r/PurplePillDebate

This “skill issue” argument is bogus, and just a gaslight to maintain the “women are wonderful” status quo and also maintain the just world fallacy status quo, where morality is associated with how much women like a man.

The argument assumes that if a man struggles with dating, sex, or relationships, then he must automatically be socially incompetent, lazy, creepy, immature, or personally flawed.

It gets treated like some universal law of nature instead of a heavily oversimplified opinion.

People reduce an extremely complicated social dynamic into a single explanation because it feels emotionally satisfying and easy to repeat.

In reality, attraction is influenced by far more than just “game” or confidence.

Looks, height, income, status, social circles, timing, geography, culture, mental health, luck, and dating app algorithms all heavily affect outcomes.

Two men can behave almost identically and still experience completely different romantic success because human attraction is not a fair or objective system.

Again the “women are wonderful” effect plays a major role in this mindset.

Society often assumes women’s romantic choices are inherently wise, fair, moral, and deeply meaningful.

So if women reject a man, people immediately assume the rejection itself proves something bad about his character instead of considering outside factors or simple incompatibility.

The just world fallacy also strengthens this belief.

People desperately want to believe the world is fair, so they convince themselves that successful men “earned” love through virtue while unsuccessful men somehow deserve loneliness through personal failure.

This creates a comforting illusion that life rewards good qualities fairly, even though reality is far messier and often influenced by preferences, and trends.

This is why dating success is often incorrectly treated as a measurement of moral worth.

A man who easily attracts women is assumed to be confident, valuable, socially intelligent, and respectable.

Meanwhile a struggling man is often viewed as defective before anyone even understands his situation. Even though the worst misogynistic men in the world are still successful with women.

Ironically, society already admits attraction can be shallow and selective in every other context.

People openly acknowledge that appearance, status, and popularity matter in dating.

But the moment men discuss how those factors affect them negatively, the conversation suddenly becomes moralized into “just improve yourself” lectures.

None of this means self-improvement is useless or that social skills do not matter at all.

It simply means dating outcomes are not a perfect meritocracy, and pretending they are only creates dishonest conversations about men, relationships, and human attraction.

It's litterally possible to find someone by "following the script".

A "nice guy" (financially stable, good status, and nice with women) can find a life partner.

A "good girl" (staying "pure" and being a good wife) can find a life partner.

Same for "alpha males", "pick-me"s, "white knight", "trad wifes", "passenger princess", "soft boy", "gym bro": you can find your person.

So why dating seem difficult then?

[Lust enter the room]

The people complaining that the other gender is at fault doesn't notice which kind of people they choose. You know you are X and you need Y but you keep chasing the wrong person because of lust or that you felt a spark. But did you check that your wants are compatible?

You say you're a nice guy? Fine, there are women who want a commited relationship where they are provided for. You're a girl boss? Fine, there are men who want an independent person to do 50/50.

Just ask yourself if what you want and what you have to offer match.

It's time to stop following your impulse and start using your brain if you want to be happy.

Nowadays people are entilted to have everything for cheap. I thought everyone learned what "tradeoffs" mean in adulthood.

Imagine a woman who is genuinely asexual.

Not low libido or traumatized. She simply does not feel attraction to male bodies.

Shirtless men do nothing for her. Male nudes are boring or even disgusting. Porn centered around men does not interest her. She does not look at men with physical hunger or fascination.

And yet she still dates men. Why?

Because she still enjoys romance, validation, emotional closeness, attention, even the physical act of sex itself. She likes being desired as a woman. That feeling excites her far more than the male body itself ever could.

To her, the man is not really the object of desire. He simply affirms her desirability and femininity, which are the real triggers of arousal for her.

So outwardly, she looks heterosexual. She talks about “hot guys” to fit in with her friends, gushes over fictional men, marries men, sleeps with men, builds her whole life around men. She even reads romantic novels about vampire billionaires because imagining herself being desired by them is so affirming.

And she is not necessarily faking any of this. She genuinely enjoys the performance of heterosexuality. With time she might even forget she isnt actually heterosexual, because it just isn't relevant to her experience.

But underneath it all, one thing never appears: actual lust for men themselves.

