TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

71

I lay out my argument and analysis here: http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2017/09/17/where-have-all-the-good-men-gone-vs-but-im-a-nice-guy-a-comparative-study-in-alleged-sexual-entitlement/

My essential contention is that "Where Have All The Good Men Gone" is more entitled than "But I'm A Nice Guy." I also set out a test for what counts as an "entitled attitude" and argue that on that test's basis, BIANG isn't entitlement but WHATGMG is.

I welcome any challenges to my view.


[–]Ultramegasaurus43 points44 points  (72 children) | Copy Link

The most direct nice guy equivalent is women complaining about men who only want sex but no relationships. It's extremely similar to the topic of women only wanting to be friends, yet women are allowed to complain while men are not. Apparently, men are "machines where you put in sex coins and a relationship falls out", to quote women's favorite metaphor against nice guys.

[–]single_use_accTaupe Enema11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. Slutzone is the female equivalent of friendzone.

[–]pinkgoldrose5 points6 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

That's not totally correct because men want relationships not just sex. In real life I don't observe this "women trying to trap unwilling men into relationships" thing red pill describes. I see men trying to get girlfriends.

[–]WhiskersNTreddish purp6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

those things aren't contradictory tho

Men want girlfriends

Men also will bang girls they're not interested in making their girlfriend

[–]wracky272RPG's are fun7 points8 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

The men you don't see are the divorcees grinding 75 hour work weeks to support the kid they're never allowed to see.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

All 10 of them.

[–]wracky272RPG's are fun3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

82.5% of women are the custodial parents.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And... Men have to work 75 hours a week??

[–]aznphenix1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah this is just as bad as the feminist that inflate rape and pay gap stats.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh please.

[–]pinkgoldrose0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Even them would probably like another girlfriend.

[–]PieceBringerPurple Swag1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're basically saying men would make girlfriends of every women they sleep with? 100% disagree.

[–]JustStatedTheObviousYou Probably Won't Believe It.-2 points-1 points  (58 children) | Copy Link

The most direct nice guy equivalent is women complaining about men who only want sex but no relationships. It's extremely similar to the topic of women only wanting to be friends

Minus the risk of pregnancy. And STD. And judgement. And, if you're the kind to get emotionally attached, the risk of serious heartbreak.

Oh, wait. They're nothing alike. And men who insist otherwise, still live in a childish fantasy world.

[–]Ultramegasaurus13 points14 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

But sex isn't a big deal, you blue pillers never fail to emphasize that. Especially when talking about slutshaming or male virginity.

[–]wracky272RPG's are fun7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's so ironic that the nice guy version of standing in support of those things is done primarily to, you guessed it-- get laid.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Oh, please.

Risk of pregnancy? That's what The Pill is for. It reduces the risk of pregnancy to near zero. STDs? They can all be avoided with condoms, or managed. Emotional attachment? Thought you Blues tell us sex isn't a big deal. It means only whatever the particular person decides it means. It's not a big deal, until she decides it's a big deal.

[–]JustStatedTheObviousYou Probably Won't Believe It.0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Risk of pregnancy? That's what The Pill is for.

Especially if you're a guy who doesn't need to deal with the negative side effects.

STDs? They can all be avoided with condoms, or managed.

You're all heart.

Emotional attachment?

Yes, it's a thing that exists, and your strawman isn't helping your case.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Millions of women take The Pill with or without side effects. It's used enough such that side effects don't seem to make a dent in the number of women who use it.

As for STDs, lots of women have genital herpes and/or HPV and still have sex lives. They took the risks, they got burned. That's life.

The rest of it is a bullshit nonsubstantive response. But I guess that's what I should expect.

[–]JustStatedTheObviousYou Probably Won't Believe It.0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Your complete dismissal of the risks vs. platonic friendships just proves you're not actually here to debate in the first place.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. Not going anywhere, so you're just going to have to get used to me being around.

Your mischaracterization and misrepresentation of my post is just par for the course.

[–]JustStatedTheObvious 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

whining, and a continued lack of substantive debate

You seem to have the self-pity well in hand. I'll leave you to it, then.

[–]LewisCross 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

When you're wrong, I'll be there to correct you.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Minus the risk of pregnancy. And STD.

Condom. Contraception.

And judgement

Dont be promiscuous.

And men who insist otherwise, still live in a childish fantasy world.

"ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS ______"

[–]circlhat7 points8 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

Men don't owe women anything, we tend to make women issues and feelings more important than a man it's not, a man doesn't owe a women jack shit, childish is something a women calls a man when she is being a child herself

[–]JustStatedTheObviousYou Probably Won't Believe It.5 points6 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Men don't owe women anything

But both partners are expected to give something to the relationship.

we tend to make women issues and feelings more important than a man

And by "we", you mean who, exactly? Because most women don't want a relationship with a spineless doormat. And no matter how many dark triad women are linked in PPD, no matter how many hot messes you can find on Tumblr, no matter how cruel and injust the tragedies of your origin story, no matter how very understandable it is - nothing will change that.

childish is something a women calls a man when she is being a child herself

"I know you are but what am I?" isn't nearly as convincing as an absolute as you might think it is.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

But both partners are expected to give something to the relationship.

Nice guys: I'm nice to a woman, but she doesnt wanna date me

You people: "LOL ENTITLED CREEPS"

Shitty women: "Where have all the good men gone?"

You people: "WELL OF COURSE EVERYONE HAS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE RELATIONSHIP!"

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

When has any bluepiller on this sub defended a "where have all the good men gone" women? Most of us agree that most of those women are probably low quality themselves.

[–]circlhat8 points9 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

But both partners are expected to give something to the relationship.

Than why call nice guys entitled when they want something

"I know you are but what am I?" isn't nearly as convincing as an absolute as you might think it is.

Which is why I never said that, I said calling people childish is a childish thing to do

Because most women don't want a relationship with a spineless doormat.

Strawmen argument, but you prove my point if a woman wants something it's ok if a man wants something he is entitled

[–]JustStatedTheObviousYou Probably Won't Believe It.3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Than why call nice guys entitled when they want something

Because they want the benefits of lust/limerence/long term pair bonding with all the effort, risk, and offered rewards of "Just friends".

It's a quick way to make people feel like assholes, and some of them, who can recognize that bullshit, are just going to be the asshole these people begged for.

It all needs to stop, and public shaming is the quickest way to get the message out.

I said calling people childish is a childish thing to do

Children aren't miniature adults. Their brains are still developing. When someone shows the thinking and strategies of a child, due to either delayed development or being sheltered, how should they handle it?

This isn't to say some people don't abuse it. But it's very deserved, sometimes.

Strawmen argument, but you prove my point if a woman wants something it's ok if a man wants something he is entitled

No, I said that women want a man with his own personality, and that hiding your personality - or being underdeveloped in that area - is a quick way to turn her off.

Most men don't want to be "nice guys TM", since that brand of nice guy is often the furthest thing from "good men" so feel free to take that bullshit, and flush it down the toilet with every other terrible coping strategy.

[–]circlhat6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Because they want the benefits of lust/limerence/long term pair bonding with all the effort, risk, and offered rewards of "Just friends".

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

It all needs to stop, and public shaming is the quickest way to get the message out to the most people.

Just like slut shaming is needed to stop women from having kids they can't afford?

But I'm glad you admit that shaming of men takes place and is promoted.

When someone shows the thinking and strategies of a child

That is a low opinion of someone you disagree with, I will refrain from calling people names even if I feel their opinion is flat out wrong as the discussion tends to go south very fast.

No, I said that women want a man with his own personality, and that hiding your personality

I never said what women want or don't want, that is a off topic discussion, I'm willing to have it but as of now it's important we stick to the topic which is the women equivalent of nice guys

Most men don't want to be "nice guys TM", since they're often the furthest thing from "good men

I didn't realize you speak for most men, most men don't claim to be perfect, nice guy isn't saying you are the lord jesus chris, nice is simply saying you are following social rules when treating women a certain way.

The moment we tell men to respect women that is the moment they become nice guys, how about we tell men to treat women how they feel rather than with respect than we could see emotional development.

terrible coping strategy.

You mention that you are entitled but men aren't

But both partners are expected to give something to the relationship.

No one should expect anything, but get to know the person, you demand a man gives you something for X, but when a nice guy doesn't demand but simply ask , "WTF is going on here", you call him names and degrade him and promote verbal abuse.

But yeah keep treating men like shit, The men's right movement, anti feminist movements and red pill is the fastest growing subs

[–]JustStatedTheObviousYou Probably Won't Believe It.3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Humans form social bonds in stages, based on varying levels of neurochemical reward vs risk. The first level is an acquaintance. The second may be a casual friend. Third is a best friend. Fourth they're like family. It may even mirror a platonic romance.

For some people, those stages are necessary before you can engage their other systems, like love and lust. I'm one of them.

But that only takes you to the door. It's not the key. The key is what attracts people. In terms of neuroscience, there's three locks on the door - lust, romance, and long term. Raw lust is generally either sudden excitement or absolute intimate trust, with most people gating that off to folks who meet a certain standard, and who sync up their needs for escalation/inhibition at a welcome pace. Looks is a common standard for starting the dance. My weakness is intelligence and experience - expressed in all forms, including improv creativity, not just STEM.

Romance is generally two or more people separating themselves from the rest of the world. There's a shared communication and private language building that's going on, which isn't always spoken - limerence, a romantic obsession with the other person, helps two people connect.

Then there's the third stage, where all of that is run past the brain's judgement center, but without the addictions of the first two. If you're not prepared for it, it can feel like the magic is gone. It's where souls are destroyed, and people get cynical as Hell about each other, and the possibility they'll ever find happiness.

Or, in a best case scenario, they only discover how amazing each other really are.

What "nice guys" want is that best case scenario, plus porn amounts of lust, and endless limerence.

To get it, they're prepared to act like "just friends". They don't share any parts of themselves that might be controversial. They're not in sync on a sexual level. And their idea of how all this works is a recipe for heartbreak.

