You can’t control whether someone chooses you, but you can take responsibility for how you treat people and what you bring to a relationship.

A common complaint of women, girlfriends, and wives is that their men, boyfriends, or husbands don't help with housework, don't do it quite right (not up to a certain standard), or just never do something without needing to be asked. "Weaponised incompetence" and on and on. On the converse, from the (mostly) men's perspective, they feel like if they start doing something, and they do it "wrong", they get yelled at or talked down, so they just disengage. I will say that it's kind of rare and difficult to find an example to demonstrate to (mostly) women how a very high standard in household tasks can be quite grating, coming from a man, but I realized I found one. So let me demonstrate the examples, and how I kind of deal with my twitchy OCD self.

I keep my knives very sharp. I can shave hairs off my arms with my kitchen knives (and I have bald forearms because of the sharpness test). I'll say that the vast majority of people have dull knives; I've never been to another person's kitchen where the knives are sharp, unless I sharpen those knives. How sharp are my knives? This sharp

That was me cutting a raw carrot by holding the handle with my finger tips and let the weight of the blade falls through the carrot on a draw cut. Some people questioned how could Lindsay Clancy have survived when she tried to cut her own neck with a kitchen knife? Easy, her knives are dull, as are most people's knives. Being cut by a dull blade hurts really bad and she hesitated.

Notice that I posted that showcase in a sharpening hobbyist subreddit. This seems to be a male-dominated hobby (I've never seen a sharpening content creator who is a woman). I get twitchy when people don't use knives correctly and damage the edge. They pick up a knife, set an apple on a ceramic plate or granite countertop and cut the knife against the plate or countertop. I don't care what knife steel you have (unless you have the latest Rex whatever at 70+ HRC that can cut glass), the edge is gone with one cut. I particularly dislike people leaving knives they've used on the counter, let the edge clang into plates, glasses, other metal objects, etc ... I don't like it when the edge I put on are unnecessarily damaged. It's real simple. Once you are done with a knife, wash it by itself immediately, dry with a tea towel and put it back on the knife rack. No, for some reasons, the women at my house (including my wife plus her mother and my mother when they stay at our place) have to wash the knives alongside every other things, all of which if clanged against the edge, will ruin the edge. If I'm also inside the kitchen and see someone seemingly finished with their knives and put their knives down, I'll pick their knives up, wash, dry, and put the knives away. They start being annoyed "why are you keep confiscating the knives?". Other complaints include "why is your knife so sharp?" (Isn't that the point of knives?) and "It's so sharp that it's scary to use" (which means you have bad knife habits from using dull knives).

If you now tell me that "I do all those things and my knives are sharp". No you don't, you are just used to dull knives. Do knives have to be "that" sharp? Not really, but my cutting skills improved massively with an extremely sharp (not expensive) knife. It's about sharpening it correctly.

There are more examples. Cleaning the cooktops and countertops. I dislike people using paper towels or tea towels to do the first cleaning pass (spray with cleaning solution, wipe). Paper towels are wasteful and fabric soaks every disgusting trash up and they smell. There is always a dirty, smelly rag in the kitchen. No. Use paper towels to soak up the bulk of the liquid spills, then spray the cleaning solution on the residuals (Simple Green for greasy surfaces. Benzakonium chloride as combination light soap/disinfectant), and SCRUB with an abrasive sponge. This sponge can be rinse quickly and cleanly and they can go into the dishwasher. When the surface is already scrubbed clean, wet a non-woven cleaning towel (these rinse out and dry fast) and wipe once more to remove soap residues. I have biohazard and chemical spill cleanup training so ... the bathroom is always littered with my wife's hair and I vacuum them all the time. (And emptying the Dyson and the Roomba dust bins).

So what do I do with my twitchy OCD about these? Well, I have two sets of knives: a beater set for other people to use and another set that only I use. Else, I mostly keep quiet and let people do things their ways and I just spot correction after them (especially the cooktops and countertops). If they start to annoy me about things I don't do right, I annoy them back with "hey, you didn't vacuum the bathroom floors", we both pull back a bit, and re-adjust. If we do fight over stupid things, I usually just cut and deescalate and we have makeup sex or sth.

Perhaps, you may have objections like: "what kind of serial killer obsessive addiction do you have there?". I know. We have in our homes pretty dangerous edge tools like billhooks and machetes (all also very sharp). We either do not ever go physical, or it will be pretty dangerous. "That's just a hobby, not realistic housework". Maybe, but it's a useful hobby and my knife skills go up so much anyway. And if you think a shaving sharp kitchen knife is a hobby, then perhaps cleaning to your standard is also a hobby.

So perhaps, learn to live with the capability of whoever you are stuck with. On the other hand, partners should seek to not be in a situation where one person kicks their feet up and watch a show, game, or play something (that's not with their kids) while the other person is busting their ass working on sth. That's the express land to resentment town. If one is working on something, either find something else that needs doing (that's not your hobby thing), or help them with the same tasks and speed it up. Then have your down time together.

