I’ve noticed something interesting whenever I talk about morality here. A lot of people here (if not most) seem to have a very low bar for what they consider a good person and a very high tolerance for asshole behavior.

Someone is petty, selfish, disagreeable, misogynistic, or treats other people poorly?

“Nobody’s perfect.”

“Everyone has bad days.”

“People are complicated.”

“Everyone’s kind of an asshole.”

“Well, theyre nice to me.”

However, for most people, especially those who actually make morals a high priority, they have a high bar for what they consider good and a low tolerance for behavior they consider immoral.

And I think this explains why we keep talking past each other when discussing “good women” who knowingly date assholes.

She’s supposedly nice. She claims she wants a respectful man. She says she hates assholes. She talks about equality. She says personality matters. She supposedly has all these wonderful values.

But then an attractive enough asshole comes along and suddenly everything becomes negotiable.

She hates sexist men, unless he’s hot.

She hates disrespectful men, unless he’s exciting.

She values kindness, but she’ll tolerate him treating everyone else like garbage as long as he’s nice to her.

She supposedly has standards, but those standards mysteriously disappear whenever following them would cost her the man she wants.

Then I’m told “See? Even good women choose assholes.”

And here’s my response. Why are we calling her a good woman?

Sure, she knows how to be nice. She may be agreeable and bubbly, but that doesn’t make her good.

Then the answer I got was “Maybe for them morals do matter.....second while being hot is first.”

There’s a difference between moral preference and moral conviction

These women guys here know have a moral preference. She would prefer someone attractive who is also kind, honest, and respectful. But if someone is attractive enough, you’re willing to overlook some of those moral problems.

Moral conviction is different.

A conviction still matters when following it costs you something you want.

A woman with strong moral convictions can think a man is gorgeous and still reject him because he’s a piece of shit. She can enjoy being around him and stop associating with him after learning how he treats other people. She can want him and still decide that wanting him doesn’t make his behavior acceptable.

The attraction doesn’t disappear. It just doesn’t override her morals.

I think that’s the difference between the women this sub calls “good women” and the women I would call good women. To the women you’re describing, morality is a preference. To the women I’m describing, morality is the bare minimum.

Wanting a good man isn’t one positive quality competing with looks, money, status, humor, or sexual chemistry. It’s the first bar to clear before the other qualities matter.

Otherwise, if she hates misogyny until the misogynist is hot, and she values kindness until the cruel person excites her, those traits weren’t really important to her. If she knowingly throws her principles away for male validation, that’s not female nature. Women would call her pick me and a fake. Pick Me Girls can also be dangerous because they’ll bring dangerous men around their social circle for that male validation. What guys here see as a good woman, other women typically see as trash.

Second point: “Nobody’s perfect” doesn’t mean nobody is accountable.

For example, I had a woman describe several male friends as decent guys with “asshole traits.” One was hypercompetitive and petty when he lost. Another was randomly disagreeable. Another could be lazy and cowardly. Both another woman and I asked if they recognize those traits as problems and actually try to fix them?

Accountability is the difference. Plenty of assholes say they’re complex and misunderstood good people, that doesn’t make it true.

If you know you’re a horrible sore loser, recognize that it’s shitty behavior, take responsibility when you treat people badly, and genuinely try to control it, then you’re a flawed person. f you know you’re a horrible sore loser, continue treating people badly, make excuses for yourself, and expect everyone else to tolerate it because “nobody’s perfect,” then you’re just an asshole.

Same thing with having a bad day. A good person can get angry. They can be selfish. They can say something hurtful. They can fuck up. But afterward, they take accountability. They apologize when appropriate. They make amends if necessary. And most importantly, they actually try not to do it again.

An apology isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card, either. If you’re constantly apologizing to multiple people because you keep treating everyone badly, your behavior shows you’re not trying to do better. A flawed good person sees their asshole behavior as something they need to work on. An asshole sees everyone else’s intolerance of their asshole behavior as something everyone else should accomedate.

Why is it hard to find women with moral conviction, then?

Simple. You don’t like them and they don’t like you.