It's just not realistic.

the women equivalent of nice guys

Cool girls TM - they're not like tomboys. These are women who only adopt masculine behaviors assuming they'll skip all the risk, and get straight to awesome orgasms/forever ever after.

You mention that you are entitled

I did? Good luck explaining how that one works.

when a nice guy doesn't demand but simply ask , "WTF is going on here"

Instead of just asking for advice, from people experienced and wise enough to give it. That's another annoying thing about Nice Guys TM - they're all about feeling ripped off/under attack, and don't understand why their overreaction gets such a bad reaction in turn.

[–]circlhat3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Cool girls TM - they're not like tomboys. I did? Good luck explaining how that one works.

No Nice guy is define as a guy who wants something in return and thus not genuine, My sole argument is that women do this same thing which you confirm with

"But both partners are expected to give something to the relationship."

this was in response too "Men don't owe women anything"

While you did say both you continue on to degrade the nice guy for wanting/expecting but said it's ok for the women to want something.

What "nice guys" want is that best case scenario, plus porn amounts of lust, and endless limerence.

Not really, they want what every human wants, but they have been brainwashed and their sexuality so demonized that they don't want to offend. They think it's disrespectful to ask for anything closely related to sex and they believe they have to prove that they don't want just sex.

In reality you can just want sex from a women and this isn't wrong or objectifying but they don't want to be misidentified.

Nice Guys TM - they're all about feeling ripped off/under attack,

Confused, they feel confused, you said yourself both people should expect something why shouldn't they expect something like women?

Why is it ok for a women to say, "I cook and clean and have sex with him but he does nothing for me"

But not ok for a guy to say, "I buy her everything and she still chooses the asshole"

Humans form social bonds in stages....................................... ............................. ..............................

As for everything else you wrote I don't disagree with any of that or how relationships work as I stated before my only disagreement with you is that women can act entitled and expect things but men can't.

[–]JustStatedTheObviousYou Probably Won't Believe It.1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

While you did say both you continue on to degrade the nice guy for wanting/expecting

No, I'm saying he's wanting things on a fantasy level, while earning them with the safest possible techniques. Some of them even feel they're owed happiness for this, which is where the charge of entitlement comes from.

Those who genuinely don't know better, eventually grow out of it. It's why mature men have so much more success than when they were young and clueless.

But some men turn it into an attack.

It's especially difficult to deal with the accusations, if the woman is just as naive about everything as he is, and she has no clue either why someone who turns her on, isn't the same guy she likes to hang with.

If he joins up with something like /r/incels, then he's just a bullet dodged. Hopefully, he wakes the fuck up one day, instead burying his head up his ass, or using more bullets.

[–]wageovsin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The rules for lust they are in denial about. Even if they take the black. And feel like a genetic freak. They wish society would change its standards.. personally nice guys are like closeted genderfluids, because well effeminate men being hated bye even SJWs is still common thought.. they lack courage to accept they are not masculine and work with it.

[–]pinkgoldrose1 point2 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

I think the point is that friendship is a positive thing. Man wants to sleep with woman, woman gives him friendship instead... man gets smiles and cookies. Are you saying there are real downsides and dangers to having a friend?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS6 points7 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

I think the point is that friendship is a positive thing.

That's the problem with women - they truly think that their friendship is an awesome substitution when a guy simply wants a relationship.

Apart from the fact that these friendships tend to be pretty lopsided as a rule. Even if they aren't just an insincere attempt not to lose out on the perks of the guy's courtship but come from a place of genuine desire to keep the friendship going, it still doesn't change the fact that she gets 100% of what she wants (i.e. she neither has to compromise nor to miss out on something she wants) while he doesn't. Add to this the very real possibility that she starts dating someone and he is on the sidelines, having to witness all this, despite still having feelings for her.

To illustrate why this sucks and how much: Imagine a guy you're in a FWB-relationship with, and the sex is really great (yeah, I know you don't do these things, but for the sake of the argument imagine you were in such a situation). The thing is that you also really really really want a proper relationship with that guy - with girlfriend privileges, commitment, and the potential for something truly long term developing.

However, guy rejects you but offers you to continue the FWB relationship. And when you complain that this is not what you want, he argues that you're still friends and that to his knowledge the sex is awesome. Basically, he says that while you don't get everything you want, you still get part of it. At the same time, he gets everything he wants without having to compromise or miss out on something, and when he meets his soulmate, he can start dating her right in front of your nose, because after all you aren't in a proper relationship and never were.

Would you think that this is a great deal, a fair deal, a good substitution for what you actually want? Or would you feel as if you were taken for a ride?

[–]pinkgoldrose3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

That's the problem with women - they truly think that their friendship is an awesome substitution when a guy simply wants a relationship.

No, that's the problem with men. No one else confuses the two.

If you don't want friendships and only want relationships, fine, but that's lonely life.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS4 points5 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Apparently you stopped reading after this or you don't want to admit that a friendship with a woman isn't awesome per se, but can actually be a pretty sucky arrangement. You conspicuously avoided answering my question at the end.

And I am fine with friendships - if that's all I want from that person.

[–]pinkgoldrose1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I read it all, and my short answer addressed all of what you said. I didn't answer your question at the end because it would have been an infuriated rant. Want to hear my infuriated rant?

"FWB" is not in my vocabulary, I see it as some trashy word trashy people use. You can sleep with someone without being boyfriend-girlfriend, but why use a dumb label like "FWB"? It's a relationship or it's not. You don't even need a label, you know if you're dating someone, you know if it's exclusive, and you only need the boyfriend-girlfriend label when you need a word to talk about them to your friends and family.

Also, what the fuck are girlfriend privileges? I've never had a single privilege from being anyone's girlfriend. They got my commitment, not the other way around. I could have slept around, they couldn't have. This exclusivity thing was only really me not being allowed to flirt and run off with other guys. Guys with no options being possessive of their girlfriends. Absolutely no "girlfriend privilege".

Let's rephrase your question using different words. A guy I'm dating announces that he doesn't want to date me for real after all. He says we can still have sex, but the relationship has no future and he doesn't love me and never will and he wants to see other girls. It's a breakup. No problem. I'll say no thank you to the sex offer.

Why would I say no to sex? Because I don't like sex and because sex is risky. Why would anyone say no to friendship? What's so unpleasant or dangerous about having people be friendly to you? Do you seriously have too many friends? Do you not know that you can have multiple friends and that one more won't hurt?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I didn't answer your question at the end because it would have been an infuriated rant.

Yeah, because you didn't try to imagine yourself in this particular situation.

You operated from your personal perspective that sex isn't your thing and that you would never enter a relationship based on casual sex. Which is perfectly legitimate, but coupled with a lack of imagination it rendered you thoroughly unable (and also unwilling, I might add) to understand what I was getting at.

Also, what the fuck are girlfriend privileges?

The things that come or should come with being someone's S.O.

Commitment. Exclusivity. Shared quality time (also beyond sex). Emotional intimacy. That you're a priority for the other person. Transparency - not just towards each other, but also towards third parties, i.e. him calling you his girlfriend and you being able to call him your boyfriend. The potential for the relationship being permanent (granted, this is a wobbly for plenty of relationships).

All the things that set a romantic relationship apart from a purely physical one.

but why use a dumb label like "FWB"?

Because girl-/boyfriend privileges are not mandatory and usually they aren't really involved as well. Also, slap another name on it - "casual sex", "affair", "noncommital sexual relationship", "fuckbuddies" or whatever else there is. You not liking the term doesn't change the fact that such an arrangement exists.

Let's rephrase your question using different words. A guy I'm dating announces that he doesn't want to date me for real after all. He says we can still have sex, but the relationship has no future and he doesn't love me and never will and he wants to see other girls. It's a breakup.

No, you didn't rephrase the question using different words, you radically changed the setup, and did so in a way that meant that you actually had a relationship and he broke up with you. That's something entirely different from the problem at hand.

The gender-flipped equivalent of this would be a woman who was in a relationship with a guy, breaks up with him but then attempts to "stay friends" (whatever this may mean in that context) with him afterwards. Friendzoning relationships have an entirely different dynamic, the most important factor being that they were never intimate to begin with because the girl never felt romantic and sexual attraction towards the guy.

And that is the point of my little scenario. A more... conventional woman might have gotten behind my reasoning, but apparently I was directing my words at the wrong person.

[–]pinkgoldrose1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

How can you have sex without shared quality time and emotional intimacy? Meet dick first with blindfolds on and separate as soon as the dick is done? This is ridiculous.

"fuckbuddies" lol no. There's always a relationship and if it's a crappy one where the shared quality time and emotional intimacy suck, then it's a relationship to break up.

The commitment and exclusivity - that's for the guy. It's the guy who doesn't want his girlfriend to fuck other guys and he can't fuck other girls so he's not giving up anything.

My answer was crystal clear from the start. It holds in one line. "If you don't want friendships and only want relationships, fine, but that's lonely life." ---> That applies to your little trashy scenario too, except it doesn't suck to have no "FWB". That doesn't suck at all.

You didn't answer any of my questions. You're just unsatisfied and controlling.

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm totally with you, except I really like the term "friends with benefits". You don't seem to have a problem with the arrangement, so why do you think the term for it is trashy? Do you have a better way to describe it?

[–]pinkgoldrose0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know, I just find it grating that we have to have a discussion for friends with benefit as if that's a term as universal as friend. I just wanted to avoid directly addressing the friends with benefit label, but then the reddit user pressed me to answer the question regarding friends with benefit specifically.

I don't like the term because friendship always come with benefits and it's a weird euphemism to use benefits meaning sex. If you sleep with someone once, it's not a relationship. If you have an arrangement where you sleep with someone on the regular, that's a relationship. Each relationship is different and can be more or less casual. I'm not sure we need a word to define a relationship that's devoid of feelings specifically. We don't call lovers who don't sleep together lovers without benefit.