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.

One thing I see is that guys with grievances always imply that there’s ONE benign flaw that a guy has that women unreasonably reject him for, especially of 0 fault of his own. I’m challenging that.

And yes, I’m gonna bring back the example of the guy who swiped on 2 million women because it’s a famous example of a guy doing poorly and its self-inflicted. He’s chubby, so not conventionally. He has 33 snakes, which would freak most people out. He also think wearing vulgar sweaters in public is an awesome idea, which grosses out most women. I can post the link to the story if need be.

It’s similar to when people say “you’re alone because you’re an asshole”. The longer version is “You’re unimpressive and you’re an asshole, so there’s zero incentives for women to want to be with you”. I even know a non-asshole version of a guy that’s doing bad with dating: Skinny Fat, dresses horribly, speech impediment, extremely soft spoken, highschool dropout, not good with conversations. Yes he’s sweet and nice, but its not just one flaw working against him.

Not literally a trait, but it can be a man’s flaw in dating and that’s his standards. If you awkward, what are you doing chasing after socialite party girls? If you think you’re not doing well with dating because you’re ugly, why aren’t you also trying to date ugly girls? If you’re American and claiming you want the average woman, what are you doing saying fatties?

So in general, when I see guys talk about one flaw for why they’re not doing well with women, I have to wonder what else is there about him beyond that one flaw.

One thing I've noticed about (many) males throughout history is that they will always insult, attack, and go after whatever females (especially young and teenage girls) are into at the moment. Examples that immediately come to mind include romance novels and romcom movies which are predominantly loved by girls, female musicians with predominantly female fans like Taylor Swift, female-targeted movies like Barbie, and ESPECIALLY male bands like The Beatles, One Direction, and Kpop groups, all of which have mostly faced hate and criticism from men. The last one is especially funny to me because I thought men (supposedly) don't feel jealous of each other and us women are the "jealous toxic gender"? lol

For anyone interested, this question popped up on my mind when I saw this

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.

As we all know false accusations are very fringe and rare so the chances are that they haven't done the seed is already very low.

So are you going to be misogynistic and take their word over a girl seeking justice?

Even if the girl was lying, if proven false in court it would badly influence people's trust in rape victims who come out. So casting a wider lense it shouldn't matter if they are jailed.

Also if your close male suffers through this badly like losing their social circle, job or something more drastic, would you support them going after the girl in a retaliatory case. In my opinion you shouldn't do that and threaten to leave him if he wants to because it would set precedent for prosecuting false accusations which are a very very out of the ordinary thing.

An important thing to note here is that rapists come from all walks of life, regardless of their upbringing. Also majority of rapists have women in their life who refuse to believe they could do that. So if you only have your close male's word vs the girl's then stats would say your cose male is the one likely lying.

Also if it turned out to be false/unprovenand you had wanted to look at evidence instead of blindly trusting him a ten billion percent before the facts came out then after that would he be right in ending his relationship with you for that?

I know I wrote a lot but stick with it.

The biggest problem facing the West is the rising cost of living. The same problem, particularly housing and childcare are reoccurring. But even cars, licensing, and education in the US are inflated. Government restrictions are contributing to these costs.

I would argue that progressive politics are largely responsible. In pursuing an ideal society through government intervention, policymakers have created enormous regulatory and administrative barriers that drive up costs in the name of quality, safety, or equity. The intentions may be noble, but the result is greater unaffordability.

Here's where I see an irony in dating.

Speaking as an American, I've noticed that many women lean politically progressive while maintaining fairly traditional romantic expectations. This is especially true in my experience with first-generation women who are westernized but come from more conservative households. They want men who pursue them, pay for dates, provide financial security, and eventually support a family.

I want to stress there's nothing wrong with wanting these things. But they require men having the means to fulfill them.

When housing and childcare are expensive and barriers to competition drive up costs, providing becomes harder. Men have less disposable income for dating and romantic gestures, while couples have fewer options about who works, who stays home, and the number of children they want.

You can't make traditional provider roles harder to sustain economically and then act surprised when fewer men can fulfill them.

A more competitive economy with fewer unnecessary barriers would make life considerably more affordable and allow more families to choose how they want to live. Comfortably living on one income would be doable as it was for our parents, for instance.

Enough women seem to have a steadfast demand of traditional romantic privileges. That's all fine and good. However, they cannot logically favor politicians who restrict this reality.

But polling tells us women are much more politically progressive than men.

A common response to men who complain about traditional dating expectations is that they should simply date more egalitarian women. That's not unreasonable but it misses something important, namely that men aren't opposed to generosity. They're opposed to it being a financial burden.

Some couples will prefer a traditional arrangement where the man provides. Others will split expenses or adopt something in between. The goal should be to make more of these arrangements financially viable, rather than letting economic pressures dictate which ones people can afford.

If we defend people's freedom to choose their preferred relationship dynamics, shouldn't we also support the economic freedom that makes those choices possible?