A woman with strong moral convictions is going to have a higher standard for what she considers a good man because morality isn’t merely something she prefers in a partner. It’s the bare minimum.

And that means she’s going to judge him by what he actually does. Hosting a party doesn’t make you a good person. Paying for a date doesn’t make you a good person. Being polite doesn’t make you a good person. Not abusing women or committing felonies against them definitely doesn’t make you a good person. Congratulations, you cleared the floor of expected behavior.

Being genuinely good requires going above what society strictly requires/expects of you. What women with actual morals convictions: Does he take accountability when he fucks up? Does he genuinely try to correct his bad behavior? Is he generous? Is he compassionate? Does he care about people who have nothing to offer him? Is he capable of being selfless without expecting payment?

What a woman with strong moral convictions sees as a genuinely good man, a person with lower moral standards may see as a doormat. This can be its own post, so I will keep it brief. A doormat is not good. They CAN be, but guys being doormats for hot girls and validation dont make them good. A good person can decide someone doesn’t deserve their generosity. The important question is why. There’re a difference between “She’s a selfish exploitative person” and “She wont fuck me”.

When people make morals a big deal, THEY REALLY make morals a big deal. They show it through actions, not just gloating how good they are or how much they care about goodness. And being good is usually defined as more than doing the bare minimum. Meanwhile, people with low moral standards tend to tolerate other people with low moral standards, while people with high moral standards are more selective about who they keep around.

If “everyone’s an asshole” is acceptable to you, you’ll tolerate assholes. If “he’s nice to me” is enough, you’ll tolerate people who treat everyone else horribly. Someone with stronger moral convictions is filtering those same people out. And eventually, you end up surrounded by different kinds of people.

To explain what I mean: whenever people say a man’s personality or behavior might be why he struggles with dating, the accused asshole immediately responds with something like, “But Wade Wilson gets women!”

Nobody was comparing you to an exceptionally attractive violent felon except you. They were comparing you to the average man. And the average man, by definition, is not impressive. He has average looks, average money, average status, average intelligence. He is not extraordinary.

Yet average men date all the time. So what separates one average man from another?

His behavior, personality, and compatibility. Things men can actually control.

Is he pleasant to be around? Does he have anything in common with the people he pursues? Can he hold a conversation? Does he show interest in other people? Is he affectionate? Is he agreeable? Do people actually like being around him instead of merely tolerating his presence? Is he emotionally an adult?

The average guy usually does not have enough money, status, charisma, or pretty privilege to compensate for being miserable company. His personality carries the most weight because almost everything else about him is average.

Being ugly and not having pretty privilege are not the same thing. This is another distinction these accused assholes constantly erase. There is a difference between “Women do not find me attractive, so they won’t date me.” and “Women find me attractive, but they won’t overlook my red flags.”

The second one is simply not having pretty privilege. And you can tell this is often what they are actually upset about by how offended they get when I bring up baseline attraction. To them, a woman finding a man attractive enough to sleep with, as long as she also likes his other traits, is apparently barely different from her finding him unattractive. And that is part of why they get accused of being assholes in the first place: they envy assholes with pretty privilege.

They do not merely want women to find them attractive. They want to be attractive enough that women overlook their flaws.

But the average guy does not have pretty privilege. He cannot treat women like shit and then expect Wade Wilson’s fangirls.

So when people tell the accused asshole, “Your personality is the problem,” it’s a shorter way of saying, “Most people don’t want to be around assholes, and you’re not exceptional enough to be the exception.”

TLDR: Men who trash talk women typically like trashy women, which is embarassing that men are attracted to such low quality women but then want to blame society for his awful taste in women.

I will say that’s my favorite thing when talking to men about their dating complaints. When you push hard enough, their complaints usually come down to “The woman I want wont fuck me” and/or the women they want are usually trash.

For example, I had this guy complaining how it’s very lonely for introverted guys to not get a girlfriend because they’re more mature, they were parentified early, so they’re more responsible, and are more boring so women won’t date them. But then when I brought up dating older responsible women, the response was basically “why would I do that?”. So it’s not that those types of guys are undateable, they simply don’t like the women they attract and the women they want to attract don’t like them.