Maybe I'm not up with the times, but I don't understand this "girlfriend privileges" thing. It's kind of just the things that happen when you have feelings for someone. It's not something you unlock by signing a contract (unlike marriage) or earning whip points.

[–]circlhat5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

If the friendship is truly reciprocal , but in most cases it's one sided were the guy buys everything and listen to the girls problems

[–]pinkgoldrose1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Most cases?

I don't know of any friendship where the guy buys stuff. Friendships are mostly free - hanging out at school or at work. When friends go to the cinema or the restaurant, each pay their own.

Usually it's the guy in the friendzone who uses the girl as an emotional tampon to fill the girlfriend-shaped void in his life, or because he can't talk about his feelings to his male friends.

[–]circlhat3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Or because he likes her , but doesn't want just sex, some guys are dating women but not sleeping with them because they think this is natural progression, rather than try and degrade them and make them out to be monsters, tell them never buy a women anything.

Of course women want free things and women say they want nice guys when they want something, manipulation is normal , men do it just as much

[–]pinkgoldrose2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If two people are dating but not sleeping together, that's not friendzone, that's just dating.

The situation you describe - a situation where a woman dates a guy to make him buy her stuff without sleeping with them - is a rare one and one I've never seen in real life.

[–]circlhat2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's friend zone when it's not romantic

[–]pinkgoldrose1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Non romantic friends don't buy each other things. I don't know where you're getting at. Where are these women who "want free things" and get their friends to buy them stuff?

[–]AnarchkittyBetter dead than Red0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I have more friends who are women than men, and even the ones I'm sleeping with pay their share. The only time I buy them things is birthdays, same as my guy friends (because I like giving presents).

A "friendship" where one person pays for everything and does everything is a really unhealthy friendship regardless of genders. I don't know anyone in my entire life that is in that situation though. I'm sure it happens, but it's not exactly common.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community5 points6 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Minus the risk of pregnancy. And STD. And judgement. And, if you're the kind to get emotionally attached, the risk of serious heartbreak.

This is a poor counter argument. Firstly, she doesn't have to be a mom or get pregnant if she isn't stupid. Women fought for the right to have birth control. If you feel sex with a guy you didn't commit to is risking pregnancy, you are not practicing safe sex. It would be different a few hundred years ago, though. Plenty of people get laid on the regular without getting pregnant or getting STDs.

And as for judgement... I don't know if there is a sluthate sub like there is a sub dedicated to shaming nice guys. Women aren't exactly sympathetic to the plight of nicr guys yet slut shaming may as well be an attack on womanhood. So maybe women should stop giving out sex easily then complaining that no man will commit.

Oh, wait. They're nothing alike. And men who insist otherwise, still live in a childish fantasy world.

This is exactly that sexual entitlement that OP was referring to. Any time men talk about their sexual issues, such as this, they are living in a fantasy world? It is fine to point out they are different but not to claim they have no basis to highlight issues from their perspective. Just because women risk an accidental pregnancy doesn't mean we should write off the challenges men face.

[–]aznphenix3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

To be entirely fair the nice guys sub isn't making fun of actual nice guys being nice, but the ones that turn venomous when you reject them or them being somewhat difficult awkward, and its not to witch hunt any of the guys since names and i think pictures will get blotted out.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know if that is fair considering no one is unkind to the women who complain about where the nice guys have gone then hate on men. If you did what you were told would gain you success in the SMP, after a while you too would be pissed off when it isn't working. They think men's reactions are as a result of women not playing along, but they were told women would and that it's okay for them to seek romantic relationships.

[–]aznphenix1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why is it not fair? Women aren't being mean to individual men for rejecting them or anything similar to what happens on the 'nice guys' sub. This is only a defense of the sub and what happens there, not the entire concepts in general. People consider it bad character regardless of being a man or woman if you react poorly after being rejected.

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There are also nicegirls featured on the niceguys sub too.

[–]JustStatedTheObviousYou Probably Won't Believe It.4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Firstly, she doesn't have to be a mom or get pregnant if she isn't stupid.

And if the guy uses the condom correctly. And if she's not pro-life.

And as for judgement... I don't know if there is a sluthate sub

/r/MGTOW, /r/incels, too many posts in /r/theredpill. They're just all too full of shit to admit it.

Women aren't exactly sympathetic to the plight of nicr guys

It's nothing to do with them being nice, and everything to do with them trying to get sex/romance with it. Whether that's making fun of them for being entitled (some are) or just being stupid (this isn't something people with good social instincts struggle with), you're asking that it be compared to consenting adults having fun together.

And most of the slut shaming is coming from men who whine that it's hard to get laid. That kind of brain damage is going to be mocked, because evolution works.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And if the guy uses the condom correctly. And if she's not pro-life.

If you can't see what he is doing with the condom, switch on the light. Also, sleeping with a guy who you don't know the STD status of might not be a good idea if you cannot trust him with a condom. If all else fails, there are female condoms and the morning after pill.

/r/MGTOW, /r/incels, too many posts in /r/theredpill. They're just all too full of shit to admit it.

Sure, they don't hold sluts in high regard. But they exist for other reasons, with slutty women being part of a bigger problem. They have other goals, such as sexual strategy, self fulfillment and lamenting their poor dating chances. This is like saying a fitness sub is full of shit for highlighting poor eating habits among fat people and is really hating on fat people.

It's nothing to do with them being nice, and everything to do with them trying to get sex/romance with it.

So, how else should they go about getting sex or romance? They're trying to be nice about it. Should they be assholes? One of the things they accuse these guys of is being nice when they aren't actually nice. But should they be walking up to women, being mean, shitty or even sexist in the hopes of getting laid? Are men NOT supposed to try to get love or sex? And it requires some serious mental gymnastics to assume that he is trying to get romantic attention from someone he doesn't like. Why be shitty to people you like and want to sleep with?

And most of the slut shaming is coming from men who whine that it's hard to get laid. That kind of brain damage is going to be mocked, because evolution works.

Sure, but then those guys are unattractive or have bad attitudes or both. Which is very different from a nice guy trying to get the romantic interest of a girl he likes. Calling him entitled for being nice is actually going to get you more guys complaining that women are terrible. If they aren't responding to nice, then what? Should they be assholes? Will that work?

They've been told their whole lives that if they want to attract a woman's attention, they should be nice and respectful towards her, not that they need to hit the gym and develop a DGAF attitude. What do you think is going to happen when they get repeatedly rejected?

[–]single_use_accTaupe Enema2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And if the guy uses the condom correctly.

Yes, the condom: the one and only form of birth control available!

Funny how women insist only they have control and ownership of their body...

...until they fuck up, and then suddenly men have to take responsibility for her stupidity.

[–]circlhat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's nothing to do with them being nice, and everything to do with them trying to get sex/romance with it.

That is not the issue, the issue is entitlement, which most guys aren't women want nice guys to give them support but don't want to give anything in return, they aren't obligated but men do have a right to ask questions and expression their frustration just like women

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know if there is a sluthate sub like there is a sub dedicated to shaming nice guys.

It's called TRP, MGTOW, incels.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth31 points32 points  (41 children) | Copy Link

I'll CYV....

"Where have all the good men gone" is not a reflection of entitlement, it actually corresponds with a change in reality for women as they age. It's a good description of where many women post 30 find themselves.

So.... here is how it occurs....

Men (at all ages) are preferentially attracted to women in their early to late 20s. Men aged 20, 30, 40, whatever. They all prefer girls in their 20s. Women preferentially are attracted to men their own age -2 to +5 years. This is supported anecdotally and by such data as we have access to. This is what RP says.

Also, men tend to get married late 20s-early 30s. Again, supported by anecdote, data and the RP position.

Now you have to think about how this appears to women.

Aged 18-28 every man on the planet is interested in them (or as interested as they're gonna be) ages 18-85 are interested in these chicks. Women are in their happy hunting ground. They are surrounded by eligible men of all ages who want to date them. Importantly ALSO the men they are most interested in (those aged -2+5 to their age) are still unmarried, even the really "good" ones (high status, good looks, willingness to commit etc etc).

They are surrounded by "good men who want to date me".

Now, let's fast forward a decade or so and start talking about the women who are still single aged, say, 32-40. What do THEY experience ?

Well..... First, all the "good men" in their preferred age group (-2/+5) have started to be snagged by women who are not single. Either married or in the LTR that will eventually lead to their marriage.

Even where there are some "good men" in their age range who are still single.... these guys are attracted to girls 22-29 and because they are "good men" (high status, good looks, eillingness to commit etc) they can easily date down there and are no longer hunting amongst these post 30's women.

Finally the guys 20-28 who are still unsnapped up and "good men" are not very attractive to the late 30s girls as they are too young and immature and (in any case) are also dating the girls they like in their 20s.

What the women are left with are the "bad men" in their age group (those that didn't get snagged, and are too low status/unattractive/unwilling to commit to date down to women in their 20s) as well as a bunch of men in their 40s and 50s who would date 30 yo women (being the best they can get, as 20s is too much of a stretch for them now) but who appear "way too old and grey and paunchy" for the 30s crowd. All the good men have indeed gone.

These are the phenomena RP talks about with "the wall" or women "approaching the wall". These women are no longer in their happy hunting ground.

To a woman the phrase "where did all the good men go?" perfectly describes their predicament in their 30s as with their egg timer going BRING BRIIIIIING, and then desperately needing a good man to be their hubby QUICKLY.... they suddenly look around and there are no good men. Or there are like 1-5% as many as there were just a few short years ago. The guys who are still interested are too unattractive, low status, unwilling to commit (if in their age range).... just not interested (if younger).... or just tooo fucking old grey and paunchy and low quality (if older), as the higher quality ones in that age group got married long ago

The answer to their question "where have all the good men gone?" Is simple.... They're either snagged/married (by those girls who snagged their man early), or dating women younger than them, or now in such an older age group that they are no longer attractive and of such low quality that they're 40+ and not married or multiple-divorcees and so no longer good men.