So here is the uncomfortable question: If this woman dates men, sleeps with men, marries men, enjoys romance with men, but never truly desires male bodies in the first place, how exactly would you tell her apart from the average heterosexual woman?

I propose you would find out that you wouldn't: Perhaps, because I just described the average heterosexual-identified woman.

I don't understand women and their types. When do they develop these types? Why did you develop your type?

Do you feel having a type limits your ability to find a good partner?

I find a broad range of women attractive for different reasons, meaning I discriminate but don't have a specific list of features and esthetics I require to be attracted to a woman and consider her for a long term serious relationship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

The majority of this subreddit can be summarized by the fact that a lot of men aren't able to get sex which is leading to a schism between the genders.

Full disclaimer:

>NO ONE IS OWED SEX

I am writing this in bold because some people cannot present their arguments about this topic without mischaracterizing others'. No one is owed sex, you don't owe your body to anyone else.

That being said, how important is sex? When we discuss the bare necessities, sex is often forgotten.

The bare necessities we need to survive are: Food, water, air. Without these 3, a human cannot survive long term.

After these 3 have been ensured, usually in the form of inalienable rights, we move on to the next phase. What comes after the bare minimum? Stuff that improves the quality of life. Things like housing and education.

But in the same breath of "No one is owed sex" why should anyone be owed housing or education? What's all the hue and cry for affordable housing and free education? You don't need it to survive. Why should someone spend their labor, building houses and teaching you, for free?

And if you argue that it improves the quality of life and promotes happiness, why can the same not be said for sex?

Sex, intimacy, connection etc are core parts of the human experience. It appears pretty low on the Maslow's pyramid, so it's something that humans NEED. A lot of men, undesirable by nature of their existence, are unable to experience this. Chronic loneliness, often characterized by sexlessness, has devastating health effects.

Even women know the importance of sex, otherwise we wouldn't have had massive anti-slut shaming campaigns a few decades ago. We wouldn't have had a whole sexual revolution leading to their complete sexual freedom. If sex weren't important, none of this would've mattered.

I find it ironic that a lot of women on this subreddit arguing against its importance have a high body count themselves. Very ironic. I see so many parallels between these women and millionaires who inherited their wealth preaching the benefits of capitalism.

So would you not agree that a significant portion of men being unable to have sex is a problem that society should address? Note: NO ONE IS SAYING THAT WOMEN OWE THEIR BODIES. This is merely a question of whether sex is important or not and if it is, should the problem of male sexlessness be addressed.

And I cannot stress this enough, everything being discussed is consensual. There is no coercion or SA.

Popular rebuttals:

>Males in nature have to fight for their right to reproduce.

Appeal to nature fallacy, we do not live in the jungle.

>Most men throughout history did not reproduce.

And we've moved past those cavemen days. Unless you want to regress to those barbaric times.

>It is a real problem but I don't care about it.

And that is fair. Just don't expect men to care about your problems. Voting, abortion, SA etc. Deal with it yourself. If you want to live in a society where people care for your problems, you have to show that you care for theirs. And if you want to claim that men are creating the problem in the first place, such as SA, you are correct. But it is an extremely tiny portion of men. Just don't expect other, decent, upstanding men to help you.

>It is easy to get sex. If a man can't get sex he's probably creepy and deserves it so this isn't an issue.

Just World Fallacy. Women are not the arbiters of morality, their mating choices are based on biology not ethics.

>Just pay for it.

Most men want a real connection. That includes sex yes, but without a meaningful connection it's pointless. Not to mention it's not only frowned upon in many places but also illegal.

In my opinion, most of the men facing this issue are ugly. Maybe a few are neurodivergent but the main problem is ugliness. This evokes a visceral reaction in women who are fine being cruel to them. They do not even see these men as real humans with real feelings. Reminds me of Vincent Norah. Some say her demise wasn't related to her time as a man but I disagree. She was a real one, she understood or at least attempted to earnestly understand what men go through in society. RIP Norah, never forgotten.