Similarly, I was talking to a guy who is claiming that the women in his area are awful. And then when I suggest going on the Internet to talk to women outside of his area, he said they’re even worse. So he complains about the women in his local area and will do nothing to leave the local area because he thinks other women are far worse. Apparently the common denominator is never him. You know, most men don’t have this massive distain for women.

Third example is the reason why I made this post. Guy was talking about how being a good guy didnt get him women but he’s sure he would have gotten laid if he lied about being a drug dealer. I asked him why he would want gold digging hoodrats, and minutes later, he deleted all his replies to me.

The point of these anecdotes is to illustrate a bigger pattern I have seen. Guy complains about women as a whole, but when you really engage in a conversation with him, you realize he has a type that he just isn’t willing to admit he has. Usually, it’s the same type of woman these guys want. She’s fickle, she shallow, she’s stupid, she's a party girl but since she’s also hot, extraverted, and horny, all trait that the male ego seems to love in a woman….until those traits backfire on him. Then the consequences is the fault of all women.

When men talk about how women “reward bad behavior”, it’s also very telling that he wants to go after women who who are attracted to bad behavior. These guys aren’t repulse that the fact that their bully has a girlfriend. He’s envious that being “morally superior” than his bully didn’t convince her to leave his bully.

I say that because every time people bring up being agreeable, emotionally stable, and being genuinely good, the manosphere immediately complain thats weakness and being a doormat. Then they proceed to talk about how being disagreeable is totally awesome.  This mindset is related to the whole idea that the world is only divided between those who dominate and those who submit, and real men dominate.

And I think this also goes hand-in-hand with assholes not comprehending being good. Like scoffing at doing good things at your expense….which us literally what being selfless is, which is part of being good. And that’s because they hope to be validated in someway. That’s probably where the conflation between being a doormat and being good comes from. Because plenty of doormats aren’t really good. They’re hoping their lack of self-respect will earn them the validation of others. For example, a guy was telling me that telling women he worked for a charity didn’t work, so it showed that women don’t care about men being good. He didn’t seem to comprehend when I explained to him that he was still being an asshole because he was trying to use doing charity as a way to get laid.

Now, back to the whole thing about being agreeable: imagine thinking being nice, pleasant, or friendly are weaknesses instead of reasons for people to be around you. Most people don’t have a high tolerance for disagreeableness and by its definition, disagreeable people are hard to get along with. You have to give people a reason to put up with an unpleasant insufferable person.

However, it could just be more “I am deeply unlikable and I want to put a positive spin on it”. Because their whole insistence that being an asshole is a good strategy is really weird, considering there’s more proof that it’s not.  However, they like to comflate an asshole with other more positive traits. It comes off less that they want to be attractive to women and comes off more as they want to be assholes but getting validation instead of consequences.

I didn’t think this needed to be said, but not every adult actually matures into adulthood. Men who constantly insist they’re “misunderstood good men” remind me of women who say, “If you can’t handle me at my worst, you don’t deserve me at my best.” For either statement to mean anything, you actually have to be a good person most of the time, and your “worst” can’t be so atrocious that people reasonably don’t want to be around you.

Your internal self-image does not override how you consistently behave.

I’m focusing on men because plenty take pride in supposedly being more logical and competent  than women while behaving just as irrationally and emotionally as the women they complain about. Claiming everyone misunderstands you becomes very convenient when you don’t believe in personal accountability. If people repeatedly have a problem with your behavior, the adult response is to explain yourself, apologize when appropriate, and change what you’re doing. But plenty of men, especially in red-pill spaces, seem to want something else. They don’t want to stop being bitter, entitled assholes. They want everyone else to stop judging them for being bitter, entitled assholes. They want understanding to erase consequences.It doesn’t.

The same applies to “men aren’t allowed to show emotion.” Most young people (in the West atleast) arent demanding that men become emotionless. People just don’t want to deal with adults who express every negative emotion through rage, hostility, self-pity, sexual entitlement, or meltdowns. And if you insist therapy doesn’t work and you’re going to handle your problems yourself, fine. But if you’re still miserable, repeating the same problems, and driving people away, then whatever you’re doing clearly isn’t working. Explaining why you refuse help doesn’t make you better at helping yourself.

