​

Speaking as a woman, there’s something I’ve noticed over the years that I think people underestimate when discussing male dating success.

The men who seem to get the most women aren’t necessarily the best-looking, richest, tallest, or highest-status men.

Very often, they’re simply the men who try the most.

And by “sexually aggressive,” I don’t mean men who ignore consent or refuse to take no for an answer. I mean men who are extremely forward, assertive, flirtatious, willing to escalate, and almost completely unafraid of rejection.

They meet a woman they like? They approach her.

Conversation is going well? They flirt.

They sense mutual attraction? They make their intentions obvious instead of spending three months wondering whether she likes them.

She rejects them? They don't spend the next two weeks analyzing what went wrong. They shrug, move on, and talk to somebody else.

I've known men who aren't particularly handsome, wealthy, charismatic, or impressive on paper, yet they're constantly dating or hooking up with women. The common denominator seems to be that they're always on the prowl. They create opportunities constantly.

Meanwhile, I've known attractive, intelligent men who can go months or years without anything happening because they're cautious. They need strong signs of interest before approaching. They fear looking creepy. They overthink rejection. They become emotionally invested in one woman before anything has even happened.

It makes me wonder whether male dating success is much more of a numbers game than people want to admit.

Imagine two otherwise identical men.

Man A approaches/flirts with 5 women in a year and succeeds with 2.

Man B approaches/flirts with 100 women and succeeds with 15.

Man B gets rejected dramatically more often, and his "success rate" is actually worse. But from the outside, everyone sees a guy who gets tons of women.

And there's another factor: rejection seems to affect these aggressive men less. They don't necessarily interpret rejection as evidence that they're unattractive. It's simply one woman saying no, so they move to the next one.

So I'm starting to think that, above a certain minimum threshold of attractiveness/social competence, fearlessness, assertiveness, volume, and willingness to risk rejection may predict a man's dating success more than looks, money, or status.

Do you agree?

And for the men here: have you actually seen your dating results improve significantly simply by approaching more women and caring less about rejection? Or does this only work for men who were attractive enough to succeed anyway?

What's at stake: the wellbeing of countless future kids and, to a lesser extent or level of urgency, the relationship prospects for men looking to marry and start families.

Now let me start by saying that even if you're deluded enough to think Clancy's innocent because she was quite literally mentally gone when she murdered her kids, YOU STILL DON'T FUCKING SAY SHIT LIKE #IAMLINDSAYCLANCEY. What kind of utter psychopath devotes remembrance of this tragedy not to the undeniably first-and-foremost primary victims of it, but to someone else - the perpetrator? Seriously? What an absolutely tone-deaf, horrible hashtag, and tone deaf and horrible is what a disturbingly large amount of discourse from women on the internet about this tragedy has been. Centering Lindsay as the victim, even if you believe she is one, is absolutely nuts. Those poor kids, who thrashed and cried as their own mom strangled them to death, yeah let's just forget them while our fundraiser for the murderer crosses $ 1 million plus!

Reality, of course, is that Clancy was more than coherent enough while she did internet research, pre-planned her husband's absence from the house and took her sweet time (5 mins on each child) maintaining her grip as she choked her 3 young kids to death. But none of this common sense matters to the people I described in the prior paragraph; oh no, their only concern is maintaining what OG mainstream feminism has always preached: the woman is always the primary victim.

Yes, it's bad she murdered her kids. But she is the ultimate victim of it. Even the saner feminists who'll be doling out all manner of flimsy damage control excuses over how Lindsay and her whackjob supporters aren't real feminists to exert damage control believe in patriarchy theory, and patriarchy theory will always hold women as the victims.

De facto female moral exceptionalism.

So why's this a threat then? Circling back to the opening sentence, women have primary access to their kids, and women who immerse themselves in the feminist ecosystem online - which is kind of hard not to do for them these days given how vast it is - will begin internalizing the logic that if a woman is having a rough time being a parent and decides to take it out on her kids, she shouldn't be singled out as a wrongdoer but treated instead as a victim. Which'll make these women a threat to their kids. And whichever of them start having dark thoughts like Clancy did, will 100% find nonstop validation, affirmation and encouragement from the #IAMLINDSAYCLANCY crowd.