The flip side of this on the male side is the male expression "Hey, it is sooooo much easier to get girls now I'm in my early 30s than it was in my early 20s". As women exit their happy hunting ground, the men enter theirs.

So. This is not an expression of "entitlement" at all. It's simply an expression of the real circumstances they find themselves in ages 30+ and single (which are the women that say this). They have a very astute and accurate view of reality, the "good men" from their perspective are indeed gone and won't be coming nack.

OnlyRP... with its understanding of male/female sexual strategy... can really tell them why. This is a mystery to the BP world ... hung up as it is in a fantasy land where "older women are just as attractive as younger women" and where "girls should have fun in their 20s and only look to settle down in their 30s". They are totally missing this dynamic.

Only RP (the female flavour advising the chicks) really says "Hey girls, hunt for the good men young and snag them as soon as you can. Don't waste time fucking around. The prime time for you to snag your hubby is 20-24. Don't waste your pretty".

This isn't entitlement.

This is 30+ women realising they got screwed over by mainstream advice and trying to work out how it happened.

Only RP can outline precisely why.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 11 points12 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

I don't think our arguments are contradictory. I actually think they're highly compatible.

Indeed, if you're right (and to an extent you certainly are), that actually makes WHATGMG discourse even more entitled because it consists of women demanding that men go against their natural biological inclinations for the sake of women.

Of course many women who ask "where have all the good men gone?" are not entitled (they're just bewildered/disillusioned/disappointed). Like I said, the entitlement complex is found in the mainstream media discourse (as I pointed out), and this is what I was criticizing.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth13 points14 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Indeed, if you're right (and to an extent you certainly are), that actually makes WHATGMG discourse even more entitled because it consists of women demanding that men go against their natural biological inclinations for the sake of women

Where is the demand ? Asking WHATGMG does not imply good men must make themselves available. It's not a demand that men do anything.... it's a question concerning "how did I get here?" and also a lament.

Where is the demand that men do anything ?

Just as I would say the male reversed version.... "Hey, I find it a lot easier getting chicks in my 30s than in my 20s".... is not a demand that women go against their natures and date loads of early 20s men they are not attracted to. It's also an observation, and perhaps a lament (for the early 20s them).

This is not like the statement "REAL men wouldn't be afraid of commitment" or "REAL men wouldn't be intimidated by the fact I'm 300lb" etc. Those are examples of entitlement. Demands men conform to what that women wants.

"Where have all the good men gone?" isn't. It's a question that exposes a real attribute of the real world for those women that say it (generally the 30+ crowd).

Of course many women who ask "where have all the good men gone?" are not entitled (they're just bewildered/disillusioned/disappointed). Like I said, the entitlement complex is found in the mainstream media discourse (as I pointed out), and this is what I was criticizing

Then you chose the wrong phrase.

This one isn't a demand, an entitlement, a way of shaming men into conforming to female preferences.

"REAL men should...." is.

"Men who don't X are just baby manchilds" is.

"Men who don't like fat women are intimidated" is.

There are tons of other examples where you'd be right.

This example is a realisation of older women's realities, it's not an attempt to shame men into other behaviour more amenable to women as the other examples I gave are.

No more so than the RP "pro-active advice" version of this.... Don't waste your pretty... is an expression of entitlement.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Where is the demand ? Asking WHATGMG does not imply good men must make themselves available. It's not a demand that men do anything.... it's a question concerning "how did I get here?" and also a lament.

He said it in the article he linked (since you commented on a lot of issues he actually broached in his blogpost, I suspect that you didn't read it in-depth).

He also said that a woman sincerely wondering about the lack of eligible men isn't necessarily entitled, but then he described the general media phenomenon is one of women approaching middle age as a demographic are in some way entitled to men changing themselves to suit their needs and priorities.

Then you chose the wrong phrase.

This one isn't a demand, an entitlement, a way of shaming men into conforming to female preferences.

"REAL men should...." is.

"Men who don't X are just baby manchilds" is.

"Men who don't like fat women are intimidated" is.

There are tons of other examples where you'd be right.

He also commented on this.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Then he chose the wrong phrase to use as his example.

If he'd titled the thread and/or used those other examples in his OP.... He'd have found complete agreement from me.

He didn't.

He's got to defend what he DID use....OR.... Change his view.

Changing his view to "Well, OK TGP is right about WHATGMG. My view is changed on that.... BUT.... My OP is still valid for 'REAL men would.....'" is changing his view.

In this case changing it to something I'd agree with him on.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Of course many women who ask "where have all the good men gone?" are not entitled (they're just bewildered/disillusioned/disappointed).

But they ARE entitled. They could get tons of guys, but they want "good men", and by "good men", they mean "hot men".

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

No, they don't.

If thats what they meant they'd have said "Where have all the Hot Men gone?"

Women are perfectly capable of making the distinction. And frequently DO very much make the distinction.

You don't have to believe me.... or even "unenlightened" BP women.... Go ask one of the RPW's RPWi's.

Even the red pill women will quite happily tell you that "good men" and "hot men" both mean radically different things to them, and almost all other women too.

Consider this part of your learning journey.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

To this cohort, "Good" = "Hot"

WHATGMG really means "where have all the attractive, kind, nice, high status, men with jobs and money gone?"

"Sexually attractive" is a necessary component of "good" to this cohort. Because if a man isn't sexually attractive, he isn't "good", in the view of these women.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I've got no problem with that. This is what they are saying.

Girls want a man they find attractive, just as men want an attractive woman. There's no doubt thats part of what they mean.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No, they don't.

Can you stop it with this dismissive "Nope, you're just wrong" stuff?

If thats what they meant they'd have said "Where have all the Hot Men gone?"

Except women dont like appearing shallow, so they change up the words a little bit. People still know what they mean, but to their brains, it doesnt break the illusion that they're innocent angels.

https://i.imgur.com/Oj9IRsM.png

Consider this part of your learning journey.

Wow this isnt condescending at all. /s

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Can you stop it with this dismissive "Nope, you're just wrong" stuff?

No. Not if you're wrong.

Except women dont like appearing shallow, so they change up the words a little bit.

Thats a valid hypothesis I suppose. If it wasn;t belied by the fact that when then going on to discuss the kind of "good men" they are missing.... the females go on to describe men who are "willing to commit".

Because thats what they're looking for when they are only a few years away from those eggs going off... and losing their once in a lifetime opportunity to have the babies they crave in that house with the white picket fence.

People still know what they mean, but to their brains, it doesnt break the illusion that they're innocent angels.

This is not about innocent angels, or women trying to pretend they are them (which, to be fair, they do).

It's about what a womens desires are in their 30's and especially late 30's.... and what THOSE are are "Get a Baby inside me and a Hubby who can help me raise it" thats the kind of "good man" they are looking for in their 30's.

If that guy is ALSO Chad.... then cool.

But at that point they'd rather have the hubby(+)baby(-)Chad..... than have Chad(-)hubby(-)baby.

The cock Carousel and Chad are for women in their 20's.

Women in their 30's WANT THAT BABY. They get the baby rabies.

This is the source of the good men gone lament... Not an atempt to hide their hot men desire.

Wow this isnt condescending at all. /s

If you're gonna chat to me you're gonna get used to being condescended to.

I'm a long term RP contributor who is over 40 years old, has had a long and varied sex life including multiple women, and now has a wife, a 10 year successful marriage and two kids.

You're a guy trying to tell me how women's brains work, with a history of posting on /r/incels, /r/foreveralone and /r/virgin.

Jesus Christ, I've probably been with my wife for 2-3x the period you've been sexually mature. Let alone the years of my single/dating life before that.

Yeah. You're going to get condescended to, son.

I've talked the talk for a hell of a lot longer than you... even developed some of what RP theory is (at least married RP)...... AND I've also walked the walk.

When little old incel you tells me you know women better than I do, you're going to get condescended to pretty hard. Sorry. Thems the breaks I'm afraid.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nope. You're wrong :)

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed here

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

is not a reflection of entitlement, it actually corresponds with a change in reality for women as they age. It's a good description of where many women post 30 find themselves.

But it IS entitlement. Their SMV becomes very much lowered once they reach 30, but they STILL want the 10\10 turboChads and nothing else.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth6 points7 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Of course they want the guys they want.

Thats not entitlement. They can want whoever they like, as can men.

Demanding the world give them what they want is entitlement. But WHATGMG is not a demand. It's not an insistence that they get good men, it's a lament asking where they went.

The cry of "Where have all the good men gone ?" isn't entitlement, is just an honest reflection of the dating market as over 30's women find it.

Thats not to say women (or men for that matter) don't act entitled.... "REAL men would commit to me even though I'm a 300lb landwhale" is an entitled statement... "Women should stop dating jerks and date nice guys like me" is an entitled statement. The internet and female/male dating articles are full of entitled statements. This just isn't one of them.

Just as "Why do women date jerks ?" isn't entitled... "Where have all the good men gone ?" isn't entitled either.

To make those entitled statements they would have to be (respectively)... "Women should date nice guys like me!" and "Good guys should still be dating me!"

It's not even as if, as you state, that women are thinking 10/10 Chads when they say "Good Men". They aren't.

The very statement itself recognises that there were good men available earlier in their life....That they were there once, but now they've gone. If they were always looking for 10/10 chads this wouldn't have been true, they'd always have been unavailable to almost all women.

They are in essence saying "When I was in my 20's there were plenty of decent looking, reasonable status guys who were open to committing with me.... Now I'm in my 30's there aren't any more.... Where did they go ?". Thats what WHATGMG is saying.

The answer to which is.... "They got married luv, back in their late 20's. And those that didn't, are now dating younger girls because they can, because they're good men. Thats how the female dating market works. Don't say RP didn't warn you. If you'd have listened to the RPWs when they said don't waste your pretty you wouldn't be in this place now. But you didn't listen and here you are. And it's a one way street, you can't go back. If anything it only gets worse and worse from here on out.".

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Of course they want the guys they want. Thats not entitlement. They can want whoever they like, as can men. Demanding the world give them what they want is entitlement.