Red pill dating advice usually depends on gaining a ton of leverage over the woman you’re with either with money or options etc. Focusing on power dynamics and deprioritizing the needs of the other person isn’t a recipe for dating in this modern era. In the past when having resources was seen as the most important goal for a woman looking for a husband sure. But happiness is what defines most modern relationships and if you cannot learn how to improve your emotional intelligence and form a deep connection beyond surface level intimacy you’re going to struggle to maintain it. The happiest relationships come from two people working together as a team throughout their journey, respecting the boundaries and wishes of the other, and willing to grow and learn with them. Coming in and expecting someone to follow your way or the highway is a recipe for failure

Lets say a Men between 20 and 35, single, not heavy religious, not gay or bi, he actally wants to date, he is leaving his house every other weekend, ok job, ok income.

How many first dates do you think a average dude has in a year?

What is the bottom wehre it becomes strange? (So a normal men should have at least X dates)

At which level do you think its a fat above average number of dates?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

Simple question, inspired by a previous thread.

It's often said that in casual sex, women place more importance on a man's personality, especially for safety reasons. But then: a harmless maladjusted person (shy, awkward, socially clumsy, bullied, boring, but not dangerous) should be acceptable.

Yet for most women, he isn't. Even in casual/occasional sex, women prefer men who are socially and relationally skilled.

For many men, however, the bar is much lower, so they accept even socially maladjusted women (if she has an aesthetically acceptable body — though for some, it's enough that she's breathing).

I can understand that for a long-term relationship, both parties prefer a socially and relationally competent partner. But for casual sex, I don't understand this filter women apply against social maladjustment, since even a socially maladjusted man has a functioning body.

Why do you think this difference exists?

Evolutionary psychology? Socialization? Female sexual pleasure being more tied to emotional connection? What are your experiences?

I don't know if this argument came up like 15 years ago but it's pretty obvious to me

When you claim that manosphere people are "crazy" because they can't get laid, how is that not creating an entitlement to women's bodies and promoting an anti female rape culture?

You are saying that if men don't get pussy, they go crazy. How is that not pushing a rape culture where women are obliged to bang men so men don't go crazy?

I understand there might be a nuanced response as to why there is a separation between this premise and this conclusion, but in good faith, where else do you entertain such a separation? Most blue pill people don't entertain the same kind of separation when incels and "nice guys" say "we want sex but NOT to rape anyone," blue pill people too often look at the "we want sex" part and say it is NECESSARILY rape-y despite the second half.

Bonus round: how is it not a "rape culture" against men to look at MGTOW saying "we *don't* want sex" and calling sour grapes?

out of boredom, I actually read into What red pill actually is. I went in with the criticisms fully loaded. manipulative, destructive, deceives women. Instead I found something that confused me.

Red pill advice essentially tells men to work on themselves signal that they have options, act unbothered, don't be too available, project confidence. Be a man who prioritizes his own interest before another

The criticism I accepted without examining is that this tricks women. But tricks them into what? If someone tells you through their entire presentation that they are not going to prioritize you ,how are they deceiving you? Objectively these are warning signs, Not deception. The red flags are right there and some women are like....I want that.

Women have been given this exact playbook , themselves with often say if you like a guy a lot Make him work for sex. Don't text back too fast. Don't seem too available. Don't do wife activities for a boyfriend. The function is essentially the same.

But what I notice is this.What is healthy might not make you horny.That's the thesis as plainly as I can state it. Attraction and compatibility are partially separate systems that don't always agree with each other. In both directions. In both genders.

So is the red pill manipulation, not in any traditional sense. Nobody is lying about being a good man They are presenting themselves as the man that you are attracted to and that's the most honest thing possible.

This is a thought experiment, so imagine this for a second. Let’s say only 20% of men are attractive to you right now. Not “good enough,” but genuinely attractive. Now imagine that group suddenly disappeared overnight. Would your standards slowly recalibrate so that you’d end up finding 20% of the remaining men attractive instead? Or would you just stop feeling attraction altogether because the traits you liked are gone?

I’m asking because I wonder if attraction works more like hunger or like taste in music. If your favorite restaurant closes, eventually another place becomes your favorite because your brain adjusts to what exists around you. But with music, if your favorite genre disappeared, you might just keep missing it instead of forcing yourself to love something completely different. So when it comes to attraction, is it based on an objective internal standard, or is it mostly relative to the “market” of people available around you?