On an even more disturbing note, a lot of the #IAMLINDSAYCLANCY crowd appears to be invoking some kind of weird woo woo you find on radical feminist spaces online about how women are part of this "Divine Feminine" shit and how as "life givers" they also have the right to "take life". Implications for the children are fairly obvious.

Here is the scenario. You’ve been dating a woman for a couple of months and it’s going well. She treats you kindly and you have a good connection in the bedroom.

You get to a conversation where you’re talking about what really turns you on and she tells you she is most aroused by fantasies of being very cruel to men. She likes the idea of humiliating and degrading them, making them cry and beg, and feel small. She likes the idea of objectifying and demeaning them and taking away their autonomy.

Questions:

Would you keep dating her?

Would your view of her change?

Would you believe she harbored deep resentment toward men?

Would it not bother you at all?

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.

This is why most men feel unhappy unless they have some kind of validation from a woman in their lives. Men are conditioned to feel like if they don't have the validation or approval of some woman in their lives then they are "unworthy". This is part of why simps and white knights exist.

The fact that most men (if not all) are primarily raised by women in some way, shape or form, plays a role in this. The women who raise and teach them, whether at home and/or at kindergarten and primary school unconsciously, condition them to depend on validation and approval from women to feel good about themselves. This makes their exploitation by women later in their lives much easier.

"To ensure that the happiness of man in subjugation is brought about by a woman and not by other men or some sort of animal...a series of training exercises are built into man's life, beginning at a very early age. It is fortunate for woman that the male infant is under her close jurisdiction as it is easiest to train him then..."

"The mere fact that a man is accustomed from his earliest years to have women around, to find their presence 'normal,' their absence 'abnormal,' tends to make him dependent on women in later life." - Esther Vilar

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. 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!

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

Seems like all these pills are trying their best to convince us that women giving you shit means that it's something you must pass as a man so they like and respect you but I believe that the truth is that if a woman is in love with you, she won't be giving you shit tests. Could you imagine giving shit to people who you actually really like? You wouldn't want them to be offended or to fuck up. That same woman will go on Tinder or some other hook up app and will arrange a dick appointment with a hot dude.

If you think that you must pass shit tests, you are a jester. It's no different from the job market where you must pass the 4 cycles of interviews before finally getting rejected, and they hire the internal guy. If you are meeting a girl for the first time and she gives you shit tests, you should not react: but you should dump her ass immediately and change her for someone who doesn't do that. If you are dating someone and they give you shit tests in the relationship? Sorry bro, she's fiending for someone else's dick and looking for an excuse to bail.

Shit Test = Avoid, don't pass, don't collect. Just GO. If she is giving you shit tests, that is literally because she is lacking in respect for you.

PS: Before some dudes or women say "I give guys shit by telling them that they must be a player", how is that giving someone SHIT? That's literally flirting. Let's not confuse flirting or playful banter as a form of a shit test. If a girl is shit testing you; SHE DON'T LIKE YOU.

I’ve always been curious about how women who earn significantly more than their male partners think about marriage and divorce.

If you are the higher earner, does the possibility of having to pay alimony or give up a significant portion of your assets affect how you view marriage? Would you consider not marrying or getting a prenup to protect yourself?

And more personally, how would you feel if your husband or long-term partner eventually cheated on you and left you for a younger or better-looking woman? Would the financial consequences of divorce change how you approach the relationship?

I’m genuinely curious how women in this situation think about these issues.

Recently, I've seen a Reddit post about about how men tend to be more depressed after a breakup than women because they tend to put the emotional regulation on their partner only more often than women, who tend to have more community around them.

And then, some Redditors commented basically in the lines that "Yea, and when these men are depressed, guess who they harm the most? Women."

This made me think that maybe in order to make everyone's life better, we should try to actually solve both men and women grievances together.

I think that while some complaints you see on this sub are exaggerated, based on anecdotes, or just over generalized, I think there are still many real underlying grievances.

Men can struggle more with loneliness, social isolation, rejection, lack of community, and unrealistic expectation around masculinity,

And women might have to deal with more harassment, safety concerns, unwanted advances, sexualization, and other problems.

These are all real issues that exist simutaneously.

I think acknowledging one doesn't invalidate the other. And I don't think we gain anything by turning these problems into "Men are worse" or "Women are worse".

A lonely man doens't become less lonely because someone tell him woman have it worse, or its his fault, or whatever.