What makes this especially ridiculous is how much empathy these guys have for fictional men. Give some violent menace  to society type character a mix of trauma, loneliness, and a societial grievance and suddenly, these “misunderstood” men empathize with the man underneath the monster. Yet they’ll show no curiosity about the inner life of woman  (especially not abuse victims), then complain nobody has enough empathy for them.

That’s why “misunderstood” is such an appealing identity. If your internal pain is the “real you,” criticism becomes proof that nobody understands you. But people interact with your behavior, not the sympathetic narrator inside your head. And sometimes hearing your side makes you look worse. If your explanation is still entirely about what you wanted, what you didn’t get, how unfairly you were treated, and why everyone should accommodate you and with little concern for anyone else, maybe people understand you perfectly well.

You just don’t like their conclusion.

Here’s the most popular examples:

“Toxic masculinity is a problem” somehow becomes “masculinity is bad”

“Wow, youre an asshole. No wonder why you struggle with women” somehow becomes “ because you struggle with women, I assume you’re an asshole.”

“People like agreeable people” somehow becomes “You should become a doormat”

“You should be good for the sake of being good, not because you expect a reward for it” somehow becomes “You should be a doormat” as well. 

“Girls want a nice guy” somehow becomes “be nice and women will reward you with sex because niceness makes you sexually desire”.

And criticizing any man somehow becomes misandranistic, despite no evidence of sexism.

Motivated reasoning is when someone’s desires, emotions, identity, or preexisting beliefs influence how they interpret evidence and reach conclusions. Instead of asking, “What was actually said?”, they ask, often unconsciously, “What interpretation protects what I already believe?” Their feelings about the situation become more important than the actual content of it.

And that sounds exhausting to be around. If a guy can read something written directly in front of him and still transform it into something completely different, why should anyone automatically trust his retelling of what his mother, teacher, church, or some television show supposedly told him twenty years ago? 

These guys constantly demand that everyone understand them, while showing remarkably little interest in understanding anyone or anything else. And when corrected, the correction itself gets absorbed into the victim narrative: I’m reasonable, I’m misunderstood, and everyone criticizing me is unfair, sexist, dishonest, or cruel.

Worst of all, because maturity can only happen from someone who’s willing to learn from their mistakes. Maturity requires being able to tolerate conclusions that hurt your ego. “I was wrong. I misunderstood. I behaved badly. I expected something I wasn’t entitled to. Someone’s criticism of me was justified. My intentions don’t erase the consequences. I need to change so I dont do bad and deal with the same consequences again”. Because if you’re going to be a manchild, you’re gonna have to give people a reason tolerate that behavior.

Whenever I get people to explain how they “want to be desired” and “want someone desire to them”, it’s typically meaning that “omg, youre so hot, I dont think with my brain. I think with my genitals”. So its not merely “I wouldnt mind fucking them” desire. None of them seem to understand how stupid and/or how high of a standard that is.

Most people arent that good looking, especially in America. Even without Americans being fat as hell, most people aren’t impressive to look at. That’s why we put attractive people front and center in media. That’s why makeup is so popular, because natural beauty is extremely rare.

“Why does it matter if people chase strong desire” because they typically blame others when that doesn’t work out. The issue with both genders is that they blame the opposite gender for not having qualities they never prioritized. For these women, they complain how the men they date aint shit, incompetent, make terrible baby daddies, etc. Well, was being a competent father the biggest priority? The answer is typically no. Charisma and looks were important, qualities immature fuckboys excel at. For these men, they complain about women wanting assholes and lying about wanting good men. Well, was morals important to these men? Typically no. Their first priority was finding women who gave them instant validation through being eager, horny, and/or hot.

Another reason chasing strong desires is bad because it typically leads to unequal power dynamics. It’s one person chasing another while ignoring the red flags of the person being chased. This also leads to the person doing the chase being bitter and exhausted, such as complaining about “playing Jester”. On the opposite end, this leads to people being upset that ugly people “expect too much” when its them who expect to be treated like a prize for no reason.