​

Every year, millions of young men pour their finest years, hard-earned money, and emotional energy into a pursuit that promises fulfillment but increasingly delivers burnout: the modern dating marketplace.

For the man currently exhausting himself trying to decode mixed signals, fund expensive dates, and chase an elusive standard of "success," it is time to pause and look at the landscape objectively. This is not just a piece of advice; it is a strategic warning. The current rules of engagement are heavily skewed, and if you do not understand the game you are playing, you risk sacrificing your education, your finances, and your mental peace for a mirage.

The first warning every man must heed is the commercialization of modern romance. Heavily fueled by social media algorithms and hyper-gamified dating apps, mainstream dating has increasingly shifted from an evaluation of character to an audit of resources.

You are often told that to be noticed, you must possess high social status, exceptional wealth, and endless material resources. When attraction is built primarily on what you can financially provide or what social status you can reflect onto someone else, you are not building a partnership—you are funding a lease. The moment the market shifts or your resources fluctuate, the foundation crumbles.

Chasing this superficial benchmark forces young men into an exhausting cycle of over-extension. You cannot build a genuine life while wearing a mask of financial perfection that you are burning your youth to maintain.

A critical miscalculation many men make is assuming that the dating market is symmetrically aligned with their sexual desires. Sociological data and emerging modern trends increasingly point to a significant shift in sexual demographics, with studies indicating high rates of sexual fluidity, bisexuality, or exclusive same-sex attraction among women compared to rigid traditional assumptions. When a large portion of the female demographic is naturally bisexual, lesbian, or fluid in their attraction, the traditional heterosexual pursuit becomes a low-statistical game for men.

Pushing through a dating market where fundamental romantic interest may naturally be oriented elsewhere—or divided—means men are often competing fiercely for a highly narrow, misaligned pool of connection. Recognizing this demographic reality allows you to stop taking rejection or dating friction personally; it is often a matter of inherent orientation, not a game you failed to win.

A profound structural shift in modern dating is the widening "desire gap" rooted in hypergamy and shifting economic power. The expectations placed on men versus women regarding financial success are fundamentally asymmetrical, creating an uneven playing field.

For a man, earning power and resource accumulation are treated as prerequisites. Men are conditioned to believe they must achieve a high socioeconomic standard simply to be considered eligible partners. The pursuit of wealth becomes an exhausting requirement to "earn" a place in a woman's life.

Conversely, sociological trends show that as women achieve financial independence, excel in higher education, and earn high incomes, their desire for a me often shifts or decreases rather than expands. Unlike men, who are traditionally willing to partner with women regardless of their income level, high-earning women rarely choose to date laterally or downward socioeconomically. Instead, self-sufficiency frequently leads to a preference for remaining single or opting out of traditional relationships entirely.

This creates a paradox where men kill themselves to build resources to attract women, only to find that independent women no longer require or desire those resources. Understanding this gap is your warning: building your life solely to meet a romantic demand that no longer exists is a losing strategy.

A critical error many men make when pursuing romantic relationships is expecting a single person to be their entire world—their confidante, their emotional anchor, and their social circle. This places an unsustainable burden on a relationship and leaves men incredibly vulnerable if that relationship ends.

Historically, men survived and thrived because they belonged to a tight-knit tribe.Relying solely on romantic validation for your sense of worth is a psychological trap.

Instead of exhausting your energy trying to approach women who require you to prove your financial worth, redirect that energy toward building deep, unbreakable platonic friendships with other men. A loyal circle of brothers provides absolute transparency, shared accountability, and a stable support network that doesn't fluctuate based on dating trends. True male brotherhood is an anchor; superficial romance is often a sail catching unpredictable wind.

If you are currently in the middle of your education, building a career, or mastering a discipline, pursuing relationships can be a catastrophic distraction.

A massive source of social friction, anxiety, and harassment stems from a fundamental breakdown in communication and a lack of objective education regarding human sexuality. If society and educational systems integrated a complete understanding of sexual dynamics, it would radically alter how men interact with women.When men are not taught about the high prevalence of bisexual, lesbian, or fluid orientations among women, they often misinterpret politeness, friendliness, or a simple lack of response as a "game" or a challenge to be pursued further.