These 30yo women past their prime are demanding stud hot men in their 20s. That's entitlement. Dont try to twist things around to defend these women.

Thats not to say women (or men for that matter) don't act entitled.... "REAL men would commit to me even though I'm a 300lb landwhale" is an entitled statement...

Just like saying "Attractive 20yo men should commit to me even though I'm a 30yo+ woman past her prime" is entitlement.

"Good guys should still be dating me!"

It's fucking AMAZING the lengths your mental gymnastics will go just to defend any and all women. What purpose do you think it has that women complain about there not being any "good men"? They WANT these "good men" to date THEM. It's the same fucking thing, except just because they're women, you're saying they're innocent.

The very statement itself recognises that there were good men available earlier in their life....That they were there once, but now they've gone. If they were always looking for 10/10 chads this wouldn't have been true, they'd always have been unavailable to almost all women.

That's not true. Seldom, even average women can have access to a top-tier hot guy in bars\clubs.

They are in essence saying "When I was in my 20's there were plenty of decent looking, reasonable status guys who were open to committing with me.... Now I'm in my 30's there aren't any more.... Where did they go ?". Thats what WHATGMG is saying.

But they're also IMPLYING THAT THOSE GUYS SHOULD DATE THEM NOW..

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth9 points10 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

These 30yo women past their prime are demanding stud hot men in their 20s. That's entitlement. Dont try to twist things around to defend these women.

No they're not. Thats you projecting your male patterned desire onto females. Female desire doesn't work that way.

For example women in their 30's are generally NOT all that interested in 20 yo men. Women are attracted to men -2/+5 years from their own age. It's MEN who are always attracted to men in their 20's (regardless of the males age).

For a 35 yo women the most attractive men are roughly....age 33-40 men.

When a mid/late 30s woman laments WHATTGMG.... A "Good Man" is not an early 20's chad.

A "Good Man" to that woman is "A man aged 33-40 who is reasonably good looking, high status and ready to commit to me, get married, have babies, and be a good husband/father".

They are "the good men" they are lamenting they can't find. NOT early 20 chads.

If a mid-late 30s MAN said "Where have all the good women gone" thats what HE'D mean.... where are all the hot young babes ?.... But in thinking this is what women mean you are projecting male desires on women. Thats not how it works. The whole essence of RP is that we're different. The two sexes are not the same. You're failing to understand properly that core insight.

I'm not defending them. I'm trying to point out to you that you've made some REALLY faulty assumptions here. And at the core of them is your assumption is that "Early 30's women want the same thing early 30's men want.... Hot young things". Thats just plain not true. Thats not what they mean by "good men" in that statement.

Just like saying "Attractive 20yo men should commit to me even though I'm a 30yo+ woman past her prime" is entitlement.

Yes, if thats what they were saying it would definitely be entitlement. Thats not what they are saying with WHATGMG.

They are not saying "hot young studs should still commit to me".... They are saying "Where have all the men I want to commit to me gone ?"

Thats not a demand that they commit to them.... it's a question trying to figure out where they went. To which RP has the answer, but to which BP world does not.

Just as a man saying "Why do women date Jerks ?" is asking a question to which only RP and not BP has the answer. He isn't entitled too. Just like the women he is trying to figure out what the hell just happened.

He's only entitled if he changes fromt hat question to a demand and says "Women should stop dating jerks, and date nice guys like me!".... But he's not saying that.... He's asking a question and searching for an answer that only RP can give. Just like the women are with their question.

Don't let your misogyny blind you. There are plenty of real examples of entitled women you can sink your teeth into if thats what you want to do. You don't have to make up examples where they aren't warranted, and here it's not warranted.

It's fucking AMAZING the lengths your mental gymnastics will go just to defend any and all women.

I'm not defending any and all women.

I gave you plenty of examples of things that plenty of women say that are plenty entitled. I wouldn't defend any of them.

I'm defending this statement.... Because YOU have misread it. And in doing so you are actually missing core RP insights concerning The Wall in order to stampede to a different conclusion thats completely unwarranted in this instance.

Like I've said multiple times... The girls saying "REAL men would date a 300lb woman" are entitled... The girls saying "REAL men would commit to me" are entitled.... The girls saying "Men who don't do X that I want them to do are nothing but mewling man-childs/man-babys" are entitled.

The internet is replete with women doing that. Had you attacked them, you'd have found me commenting in agreement.

You didn't. You took on this statement.

THIS statement is not actually an example of female entitlement.... THIS statement is in fact a primie-facie piece of evidence for the existence of the RP concept "The Wall".... and in your stampede to crowbar this into your need to say women are entitled (where it does not belong) you are overlooking a really great piece of evidence you can use to show BP worls that the RP-concept called "the Wall" really does exist.

What purpose do you think it has that women complain about there not being any "good men"? They WANT these "good men" to date THEM.

Yes, just as YOU want the "hot girls" to date you. Thats not entitlement is it ? You really DO want the hot girls to date you.

It becomes entitlement when you say "The hot girls SHOULD date me" instead of "Why aren't the hot girls dating me ?".

It's not entitlement to say the latter. Thats a question. A question almost every RP subscriber asks. Asking that question is not entitlement, and nor is women asking their question.

Entitlement requires another phrasing. For both the men and the women (They should....)

It's the same fucking thing, except just because they're women, you're saying they're innocent.

It's not.

A guy turning up and saying "Why aren't the hot girls dating nice guys like me ?" isn't entitled. It's a perfectly valid question. Just as is "Why aren't the good guys dating me ?".

He'd need to say "Women should date a nice guy like me" to be entitled....and RP would point that out to him. And the women would need to say "The good guys should be dating me even though I'm post 30" to be entitled. Thats NOT WHATGMG.

WHATGMG is a question seeking an answer.

They keep asking it because BP world can't provide them a satisfactory answer. Only RP can.

Just as only RP can provide the guy asking "Why won't the hot girls date a nice guy like me ?" a satisfactory answer.

That's not true. Seldom, even average women can have access to a top-tier hot guy in bars\clubs.

But hey're NOt the "good guys" they are looking for. The question isn't "Where have all the smoking hot guys gone". They're not looking for smoking hot chads. Thats you projecting male desire on them. They're looking for a decent looking guy, with good status, who will commit to them so that they can have babies. Thats what a 30's women means by "good guy".

Thats what they're after. Their egg timer is going BRIIIING BRIIIIING. Very soon they will be too old to have kids. What they mean by a good guy here is NOT a smoking hot chad from teh club who'll pump and dump them. What they mean is a "pretty decent looking guy, with decent status, who will commit" i.e. a good hubby candidate. Thats the kind of guy that has disappeared from their world. Not the chads. Thats the kind of guy they can't find anymore.

But they're also IMPLYING THAT THOSE GUYS SHOULD DATE THEM NOW..

No, they're not.

Any more than a guy asking "Why do women always date jerks ?" is implying they should date him. Or a guy asking "Why can't a nice guy like me land a hot chick ?" is implying he should be able to.

They genuinely do not know why they aren't succeeding.

RP tells them both why that isn;t the case.... for the girls the answer is "You're approaching the wall, and have exited the female happy hunting ground".... and for the guys the answer is "Females actually fancy the kind of dominant male you describe as a jerk, and DO NOT fancy the kind of nice guy you are, which they describe as a wimp".

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

A "Good Man" is not an early 20's chad. A "Good Man" to that woman is "A man aged 33-40 who is reasonably good looking, high status and ready to commit to me, get married, have babies, and be a good husband/father".

Ah yes, we all know how women REALLY love beta providers. /s

If a mid-late 30s MAN said "Where have all the good women gone" thats what HE'D mean.... where are all the hot young babes ?.... But in thinking this is what women mean you are projecting male desires on women. Thats not how it works.

Repeat after me: *"WOMEN ARE INNOCENT AND PERFECT. MEN ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE THE NEGATIVE QUALITIES, NEVER WOMEN. ANYTHING BAD A WOMAN DOES IS ACTUALLY WHAT MEN DO, NEVER WOMEN!"

And at the core of them is your assumption is that "Early 30's women want the same thing early 30's men want.... Hot young things".

Oh so now I'M saying they want the same thing? You're trying to twist my words again.

They are not saying "hot young studs should still commit to me".... They are saying "Where have all the men I want to commit to me gone ?"

Beautiful. Simply beautiful. I'm gonna present this quote without comment, because it's simply a complete lack of self awareness, and the "women are wonderful" effect.

Don't let your misogyny blind you.

Here it is. The cliched insult. The misogyny accusation. Let's take a head count:

  1. Women are wonderful.

  2. You like twisting words to make yourself seem right.

  3. Anyone who criticizes women is a misogynist.

Like I've said multiple times... The girls saying "REAL men would date a 300lb woman" are entitled... The girls saying "REAL men would commit to me" are entitled.... The girls saying "Men who don't do X that I want them to do are nothing but mewling man-childs/man-babys" are entitled.

  1. People like you LOVE arguing over technicalities instead of understanding what the other person said. It's usually done in an attempt to change the subject, when you dont have any counter argument.

Yes, just as YOU want the "hot girls" to date you.

I actually like modest dorky girls, but I (dont) appreciate the assumption that I'm an unrefined animal.

Thats not entitlement is it ?

I'm not a 4\10 guy expecting 10\10 supermodel virgin millionaire women.

You really DO want the hot girls to date you.

It becomes entitlement when you say "The hot girls SHOULD date me" instead of "Why aren't the hot girls dating me ?".

Again arguing over technicalities. You fucking LOVE doing that instead of actually understanding what I'm saying.

But hey're NOt the "good guys" they are looking for.

They absolutely are. They're the 8\10+ guys who they DESPERATELY try to "hook" into a LTR with them. The women who fail to do this are the ones who complain about the "good men" "disappearing" and not wanting anything to do with them.

They're not looking for smoking hot chads.

There are plenty of non-Chad "good" men. If they didnt want Chads, they wouldnt be complaining about there not being any "good men". Prove me wrong.