I believe these same people call it “beta bux” or “settling” when other people realize that traits that help for long term relationships are more important than traits meant for short term validation. They also think simply being baseline attractive is the worst thing ever. Oh no, you can fuck someone without drooling at the thought of them 24/7/365. The horror!

Here’s the real issue: most men are not abusers, so not abusing women doesn’t make a guy special. Also, most men also do not spend their time victim blaming abuse victims, resenting women, or treating basic decency like a service that should be rewarded with sex. “I’ve never hit a woman” does not make you unusually good. It only means you have avoided one of the worst things a man can do. Thing is, most women in the West can find men who also dont have a resentful entitled attitude towards. So most women just simply avoid abusers AND AVOID YOU.

A lot of these guys seem to want women with very low personality standards. They imagine a woman who has dated the worst men possible, then picture themselves sweeping in as the “good guy” because they are less awful. They want her to see them as a savior and reward them with sex, admiration, and lifelong gratitude. But even setting aside the victim blaming, a woman who actively prioritizes looks and excitement over character is not suddenly going to worship you because you are slightly less terrible than her exes. If she never cared much about morals or personality, being “better than an abuser” is not the irresistible offer you think it is.

The women these men avoid talking about are the ones with high personality standards. These women actually care about empathy, stability, and respect. These women are often the ones telling these men that they are alone because “You’re not as good as you think you are”.  Those women are not comparing them to wife-beaters. They are comparing them to ordinary decent men who aren’t insufferable victim blaming misogynists, and do not need a romantic or sexual incentive before behaving like good people.

That is the real problem. These men want morality to function like a transaction: they will be decent if a woman rewards them for it. But genuinely good people do the right thing because it is right, not because they expect sex or praise in return. They want women whose standards are low enough to worship them for being less terrible than other men, while resenting women whose standards are high enough to recognize that they are literally not good enough. They do not merely want to be better than an abuser. They want being better than an abuser to be enough.

Most people hate assholes because theyre assholes. However a large section of guys hate them out of jealousy of living out a fantasy. When certain men complain that women choose “bad boys,” they act like their problem is that women reward bad behavior.  Plenty of different types of men get women. Kind, quiet men, funny men, stable, nerdy, etc. They don’t want proof that good men can find relationships. They want proof that they can behave badly and still be wanted.

What they envy is the image of a man who can be selfish, disrespectful, emotionally unavailable, or openly cruel and still have women pursuing him, forgiving him, sleeping with him, and treating him like he is irreplaceable. They want to act with impunity.

That is also why they hate the idea of being agreeable. To them consideration means weakness. compromising means losing, apologizing means surrendering status, and being agreeable means becoming a doormat.

That's why they feel lied to. Society forced them to behave and feel "indignation" when they see there are guys who can be validated jackasses. Just not them.

I think online dating doesn’t suck any less than offline dating. First of all, if offline dating was going well, no one would be doing online. 

Also, I realize a lot of people don’t go into online dating with a clear understanding of what they’re looking for. For example, want to know how you don’t get into a Situationship? Understand what you want from the beginning, be very firm that you’re looking for a relationship, and youre not gonna play games. Cutting through the bullshit works out way better online than offline.

Also, criticizers of online dating forget that the internet helps you expand beyond your typical social circle.  Long distance relationships happen more thanks to the internet, you have more opportunities to try finding the right person in the right place at the right time, and it’s easier to find people if you have a specific interest in things.

Online dating is as shallow and unsuccessful as you make

I think online dating doesn’t suck any less than offline dating. First of all, if offline dating was going well, no one would be doing online. 

Also, I realize a lot of people don’t go into online dating with a clear understanding of what they’re looking for. For example, want to know how you don’t get into a Situationship? Understand what you want from the beginning, be very firm that you’re looking for a relationship, and youre not gonna play games. Cutting through the bullshit works out way better online than offline.