And woman who doesn't feel safe won't feel safer because someone tells him to go public place, or that men have problems too.

We aren't competing on a victimhood ranked ladder and I think it's a damaging tendency to respond to someone's grievance by humiliating them for having it.

If a guy is saying he is struggling with dating, saying "your personality is the problem" does not help and only increase the grievance he has.

If a woman says she is afraid of men, calling them misandrist doesn't erase their beliefs and only reinforce it.

Back to the topic of that specific Reddit post, men do face higher depression post-breakup, and yes, they statistically harm women after breakups more often. Obviously, that doesn't excuse abuse or mean men shouldn't be held responsible for their actions.

But just telling depressed men they are dangerous and toxic doesn't solve the problem neither. If we actually want fewer women to be harmed, shouldn't we also ask why some men become so isolated and emotionally dependent on one partner in the first place?

I think we can hold people accountable for harmful behavior while also trying to prevent the conditions that make them behave that way more likely.

So ya, I think if we want a world where both genders stop developping grievances toward each other , I think we should work together and look at the underlying root causes of these behaviors.

Men's problems don't cancel out women's problems. Women's problems don't cancel out men's problems. We can acknowledge both and actually try to solve them.

EDIT: What I meant with my example is that while men (in this example) are undeniably responsible for their actions, and they shouldn't harm others (incl. women) because they are depressed, just telling them "It's bad to harm others" without trying to solving the underlying root causes doesn't actually make it safer for women.

We can say all we want about the perfect moral actions to do, but reality is that people aren't perfect :(

Assume that you are both single in this situation and that you’re not attracted to him.

If a male friend asked you to hook up with him/be friends with benefits and you rejected him, how would you feel?Would you ever be able to trust him again and regain the level of friendship that you once had?

Would it make a difference if he accepted your answer gracefully and wanted to go back to being friends? Would you believe him if he promised to never ask again and that he wants to pretend this never happened?

I’m not going to say respect has to be earned. I think we all deserve some basic respect and consideration.

But women who think men should always make the first move (from asking out to proposing), hold doors, pay for dates, or that men are inherently immature and should therefore always date younger women, etc., are being naive. All of these expectations can reflect a sense of entitlement and, frankly, a greedy nature. And you know who loves greedy people? Con artists and manipulators.

These women may either end up with a “nice guy” who lacks confidence, meaning they settle for someone they don’t genuinely want, or they may fall for a love-bomber who gives them the “princess treatment” and eventually makes their life hell.

Obviously, people can outgrow these expectations, and I genuinely hope they do. I don’t think they deserve to end up in an abusive relationship. But if they keep refusing to outgrow this fantasy of being treated like a princess, they may end up paying a very harsh price for it.

I don’t respect that mindset, but I still don’t want anyone to suffer because of it. Chivalry is one thing; expecting men to constantly prove their worth through money, attention, and special treatment is another. At that point, it can either become love-bombing from manipulative men or plain entitlement toward men who simply aren’t interested in playing that role.

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.”

So a pattern I clearly notice is that even in an age of dying romance and relationships, romance content and art (books and films) are more popular than ever before. The consumer base for these things are overwhelmingly female. Some of the most "male skeptic" women I know, low-key still love corny romantic shit. Even my mom loves this stuff. She'll carefully watch shitty movies Twilight.

So I'm curious about the difference. And are you guys aware of this discrepancy? Romance is not something that the majority of men enjoy or want to do. It's more like how you work hard to get a promotion or be in the good graces of your boss. You don't do it because you love working. Romance = More male effort. I'm being reductive but I hope y'all get the point.

Edit: I want to add that you will notice this pattern if you look carefully as well. Women have girls night where they dress nice, go out together at a nice restaurant and get dinner. I don't know men who do that with their boys. Even men with a lot of money. We seem to have different definitions of fun.

People like to help little girls.

When people see that a little girl has a problem, they like to step in and fix the problem for her. Without any explanation on what they did to fix the problem, and no advice beyond the most vague of generalizations, they fix the issue and leave the little girl to her own devices.

Men like to say this is a privilege.

It's not.

The thing is: These girls are going to have to solve their own problems eventually. Adult women don't get anywhere near the amount of help and support that men think they do. If girls receive nothing in the way of guidance in regards to resolving their issues, they're going to hit a brick wall when they grow up and are expected to solve their own problems with zero foundation.