They're not looking for smoking hot chads. Thats you projecting male desire on them.

How fucking MISANDRIST of you to assume every guy has the same tastes in women, or that every man wants "smoking hot" women.

What they mean by a good guy here is NOT a smoking hot chad from teh club who'll pump and dump them.

No, what they mean is a "hot chad from teh club" who will stay in a LTR with them despite being a Chad.

i.e. a good hubby candidate

hubby

hubby

MASSIVE fucking red flag right here. FUCKING MASSIVE!

No, they're not.

It's not

No they're not.

"Women are always right. Women are always perfect and wonderful. Oh, someone said something bad about women? Nononononononono nope they're wrong nononono nope."

Why can't a nice guy like me land a hot chick ?

Implying "niceguys" only want hot chicks.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Ah yes, we all know how women REALLY love beta providers. /s

I'm not saying they do.

But what they're lamenting with WHATTGMG is the sudden loss of attractive males that want to commit to them.

They were ten a penny WHEN she was 23. But back then she thought "Nah, I've got plenty of time. No need to commit early. I'm going to have fun on the cock carousel".

Then, one day, their egg timer goes BRIIIING BRIIIING and they want to get one of those guys. A "good guy", an "Alpha Bucks", to have kids with.

The kind of guys that, back when she was 23, there were plenty of.

But now she's 33.

She looks around... and can't find them !!! She assumed they'd ALWAYS be there. They were all through her early and late twenties. She thought that would ALWAYS be the case.

But suddenly.... She can't find one. There aren't any around. Just really low value guys who want to commit..... and high value guys who won;t date her as they're dating 23 yo's.

And WHEN THIS HAPPENS They say...

"Fuck. Where did all the good men go ?"

Repeat after me: *"WOMEN ARE INNOCENT AND PERFECT. MEN ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE THE NEGATIVE QUALITIES, NEVER WOMEN. ANYTHING BAD A WOMAN DOES IS ACTUALLY WHAT MEN DO, NEVER WOMEN!"

Are you insane ? I'm an RP guy.

I've been posting here, and on TRP/MRP for about 4 years now. I'm an MRP endorsed contributer FFS.

I am not some noob here, mr 3-month-old account.

You've got the wrong end of the stick.

Having a realistic view of female nature does NOT entail always finding the very worst interpretation of something women say. It involves finding the correct interpretation of something women say, and following that to it's ultimate conclusion whether that is negative/positive/neutral towards women.

Here we've got a statement that is neutral, but contains within it a very teachable moment concerning RP regarding The Wall. And in your incel haste to always hate women as hard as you can you are missing the chance to learn something about women, RP and The Wall.

Oh so now I'M saying they want the same thing? You're trying to twist my words again.

No. You said by "good men" that these 30+ yo women meant "10/10 chads such as the type they could get whilst younger".

Thats NOT what they meant. Thats not what women mean by "Good Men". Thats what they mean when they say "Hot Men".

Generally when they say "Good Men" what they mean is someone who is good looking, of high status, and is willing to commit. What RP calls an Alpha Bucks. What we denote in the classification system (AF/AB/BB/O) as an AB .

A "Great Hubby Candidate", Thats what women mean by "Good Man". The guy with all the sexual appeal of an Alpha Fucks, but ALSO with the traits of a Beta Bucks. An AB.

Beautiful. Simply beautiful. I'm gonna present this quote without comment, because it's simply a complete lack of self awareness, and the "women are wonderful" effect.

Dude, check my flair and my post history.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. I am not the droid you are looking for.

Here it is. The cliched insult. The misogyny accusation.

Yes, it shines from you.

I could see it in you BEFORE I had a look at your post history and found it dripping with posts to /r/incels.

There are plenty of men who are RP and are not misogynists. I'm one. Lots of the guys are.

But there are also lots of us who are RP and are also misogynists (in that, yes, they do hate women). Some of the best posters are of this type too.

I'm used to chatting to RP guys of both types. You are definitely coming across to me as a guy who is BOTH RP and a someone who really dislikes/hates women.

You're striking me, frankly, as a very typical anger phase noob.

You might get past this, get into acceptance phase, you might not.... and TBH I'm not really bothered either way. Some of my best (online) friends are misogynists.

But you are definitely leaning to the hate women end of the spectrum.

I actually like modest dorky girls, but I (dont) appreciate the assumption that I'm an unrefined animal.

Get used to it. RP makes assumptions of males and females based on the bell curves for their sex.

So.... As a male.... I will cheerfully assume you like girls defined as young, hot, with good waist/hip ratios, of ideal weight. At least until you tell me different.

Just as... with a female.... I will cheerfully assume they'd like guys defined as their age + a few years, muscular body, ideal weight, with high status and decent income, tall and with typical male markers like a strong jaw.

These are the default patterns for our sexes. As both male and female porn definitively shows us in no uncertain fashion.

So you like the dorky ones, then.... I'm still betting they are the "ideal weight' dorky ones (not the landwahle dorks).... That they are the young dorky ones (not the 40+ crowd)..... That they are the ones with good waist/hip rations (not the ones that look like boys with no tits).... etc etc.

You are not as special, or as different, as you think you are.

And.... Sorry to be the one to tell you this.... But, yes, you are an animal. As are we all. You are an animal of the genus Homo Sapiens, and this means having MORE than any other animal. Being an animal+some other stuff.

But it DOES NOT mean you have lost any of that animal nature. It's there.

It's just there with a thin patina of a rational brain overlaid over the top. The razor thin icing on your animal cake.

Just like all of us.

Again arguing over technicalities. You fucking LOVE doing that instead of actually understanding what I'm saying.

It's not a technicality. It's the core of my argument.

The argument that I see, incidentally, is now topping the CMV thread indicating that other people see the validity in it too.

I'm not a 4\10 guy expecting 10\10 supermodel virgin millionaire women.

And they aren't 4/10 women expecting 10/10 supermodel chads either. YOU projected THAT desire ON THEM.

They are women (of varying SMV and varying RMV) who are lamenting the fact that they no longer have the access to the high RMV men they used to have access to.

NOT the high-SMV men.... the high RMV men.

Thats the difference. When women say "Hot Guy" they mean high SMV (your chads). When women say "Good Guy" they mean high RMV guys.

There are plenty of non-Chad "good" men. If they didnt want Chads, they wouldnt be complaining about there not being any "good men". Prove me wrong.

The "Good Guys" they are talking about are...

1) About their age 2) Decently good looking 3) High status 4) Commitment Minded

Thats what they mean.

When they're in their mid-30s THOSE GUYS ARE GONE.

Because they were good looking and high status LOADS of girls were interested in them in their 20's. Because they were commitment minded... THEY MADE A COMMITMENT to one of those girls.

They are no longer available to that mid-30s girl.

What she has left are guys who only (perhaps) have 2 of that list at best. They are not "good guys"..... aged 35 it's no good to the girl if he's hot and high status (but he won't commit) they need a guy who'll commit so they can have a hubby, babies and the white picket fence.

It's no good to them if he'll commit.... but he's ugly and low status.... thats NOT a good guy in their book.

It's no good to them if he's high status, and ready to commit.... but 55 years old. They don't want guys that old. They might well die off before baby leaves home, and they're not all that attractive.

How fucking MISANDRIST of you to assume every guy has the same tastes in women, or that every man wants "smoking hot" women.

No more misandrist to assume every guy wants a young chick.... than it is to assume every woman wants a good guy.

This is best explained to you via data. A survey of OKCupid members...

FYI....

The ages women find most attractive (generally their age or so) across ALL aged women.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--nsTbXpTu--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1439100617445469356.jpg

The ages MEN find attractive from the same survey. Notice the difference ?

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--pz4eck-6--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1439100617563564204.jpg

Men and Women are just wired differently.

Welcome to RP, my friend.

No, what they mean is a "hot chad from teh club" who will stay in a LTR with them despite being a Chad.

Nope. Look at the charts above. They aren't looking for a Hot young Chad. They're looking for a guy their own age.

Men and Women are wired differently.

MASSIVE fucking red flag right here. FUCKING MASSIVE!

Nope. We're getting into the area now of "AB Strategy" versus "AF/BB Strategy".

I'm talking about AB strategy, and you are assuming all women follow AF/BB strategy. They don't.

Thats their fallback when AB strategy fails.

This chick.... the one saying.... "Where have all the good men gone ?'.... She's going to fall back on AF/BB. Because the ABs/Good Men ARE all gone for her.

And really.... with your incel posting history... you are right to be concerned about AF/BB. Because you're going to end up BB if you are not careful.

But for others amongst us... thats not so much a concern.... because we're better setup than that. We can be/are ABs.

"Women are always right. Women are always perfect and wonderful. Oh, someone said something bad about women? Nononononononono nope they're wrong nononono nope."

I'll say it again. I'm not the noob here Mr-3-Month-Old-Account.

I wouldn't bet on your judgement over mine concerning who has the naive view of women here.

Implying "niceguys" only want hot chicks.

Implying that....even nice guys.... when presented the chance to have a hot chick, or to have a not nearly so hot chick, would generally go with the hot chick.

I be when you go browse your porn almost all the women you jerk off to are 8-9-10/10 chicks.

You'd be an odd duck indeed if you were seeking out 2-3-4/10 chicks to jerk off to.

See, you're just like the rest of us after all.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

"Fuck. Where did all the good men go ?"

And they say that because they want to date those guys. If they didnt care, they wouldnt complain. They're complaining because those guys that they want are out of their reach.

And in your incel haste to always hate women as hard as you can

Yes, it [misogyny] shines from you.

BEFORE I had a look at your post history

you are definitely leaning to the hate women end

Lol, you dont sound RP at all.

You are definitely coming across to me as a guy who is BOTH RP and a someone who really dislikes/hates women.

I dont dislike women just because they have vaginas. I dislike stupid shit people do, regardless of their genitals.