Also, criticizers of online dating forget that the internet helps you expand beyond your typical social circle.  Long distance relationships happen more thanks to the internet, you have more opportunities to try finding the right person in the right place at the right time, and it’s easier to find people if you have a specific interest in things.

Online dating is as shallow and unsuccessful as you make it.

Sex cant be fun because alot of people dont have sex for fun. Across all genders, there are people who are using sex as a way to deal with their personal problems. Typically for validation and dealing with emotional baggage. And I think I understanding more when people say that it’s crude and icky to be upfront about wanting sex and how I hear people, especially men, say “Sex is more than just sex”. I’m starting to think people don’t actually like sex. It’s just a lot of people are so emotionally stunted and/or fucked up they won’t admit they’re using sex to deal with other problems. Gen Z is the generation there’s more understanding that mental health matters, going to therapy and getting medications is a good idea. Hence, there’s less people trying to fuck and drink their problems away.

Also, there is tons of stories, both online and off-line of people putting themselves in unnecessarily stupid situation all because of the pursuit of sex. And a lot of the positives from sex could be found in other things without the drawbacks. And personally, I’ve seen a very big overlap between guys who make sex the biggest deal ever and guys who don’t care about anything else but sex. Also, a very high correlation between impulsive, stupid behavior, and chasing sex. It’s really not appealing being around those types of people unless you are also stupid and impulsive.

It’s always funny seeing people claim theyre fighting against purity culture and yet they have to pretend sex is supposed to be about some pure love bullshit. If being horny isn’t something to be ashamed of, then just be honest.

It’s similar to when Mormon couples “soak”. People who claim that they have broken from the shackles of purity culture are still trying to preserve their self image similar to a religious couple who clearly doesn’t like their religion.

Just say “I wanna get fucked, I wanna get fucked good, I wanna get fucked often, I wanna get fucked NOW”

“Sex isnt the only thing I want”

So how long are you willing to wait before having?

If someone wasn’t that good at first, would you be OK teaching them to get better?

And if someone didnt make sex their priority outside of like once a month, you’d be fine with it?

I never understood when people say that because you’re not going to care about a relationship if your sexual desires aren’t met first and foremost.

Also, this makes dating unnecessarily complicated when horny people want to play hard to get and then people get on dates with people who genuinely aren’t interested in sex to that degree, wasting everyone’s time.

Inspired by guys saying they need dating experience to know how to date, which I find weird. Because alot of the stuff you do in dating is really like hanging out with a person, especially first dates. It was weird seeing guys act like it was a foreign concept of having fun on a date, get to know someone on a date, and have an actual conversation that isnt just flirting 24/7. 

The most shocking problem was not understanding how important behavior personality is. Because that’s something you understand in kindergarten. But then I realize, for a lot of guys, they don’t have close friendships. They think in terms of how useful a person is to them and like that person is optional. Also, it seems alot of guys are labelling acquaintances they do hobbies with as friends. 

 

This is about people talking about doing experiments to see how hard it is for a guy to date. The problem is that if your account is not verified, verified accounts can just block you from their algorithm, so that will greatly affect your success at getting matches. Also, guys keep complaining about the algorithm of these things. But you never hear if they actually pay to get their account boosted and the algorithm. These apps aren’t free to you out of the kindness of their hearts. They’re going to find ways to encourage you to pay, such as exposing your account to more people in exchange for money.

The problem is when guys claim they get basically no matches as a guy, they mean is they’re mad they don’t simply exist and 100s of women immediately like their profile. Because usually in these dating experiments, it seems the only thing people are relying on is a guy’s pictures to be good. And the guys complaining have really underestimated how good-looking a guy has to be for that to actually work.

I dont see it often but this "I can't bring value to others if I don't get the chance to in the first place" type of complaint is quite annoying. If basically no one wants to get to know you, you are the problem.

That's the type of reaction you get wearing an ahegao face shirt in public. That's a "that dude stinks and didn't shower" type of reaction. Except for guys who look like Quasimoto. That will be an unfortunately reaction. However, if we're talking about someone who doesn't have a birth defect, that means the guy gave a very atrocious first impression to others.