It almost defies reason that those who champion women's freedom of choice would overlook the importance of economic freedom in making those choices possible. If women should be free to choose traditional relationships, egalitarian ones, or something in between, shouldn't we want an economy that makes all of them more attainable?

As the title suggests, Redpill ideology is a seductive lie targeting men and even younger audiences that are lost when it comes to how to approach dating. But it’s also one of the few spaces actively giving men homework to complete with the promise it will get them results. Is it a lie? Not entirely, but definitely mostly. However, if you look no further than this sub, lost young men are usually met with a lot of vitriol, hate, and just plain nasty and rude commentary on struggles that drive them to the depths of hell.

Is it really hard to believe that one of the few (albeit wrong) spaces that reach out to them with an open hand saying “You suck, but there is a way forward, time to hit the gym and get money blah blah blah.” The sad thing is, there is a demographic of women that will like the men that actually do all that grinding. It’s so easy to be radicalized by Redpill teachings, especially when the basic rules and ideas are common sense.

“Don’t let your partner walk all over you.” Is one of the basic teachings that anyone could tell you even if you aren’t claiming to be Redpill you can agree that you shouldn’t let anyone walk all over you.

I don’t like Redpill, but I see why men take that path. It’s either that or give up for a lot of them.

I’m not a believe in the red pill philosophy bc honestly I think too many of the guys focus on crying and complaining. Yes dating is very much unfair. If you’re an average looking women you can hookup with way more guys than a hot guy could hookup with women. That being said if you actually do level up your appearance and change your mindset you can take noticeable strides. If you focus on grinding it out in the gym and leveling up you can change your outcomes overnight. I think the problem is the red pill is just a circle jerk for guys to cry without actually creating solutions for their problems. If you get into shape, have your own place and have an abundance mindset dating and hookups become far easier

What do I mean by socially perceptive? I mean if you cannot perceive what the other person might be feeling

And I do think lots of guys think they should just do it without really understanding much as far as social norms, and then get angry when I suggest people who seem occupied should not be approaching.

Do you know how frustrating it is to be approached and advanced - especially when you know the goal is primarily sexual (cut the crap. It is. You’re approaching someone you know literally nothing about and like how they look) when you’re in no mood to talk. If a person is trying to get from point A to B, is keeping to themselves, is running errands and so on… probably a safe bet not to talk to them. If they look sad or unhappy, probably not a safe bet to talk to them. If you are unable to read when/deduce when a person might not be approachable, don’t approach them. You don’t even have to be right, you’re gonna have to learn how to pick up on vibes.

The second one more pressing and imo more important. If you’re unable to tell if the person you’re propositioning is comfortable or not, don’t cold approach them. Many women will not explicitly say no, whether it be out of fear, awkwardness, being put on the spot to being caught in something that breaks their rhythm, playing into people pleasing tendencies and socialization no’s a difficult thing to say. Imo it is the considerate thing to do to be able to read the situation, evaluate if the person might be uncomfortable and step away.

“But they’re in public, you signed the social contract to interact’ - yes, but also being mindful and respectful are traits everyone should have and I think people would be less on edge without them. To add to this, if you belief is that you’re entitled to speak to someone despite how they might be feeling, you’re the problem.

I am not saying ‘don’t cold approach’ - I’m saying ‘have the social bandwidth to know when to cold approach’, of course nobody is expecting you to read minds or be perfect, and of course misreads and mistakes happen (and often how you handle the mistake matters a lot more than the mistake itself), but if you lack the ability to maybe just look at the situation and evaluate it, then I genuinely think cold approaching isn’t for you and tbh that’s totally fine. Most couples don’t meet that way anyway.

Please join us on discord Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.

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, or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, off topic non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and light hearted content that 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.

The daily thread is not to be used for soapboxing against against a particular group that you hate. This includes, rage bait, low effort bigotry, boilerplate denunciation of the opposite sex, using the actions of an individual to fuel an attack on an entire gender, or any other attempt to use the daily thread as a vehicle to advance gender war narratives.

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!

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

Now what I am about to say won't be a surprise. And I will assume that even most BluePill people will agree with me because it's backed by data and lived experiences. What you experience and see around you.

I have noticed a pattern with humans where men have to meet certain metrics to even be worthy of being considered for a relationship or marriage. I know young men who genuinely worry about this and this being one of their driving factors for working hard at whatever they are pursuing (job/university, etc). Because they low-key want to be chosen. They genuinely worry if they will ever have enough money and status to be able to have a family one day. This is a common sentiment and perception of men by women. Yet, I have never heard people say this about women. And I don't know women who have these worries. Because this pressure is not nearly the same on them.

Let me use an example from my personal life to make it clear what I mean. When my mom was in college, she was already being shown interest by grown ass "made" men. During that same time, my dad was a nobody. He had to work really hard, become a CPA, and become established in life to have all that "street cred." Even in a so-called fairly equal western world, these patterns still persist quite strongly. So what gives?