So you like the dorky ones, then.... I'm still betting they are the "ideal weight' dorky ones (not the landwahle dorks)

Joke's on you I'm into landwhales. What now? What other things are you gonna come up with to try to invalidate me?

But, yes, you are an animal. As are we all. You are an animal of the genus Homo Sapiens

Humans are RATIONAL animals. What the fuck is it with you and purposefully seeing the forest for the trees. You purposefully focus on ONE tiny detail and act like you destroyed my argument.

And they aren't 4/10 women expecting 10/10 supermodel chads either. YOU projected THAT desire ON THEM.

https://imgur.com/a/NM6D0

k den

The ages women find most attractive

The ages women find most attractive

You do realize you're citing GAWKER of all things. One of THE most anti-male biased outlets out there.

with your incel posting history

Again with the personal insults.

But for others amongst us

Again with the condescension.

I'm not the noob here Mr-3-Month-Old-Account.

"MY ACCOUNT IS OLDER SO IM AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT!"

I be when you go browse your porn almost all the women you jerk off to are 8-9-10/10 chicks.

You'd think you'd have fucking learned after I said I exclusively like nerdy\dorky chicks.

See, you're just like the rest of us after all.

"HAHA YOU'RE AN ANIMAL TOO YOU LIKE 10\10 VIRGIN SUPERMODELS TOO!"

"Not really, I'm more into modest women."

"HAHAHA SEE YOU'RE JUST LIKE US TOLD YOU"

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

And they say that because they want to date those guys. If they didnt care, they wouldnt complain. They're complaining because those guys that they want are out of their reach.

No, they want to MARRY thoe guys (at that age) not date them. You've heard of the female biological clock, right ?

If they don't have babies by the time they're 40 they're pretty much DONE.

At those ages they are looking for guys who'll commit and have those babies. NOT just hot guys to date.

Lol, you dont sound RP at all.

Not even all the wall stuff ? The cock carousel ? Egg timers and BRIIING BRIIIING ? Men and Women being fundamentally different ?

None of this setting off your RP radar ?

Fuck RP has gone downhill lately. Atlas is right. The Omega's have taken over. It's fucking incel city now.

dont dislike women just because they have vaginas. I dislike stupid shit people do, regardless of their genitals.

Well, right here you're steaming towards assuming the worst.... and arguing against me on the basis that I'm not assuming the worst.

Thats typically the response of your basic misogynist. Women can do no right.

Having an accurate view of women necessarily means having a more negative view than the mainstream. IMO, thats certainly true.

But the people who over egg it... and go on to never have a positive view, or even neutral view, of what a woman might be up to ? Thats your basic misogynists.

You're definitely coming accross as one one of them here. And when I look at your submitted tab ? Wew, lad.

Joke's on you I'm into landwhales. What now? What other things are you gonna come up with to try to invalidate me?

Then you're an outlier on the male bell curve.

You ARE aware that you're amongst a minority of men having that view, right ?

Humans are RATIONAL animals. What the fuck is it with you and purposefully seeing the forest for the trees. You purposefully focus on ONE tiny detail and act like you destroyed my argument.

No, we're not. We are really not.

Thats one of the core insights of RP.

We aren't rational. Females, males, everyone. The best of us may be making rational decisions 2-3-5% of the time, and less often than that when sex is involved.

We're all big bags of animal instincts with that very thin rational veneer on top. Even me :)

Anyone who think humans decide rationally even a majority of the time hasn't understood humans yet.

k den

Yes, I'm RP. Not Black Pill. Red Pill.

So you're one of those Black Pill types, fine.

I think you're wrong. Massively so. And the further down that rabbit hole you go, the less you are going to get out of your life.

If I was you I'd ditch the black pill and pick up the red.

You do realize you're citing GAWKER of all things. One of THE most anti-male biased outlets out there

I was citing OKCupid survey results. It just so happenned that the gawker link was the first one that came up when I googled "OK Cupid Survey ages men women attraction".

I coulda clicked on the 2nd link, or the 3rd link, or the 15th to get the same survey results. Wouldn;t have mattered.

The survey was from OK Cupid. Not any of the sites linking it.

And I could demonstrate the same point to you 100 ways... That Data was just the easiest and clearest. This is a well understood result in the Evo Psych/Red Pill/Sexual Strategy community.

Females find males their own age -2/+5 (or so) the most attractive....males find females aged 21-25 the most attractive.

Shit, you can see the same result in porn (for men) and erotica (for women). The girls are almost all 20-30, and porn star careers diminish rapidly post-30. The guys in "mommy porn" erotica are about the same age as the mommies reading the books. Middle aged, silver fox types. Established men....usually billionaires and CEOs and "of a more mature type'.

The guys in the pages of those bodice rippers aren't young 20s men as they are in the male porn. They're the same age as the reading audience.

Again with the personal insults.

No, pointing out your posting history is not an insult. It's pointing out who you are, to a large extent. Or at least.... what I can access about who you are....

Again with the condescension.

Like I said, you're going to have to get used to that. I'm pretty condescending at the best of times, with everyone.

In your case.... It's going to be even heavier than normal, and probably deservedly so given what your history reveals abotu the chasms in our respective knowledge and experience on sexual strategy matters.

Maybe if we're talking about....I dunno.... Vidya.... I might defer a bit more to your experience over mine. On this subject, shit yeah you're going to get condescended to.

At this stage I am unsure as to whether you've actually actually, ya know, had a girl all of your own even once.

I'm not going to be deferring to your greater experience any time soon, no.

"MY ACCOUNT IS OLDER SO IM AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT!"

No, you were talking about me making all sorts of noob RP mistakes about chicks. Thats fine. You just didn't understand I'm not a noob.

So I pointed that out.

If you think that I think unicorns and rainbows shoot from their vagina's you're very much mistaken. This is not my first rodeo.

But, now you know, you won't make that mistake again I'm sure.

You'd think you'd have fucking learned after I said I exclusively like nerdy\dorky chicks.

Yes, but here's the thing.... Even the nerdy/dorky chicks in pron would (if encountered out int he real world) would 8-9-10 chicks.

Like, they might make themselves look a bit dorky to capture a certain segment of the audience.... But if you saw her walk into your college campus, or company office, you'd pretty immediately realise that she's actually one of the hottest girls you've seen this week.

Unless you're jerking off to amateur porn... and specifically BBW or Geeky amateurs as that.... you're jerking off to 8-10s.

"HAHA YOU'RE AN ANIMAL TOO YOU LIKE 10\10 VIRGIN SUPERMODELS TOO!"

No, who said 10/10 virgin supermodels ?

I said young (probably 18-28), good waist-hip (which it appears you're an outlier on as you claim to like the BBW variety), attractive featured.

I think (even with your outlier BBW status) 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

And thats because, as animals, we're all variations on a template.

It's a pretty good bet that for any male/female I'd be hitting 60-70% plus.

It's UNLIKELY that I'd hit on a guy who like..... 300lb, 60 year old women, who also have ugly facial features.... Because we're all variations of the same animal template. NOT all randomly generated special snowflakes with highly individualised tastes.

"HAHAHA SEE YOU'RE JUST LIKE US TOLD YOU"

No, not "just like us".

But.... "Someone well within the human male bell curve for sexual tastes", yeah. Of course.

You don't fancy square concrete bricks do you ? Or giraffes ? Or Purple Crocodiles ?

You were born with a set of instincts concerning what you like, with very minor variations on that template. Because you are a human animal like me I can guess with reasonable accuracy where you'll be. Inside the bell curve.

Although You're claiming to like 300lb landwhales like this (which I doubt, TBH) ... Not even you are claiming you like 85 year old 300lb landwhales (for example). You're still fancying women of fertile age. Because your sexual tastes are set in such a way that you do.

Thats WHY female desire and male desire are different. And different in predictable ways. Because you're an animal, and not a rational being.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Nope. You're wrong :)

[–]aznphenix1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I actually like modest dorky girls, but I (dont) appreciate the assumption that I'm an unrefined animal.

Can you provide a stock photo or similar that shows what this means?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Alright, full disclosure, it's pretty hard to find stock pictures of that. I tend to get "LE GAMUR GIRLZ" type of women. Here's a bit that I was able to scavenge from my folders:

https://imgur.com/a/V2tbj

[–]aznphenix0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean, she dresses dorky, but she looks like I did. Just needs to dress better/take better care of her looks and she's well above average then. She has the potential to be 'smoking hot' chick, she's just not using the potential XD

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

These 30yo women past their prime are demanding stud hot men in their 20s.

Nah, they're more likely to demand (eligible) men in their 30s now. However, as TGP has lined out, eligible men of that age are going after women in their 20s because they can.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

To make those entitled statements they would have to be (respectively)... "Women should date nice guys like me!"

Let's be honest: this statement often comes from a place of women complaining to those nice guys how sucky men treat them.

Actually, I have a funny example of this, from a piece of satire I bothered to translate into English a couple of years ago (it was my first reddit post).

her monthly changing asshole boyfriend, who beats her up at least twice a week and cheats on her with her best friend. Why you know that? Because you're her Samaritan telephone service, and she has your number on quick-dial. Of course as "nana" or "Sally", because those jocks she's hanging out with at the moment are all of the terribly jealous type. Usually she calls at 3 a.m. with a recently aquired black eye, regardless of the fact that she had make-up sex with him 5 minutes before. With astonishing regularity, her words "Oh, if he was just a little more like you", she drives the rusted knife deeper into your heart, while she smudges your shirt with waterproof mascara.

A little more like you? Girl, here are 100%, why don't you get this in your bleached airhead?

This is the problem. Women date assholes, say they want nice guys - often to precisely those nice guys - yet their actions still don't align with their words. Because when those nice guys offer to take them up on their word, they suddenly don't want to "ruin our friendship".

The problem here indeed is still one of misunderstanding - the Nice Guy can't wrap his head around the fact that she really doesn't want 100% of him. Just the part that is utterly devoted to her and wouldn't cheat on her or hurt her (and even that part is just something she thinks she wants because she has its polar opposite).