Educating men on the biological reality that a vast number of women simply do not possess an exclusive or default attraction to men changes the entire framework of approach. When you realize that a woman's lack of interest is often a matter of fixed, biological orientation rather than a personal slight or a puzzle to solve, the instinct to persist vanishes.

Complete transparency regarding sexual orientation removes the ambiguity that leads to harassment. When men are taught to recognize and respect these orientations objectively, it prevents them from wasting energy bothering or pursuing women who are fundamentally unaligned with them, creating a safer, more respectful environment for everyone.

Promotion and Normalisation of Male friendships, Ai girlfriend, sex dolls and artificial wombs to create the next generation can solve a lot of problems as well.

Let's say you're a stay at home mom with a baby. Would one really nice, expensive date a month, and weekly inexpensive outings, and then one expensive abroad vacation yearly and one inexpensive vacation or day trips let's say every 3-6 months be good? 🤔 I'm a 27 year old man, with a paid off house, and car, a decent job, and I'm entertaining a girl that seems to be interested in being a stay at home partner. So just curious if this would be enough? Ofc, I know it's not all about money, and doing things, but I just can't help but ask. What's your opinion?

Most Men & Women are more attractive than they think and most dating issues come from lacking true self confidence. Your average man is 5'9" and 200 pounds. Your average woman is 5'4" and 170 pounds. Most women prefer a guy that is a little skinny or a little chubby as long as they have some muscle, over someone totally jacked. Lots of guys prefer a variety of body shapes in women Everything from chubby to pencil thin is someone's type. 87% of women say they would date a man who was bald. Studies have found men on average prefer an average face with equal amounts siding more towards angular and soft features. This means that even if you're a 5"5' 200 pound bald man you are still probably attractive to a lot of women.

The issue is that self confidence is too low. We see a lot of very conventionally attractive people on TV and so we think conventionally attractive is the only kind of attractive. I think if most women had to rate most men their own age they would rate them a 6 and the same for most men rating most women.

I think that many of the problems created by the gender war could be mediated is for men to look at the way women conduct themselves, and emulate certain parts of their behavior.

First, is self-esteem. Most men have a very negative view of their own self worth in the dating market, this much is clear. Men chase any woman they see like they’re the most important prize on Earth and base their entire self worth around them. Women, meanwhile, view themselves as goddesses and 10s, no matter how they actually look. Not only that, but they view essentially every member of the opposite sex as innately worthless garbage that is disposable at a moment’s notice.

The key here is delusion. Men have the unfortunate habit of trying to look at themselves from an objective standpoint, rather than simply viewing themselves as being entitled to the world. Now, the word “Delusion” has a negative connotation, but delusion isn’t always a bad thing. In fact, delusion is, in this case, a very good thing. Men should act like every woman he meets is lucky to even be in his presence, no matter his objective standing. Men should view women not as prizes, but as a bunch of creeps trying to vie for his attention. They should nag and demean members of the opposite sex until they view themselves with such little self worth that the men seem like a valid option. Only then can things be improved.

The second point is argumentation. If you’ve ever argued with a woman then you know exactly what I’m talking about. They will deliberately misinterpret your words, put words you didn’t say in your mouth, accuse you of random things unrelated to the argument, and they would rather drag both of you down to hell crying and screaming than admit their own faults. Now, men see this behavior as a bad thing, because they stupidly try to argue from a logical standpoint, and let themselves be convinced by good arguments. Meanwhile, women go into arguments believing that they are inherently right by virtue of being female, reason be damned.

It’s like a pro boxer going up against a street thug. No matter how good the boxer is, the street thug will always win because he ends up pulling out a knife or a gun. This different in argumentation is a big ready why the gender wars are at the point where they are, because men are too willing to concede to women, so their misandry has gotten a deep hold within our society. To fix this, men should argue on the level of women. Deliberately use fallacies, appeal to emotions, immediately deny and deflect when called out, and use personal insults to get your way.

The last point I’ll address is collectivism. Now, men have a bad habit of viewing people as individuals. They approach each person they interact with as a blank slate. Women, meanwhile view the world like this: Women good angels who can do no wrong, men pieces of shit who can do no right. Women will never, ever call each other wrong thanks to their incredible in-group bias, and any woman who does is branded a “pickme” and ostracized. Meanwhile, whenever a man makes a point, he is seen as wrong by default, unless allowed to be otherwise by the group.