The result of how society treats little girls is insane amounts of learned helplessness and flailing about to fix things that otherwise should be easy to solve. Do most of them eventually figure things out? Sure, but usually after going through tons of pain, rejection, and being treated like a moron for not manifesting their developmental milestones out of the ether.

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. 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!

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

I’ve dated some unstable women and they tend to have issues due to unstable parental models in their childhood and thus seem to have their own version of a sort of Madonna Whore complex with their egos in viewing men putting energy into spending time with her as a measure of successful conquest, much like some men view the act of sex as “conquering”

In their minds they tend to frame the emotionally unavailable guy who is aloof & a bit full of himself as a hard to access target to prove how special she is by having/“conquering” him. Whereas the emotionally available guy who is genuinely solid and always in her corner is seen as common & an easy to access target that is supposedly "easy to win over".

They don't want to invest effort in the emotionally dependable guy because the "game" is already over. He gives her the measure of success for free (sex/will/love) & if they made that difficult, she’d feel like she’s going backwards. They are already conquered. Further, she only can prove she is special now that he is giving it up so easily by how far she can deprive him of what he wants. That becomes how she then measures how “special” she is.

I think people investigating fertility rates and pairbonding rates make the same mistake that economists make when investigating consumer and labor market behavior. In both cases, there is a surprising amount of weight in decision making that cannot be accounted for by rationality, especially from an objective point of view (which is precisely the bias that researchers have — being objective).

I think the proper interpretation of the irrationality is the key to understanding the fertility crisis. I don't doubt that rational decisions from an objective frame are significant factors to changes in human mating patterns, but we've discussed these to death. The gaps are in the irrational.

I'll cover the labor market very briefly because I want to be comprehensive, but there isn't really that much to say. The fact is that people everywhere in the world are different. Every group has different preferences, and these are prioritized enough so that men and women entering the workforce don't automatically choose the highest paying career path that they can find. Some do, but most don't. This explains a lot of wage gap disparities, and it explains why gender gaps in a large number of industries will always persist. Thomas Sowell talks at length about this if you want good source material.

Now, the consumer market. I read something recently (sorry, no link, but I'll keep looking) that described how the middle and lower class has demonstrated shocking price inelasticity with respect to "luxury goods". They are more than willing to shell out for designer brand clothing and expensive food. There are entire articles written about $10 avocado toast, $20 burritos, and $7 lattes. These items symbolize mass consumption at premium prices.

One's economic class is generally some combination of what you do (labor) and what you buy (consumer). The more money you earn, the higher your class. The more money you spend, the higher your class. This class is just a perceptual rank, as there is no authoritative definition of what class is, but everyone makes these sorts of judgements. If you see a carpenter in a dirty Carhartt shirt and a sandwich from Subway, you have an entire picture of what you expect his life to be like. Conversely, if you see an IT professional or salesperson working from a laptop with a $7 latte, that's an entire other image of class.

Alright, now we can discuss trends and why I believe these trends have caused the antinatalist nightmare that we're in.

1. It's cheap to appear to be in a higher class than you are in. You can spend relatively little money on nice clothes and then always wear that same pair of clothes when you go out. Buy a few sets, and you've only invested a few hundred dollars to appear like someone who can make 200k+. You can do the same thing if you go to a place with expensive food and drinks. You can do the same thing if you offer to take a date to any sort of place like this. You can offer expensive activities too, such as Top Golf or jetski riding. Sidenote: in all of these instances, you would spend significantly less money than you would on a high level call girl, which means people who want nothing but sex are very motivated to display class and offer things to get it. This has been called "elite overproduction", but there's nothing special about the elite class. This is happening in all classes.

2. People want to be at the top of their own class, but they only have limited interest in actually changing classes. I think this is where a lot of people get confused. Let's use "hypergamy" as an example. How do you explain the dichotomy that women have insanely high value on the sexual marketplace and go after a small percentage of men, and yet when any man actually looks at the men that they go after, they aren't really that impressed. I mean, some self-hating men turn this into motivation to become looksmaxxers or to adopt someone else's style to appear cool, but a more self-assured man can legitimately see that these supposedly hypergamous women end up with mediocre dirtbags half the time. Why? I propose it is precisely because the women are making irrational decisions; not "because womyn", but because these women have tastes derived from their current class and only wish to see those tastes satisfied. That's why someone from the ghetto goes for a ghetto looking guy. That's why a daddy's girl with a blue collar father is attracted to the jock-ish blue collar worker. That's why the poor daughter of a white collar careerman will pursue a man who seems physically weak and inferior to those other types of men (not because of the weakness, but because of other traits that signify class to the upper-middle class daughter).