I think that men should view things how women do it, just in reverse. They should see each other as ontologically perfect angels who can never make a wrong point, and treat any criticism against men as a personal attack against themselves. Ostracize any man who agrees with women, even if the women are correct. And treat women as if they are always wrong, even if they’re making the exact same point as men are.

Men, we have to face that women are much better at certain things than we are. And the way to bridge that gap isn’t to refuse to be like them, but to be more like them. Only then can the sexes truly be more equal.😊

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

When RP men argue that women “like bad men” because some of these men have high body counts isn’t that just begging the question to some degree?

Because if a man is bad won’t also be more likely to sleep around given the opportunity? Like say a “bad man” is married and a woman comes onto him won’t he be more likely to go for it which would increase his body count? Whereas if a “good guy” who is also married got approached by the same woman he would reject her out of his own goodness? I would also argue that a bad man is more likely to seek out other women while married compared to a good guy.

Now apparently the “bad women” are the one’s sleeping around a lot according to RP. Sleeping around makes a woman bad. So let’s be consistent here “bad women” who sleep around why wouldn’t they be sleeping with the “bad men”? Isn’t that who they would be around anyways? Is it actually surprising that is who they would be attracted to?

The way I see it “good men” and “good women”wouldn’t be looking to sleep around in the first place this is not a behavior associated with being good, so in general both good men and women probably have lower body counts as a function of their goodness.

Arguing that women don’t like good men because they don’t sleep with them is a bit paradoxical and ignores the possibility that maybe good men choose not to sleep around. Because why would a good guy be sleeping around in the first place? This is really all based on this faulty moral framework in the RP where by a man wanting to sleep around is presented as “virtuous” but this has never been the case. In general sleeping around is considered neutral at best (in a sexually liberal society) and morally wrong in most societies and for most of history. You are not a “good guy” because you want to sleep around. It’s even more bizarre when these same men try to argue that women are bad for NOT wanting to sleep around. Like huh? Since when is it bad that a woman is cautious and selective about who she sleeps with?

And I know not everyone thinks casual sex is bad or that you are a bad person if you sleep around but in the aggregate sleeping around is more strongly correlated with bad things vs not sleeping around. Things like substance abuse, cheating, “spinning plates”, lying, sex work etc… that means of the people who do sleep around more of them are bad or have done these bad things vs out of the people who don’t sleep around.

Also there are obviously bad men who don’t get any women at all. Some of these incels are bad (mean, selfish, anti social, rude, even criminal in some cases) and they aren’t getting any. But it’s not because they wouldn’t sleep around it’s because they can’t find willing participants. And no I am not saying all incels are bad or even most but some are so clearly not all bad men are just attracting women like that, some straight up repulse women

I just never understood the argument that bad men sleeping around proves women like bad men. All it shows to me is that all else being equal “bad people” sleep around more than a “good people”.

The sensitive men who actually took women’s feedback to heart are now terrified of ever approaching women because they have been told their entire lives that men are the problem, they have been told over and over that approaching women in any situation makes women feel uncomfortable, be it a gym, a library, an university, a school, a coffee shop, or something else. That they need to constantly be in this alert state to not do anything wrong around women. They have learned that they shouldn't explain things too much or they are "mansplaining", they need to avoid sitting in the chair the wrong way, they need to avoid walking too closely to a woman on the street. And of course they need to avoid situations where could be accidentally left alone with a woman in their school/workplace because that would make them uncomfortable too. The men who took the lessons to the heart have self-sabotaged themselves out of the dating pool.

In the meanwhile, the men who do not care about social feedback continue to thrive, because they don’t give a fuck about any of this. But hey, women like "confident" men so I guess this was the desired end result anyway?

So women have accidentally filtered out the best men from the dating pool, and left more room for the worst men. And this is of course a vicious cycle since now every interaction women have with men are with these men who were unaffected by the decades of social feedback.

Edit: Many of you bring up that this is insecurity. I disagree. Making sure other people feel comfortable in social situations is not insecurity. If anything it's selfless behaviour.