Now, let's try to go back and reinvestigate some concepts: urbanization, industrialization, the sexual revolution. These are all moments of class fracture. Some more than others. In the 1800s, the changing economic tides caused by industrialization and a burst in urbanization lead to some class mobility. That died down as the capital was re-sorted into the hands of elites. In more recent times, urbanization has had a second wave, in what some call the 2nd/3rd/4th industrial revolution. I'm talking about the expansion of the service economy from the 1960s on. This has hit the non-western world much later on, but when it hits, it causes social transformations very quickly. This is something profuse in eastern asian culture. It hit South Korea, China, Japan. These places didn't simply urbanize, industrialize, or become feminists... They became class conscious and started following the patterns listed above — overvaluing their own class standing and having limited absolute awareness of the value derived outside of their own class. I would argue that “feminism” as female empowerment may be defined as merely class consciousness, with a high preference for maximizing male partner class levels and personal capacity to maximize one’s class levels, through visible/prestigious careers as well as conspicuous consumption.

I think this relates well to John Calhoun's Mouse Utopia, with the qualification that his experiment wasn't simply about space in the cages. It was about social role density, which he later argued as the root cause of the insane behavior. In other words, he was observing an overproduction of class in mouse society combined with irrational market decisions on the mouse sexual marketplace. Ok, humans are far more complex than mice, but I am merely painting a picture of how human behavior could correlate.

I think it's also possible that the development of social capital (and perhaps bonding capital moreso than bridging capital) is essentially tied to rational behavior in these markets. It's "rational" to bond because it helps you and those around you. People naturally benefit from communities and want to help grow them. The irrationality of seeking higher class status, combined with the irrationality of rejecting different classes simply because they are different (which additionally means you don't develop any objective measures of value for yourself, at least not until you are much older... 30s or 40s, at minimum), means that develop an adversarial relationship with bonding capital. At minimum, spending your Friday/Saturday at the bowling alley doesn't seem worth it when you have a chance to peacock at the club and buy a $15 drink, even if your actual chances of going home with anyone or meeting anyone worthwhile are low. This is human mouse utopia in action.

I 23m ask because some young women nowadays and possibly previous generations go for bad boys. Ive seen it with women my age in highschool and college. Then regret how their relationship ith the hot bad boy turned out. This can drug dealer/addict, gangs, or womanizer just because of his looks,height or feeling dangerous then turn around they are a single mom or in rehab and want a good man to seemingly fix their problems and when men say no then they misogynistic or maga?? I'm getting to that age to see the women who rejected most guys because they were boring or weren't hot enough now are single mothers, or are clean from heavy drug use making posts about how good men should date them or how all men are bad??

I've noticed that there are some things out there that demand to be questioned when it comes to women's behavior however, by doing so you are identified as someone who hates women. Yet the same exact or tangent but close behavior exhibited in men is near instantly identified as being problematic and if you don't agree with it you're also considered misogynistic.

for a specific example, you ever thought about how a woman gets hurt physically and or emotionally by a known terrible guy that she knows the history of and everyone else does too it is considered in bad taste to ask why did you date him and why are you surprised?

You ever wonder why it's considered bad taste to tell woman not to be sexy on Instagram if she's in a relationship because guys are giving her attention but it's bad to give other girls attention if you're in a relationship?

Ever curious why women think whatever they do in a relationship is the hardest part in the relationship? Like they'll literally stare at you even as to stay at home wife it's the hardest thing they'll ever do but will simultaneously look down on you if you wanted to be a stay-at-home husband?

They decry toxic masculinity and gender stereotypes but then be turned off by any type of man who demands equality and who might come off a little bit soft.

And they will excuse it too. They will blame it on hormones or emotional intelligence but don't give you the same credit even though you have the literal abundance of a hormone that makes you risky and more violent and yet somehow overwhelmingly most men by a large margin will not ever succumb to it.

All in all women don't like to be questioned about what they do because they consider it ntrinsic to their experience yet simultaneously demand that men change for the better.