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

But they're not saying "where have all the nice guys gone" are they ?

They're lamenting the loss of the good guys.

The "dcent hubby candidates" they spurned back int heir twenties because "I've got plenty of time".

Not the Omegas/Low Betas..... The High Betas/ABs.... The guys who were attractive enough, and had status enough, and were commitment minded enough to be good hubby candidates.

They get to their late 30's and those guys are not around anymore. All they've got left are the Omegas/Low Betas of their age group.... or guys in the significantly older age group who are low value for other reasons (advanced age, history of divorce, already has kids from previous relationships etc etc).

Thats when they say where have all the good guys gone.

They can still get pumped and dumped by chad. They can still get willing low-value omega orbiters. They're still around. They aren't lamenting that these have disappeared.

They'e lamenting that the high-value hubby candidates that were common when they are 23 are just no longer there anymore when they are 33.

Because they got married.... or are (now but not then) dating younger chicks.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But they're not saying "where have all the nice guys gone" are they ?

In this specific scenario I described (which is more likely to be something women in their teens and 20s do), they're not complaining about the lack of good men, but about the "good" men ("good" being a marker of high RMV/SMV here, not of personal integrity or willingness to commit) not being nice enough.

I agree with your description of the impact on the wall (in fact, I even wrote an extensive post about it), I just wanted to broach the issue of why Nice Guys get the idea that women should date them. I would argue that it's a mixture of being disillusioned, frustrated and bewildered - like saying "if you complain about Chads being such huge jerks, then why the fuck are you dating them instead of guys like me, the guys you claim to want?"

If women's words aligned more with their actions (and if society at large wouldn't insist on ascribing positive traits they as a demographic simply don't have), this stuff would happen far less often.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Great post, as usual. IME the entitlement part of WHATGM is that the vast majority of these 30s leftovers can easily find a guy with their stated criteria (solid career, age range, compatible values) but not with their unspoken criteria (sexually attractive). some, but not all, of these women have pretty much the exact mentality of "nice guys" where they think a solid career etc is supposed to land them an attractive spouse, but it just doesn't. If anything, nice guys have a better shot at actualizing this strategy, albeit with high risk of dead bedrooms as a beta bux.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah,

But what are you telling them to do here ? Give up on the "be sexually attracted to the guy" part of their requirements.

E.g. You seem to be saying.... These women are entitled because they're not running AF/BB on some poor shmuck. Grab your BB honey. Worry about not actually fancying him later on, when he's put a ring on it. AF will always swing by.

Don't we NOT want women to do this ?

Are these women damned if they do..... "Aw, what an AF/BB whore. Just like all the rest. Snagged her BB she doesn't fancy, now divorce raping him"..... and then damned if they don't "Aw, what an entitled bitch. Wants an AB. Settle for your BB, baby. It'll all work out in the end".

C'mon. There isn't a right way out here.

They shouldn't have wasted their pretty.

They shoulda been looking back when they were 23 and every guy in the world wanted her.

And unless they say "Those damn good men SHOULD be dating me" then they don't have the same attitude as Nice Guys TM.

Just asking the question is fine. Just like the guys who turn up at askTRP saying "Why don't the hot girls date nice guys like me ?".

The question isn't the problem. Isn't an entitlement.

The entitlement is saying "Men SHOULD....." (or as they do, REAL men would.... Or non-Man Baby's would.....) just as on the male side the entitlement is saying "Women SHOULD...." too.

Asking the question isn't the problem.

You just ain't going to like the answer.....

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I, personally, never stated what women in such a situation should do, I just argued that some of them do in fact have a sense of entitlement, and that the definition of "good men" in this question implies a degree of entitlement. I agree there is no way out, and that they shouldn't have wasted their pretty. Tbh, the selectivity of women's nature precludes most of them from getting an AB, I think. Most will simply have to settle for fuckable ish, then find happiness in family legacy (grandchildren.) there is just no way for all women to be attracted to their husbands, especially long term. It's like u/gridrexx says, you have to want the relationship more than the person.

You are technically, semantically correct that "WHATGMG" is not on the surface the same as "nice guys."

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Technically correct.

Otherwise known as the best kind of correct.

:)

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Solid futurama reference

[–]BPremiumMeh2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Most men will never have a "happy hunting ground"

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So. This is not an expression of "entitlement" at all. It's simply an expression of the real circumstances they find themselves in ages 30+ and single (which are the women that say this). They have a very astute and accurate view of reality, the "good men" from their perspective are indeed gone and won't be coming back.

That might very well be. For the most part, that's a situation those women created and brought on themselves.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men (at all ages) are preferentially attracted to women in their early to late 20s.

Try mid to late teens lol

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nice post. Tbh most women should be using their early 20s to find a suitable guy to marry and not spend if getting all the free stuff from as many guys as they can by casually dating, or being in serial relationships

[–]decoy88Black Male in London-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I hear women in their 20's say this shit all the time though. It's just a played out phrase by women who lack success in dating, regardless of age.

[–]Xholica13 points14 points  (72 children) | Copy Link

I view them as roughly equal.

The nice guy thinks he has 'earned sex', the woman posting that article has generally stayed in shape, is stable, has developed a career, is willing to commit and wants kids, she's generally looking for her equal. She thinks that she has earned it by being stable etc. This is generally implicit in the articles 'Why can't I (a stable, reasonably attractive woman who wants to commit) find a stable, reasonably attractive guy who wants to commit?'. This is also an expectation of reciprocity, she has become the kind of partner she would like and feels like she has earned the guy.

However entitlement can also be overestimating the value of what you are 'owed' and unlike earning there isn't a specific contract/reward laid out in terms of effort/actions and the effect that should be obtained from them. Both nice guys and women who can't find men are often overestimating the value of what they offer and are asking too much in return. This could be expressed as me holding a door for someone and then expecting them to do me a larger favour. While being nice to someone should result in them being nice back I've overvalued my time/effort and/or undervalued theirs. For examples using their currency, a plain guy being overly nice to a hot girl who has lots of hot guys being nice to her sees his niceness as worth more than theirs or a woman in her 30s who has lots of savings, a stable job and is in shape having a younger woman with a less stable career chosen over her. Both of them are offering something that they think makes them a good candidate, but it's not worth as much as they think it is to the people they are offering it to.

WHATGMG is also used in general after getting out of a relationship and is sometimes similar to 'bitches be crazy' i.e. a more generic frustration being expressed.

IMHO the thing that makes nice guys considered to be a problem and not vice-versa is the application. The nature of the idea favours+niceness=sex requires a specific girl. It's actually having to deal with them that makes them a problem and if they remained online just posting general statements like 'I'm a nice guy why can't I find a girl?' no one would actually care that much. It's the ones people deal with in real life that strip all sympathy and lead to online mockery, because lots of girls have actually had to deal with that guy.

WHATGMG is a general 'why can't I get a man?', if they switched into demanding specific men date them and fulfil the role they want them they'd become a real nuisance and be mocked, but since they're generally just articles, facebook posts etc. and can be scrolled past people don't actually have to deal with them.

Tl;dr: the difference is that nice guys can't just be scrolled past and have to be dealt with in real life; that's why people give a shit.

[–]circlhat9 points10 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

The nice guy thinks he has 'earned sex',

no he doesn't, if he did he would rape, he is confused as to how to attract a women when he has been told by women to act a certain way

[–]Xholica7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You can think you have earned/deserve something without taking it. If you help someone move for free (expecting you'll be fed/watered) you have earned/deserve pizza/drinks, but I doubt you'd force someone to buy you a pizza. You might try to convince them, but you wouldn't force them.

He's angry and upset, because he might have really liked her and he might be heartbroken, but he usually wouldn't rape her.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that argument is silly. Entitlement is not necessarily actually taking criminal action.

[–][deleted]  (8 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]circlhat1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

So you decide to call me dumb , that's just let's me know you have no rational argument

[–][deleted]  (6 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]circlhat1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes, if a go to a store and buy something and someone takes my item away I will physically take it back because I'm entitled to what I bought.

I'm not entitled to a women's body so I don't rape her, very simple concept, you're still typing insults rather than providing a counter point which let's me know you don't have one.

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]circlhat1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It's not because some men think that being nice to females means that they deserve sex in return.

If they thought they deserve sex they would rape the women, seeing as they simply walk away I think you need to check the definition of deserved.

They want sex because they did X, they don't believe they feel entitled

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]PieceBringerPurple Swag0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Your comprehension skills are bad at best.

Rapes happen because there are some individuals who are so narcissistic that their impulses are important enough to them to justify sexually violating another person. Note that this has nothing to do with being male or female. It's not because some men think that being nice to females means that they deserve sex in return.

That's exactly what he said. That's the reason rape is not happening.

[–]SlimLovinHigh Value to Own the Libs-1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

What women? Who's providing these hypothetical lessons? I've never met a woman on Earth who said, "Just hover around me and do what I say while constantly commenting on my Facebook photos."

[–]circlhat1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I never met a man on earth who said, "I'm going to abuse you, rape you, and molest your child" and yet it still happens

[–]SlimLovinHigh Value to Own the Libs-3 points-2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You ever read TRP?

[–]circlhat1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

yes, please show me that quote, if you can do that, I will admit I was wrong, I will be waiting(Probably forever)

[–]SlimLovinHigh Value to Own the Libs-2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It's more a series of quotes and beliefs like "pushing past resistance,"

[–]circlhat1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Which is 100% different from what I said and what you claimed, Some girls at the last minute aren't sure, for example

"Will you think of me as a slut"

That is last minute resistance

the correct response is

"We are both adults, what ever happens, happens"

This is in no way rape

[–]SlimLovinHigh Value to Own the Libs-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Whatever helps you sleep alone at night.

[–]circlhat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Pushing though LMR and fucking helps me sleep at night, but do you really think of me as a rapist or someone who uses force?

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 7 points8 points  (45 children) | Copy Link

The nature of the idea favours+niceness=sex requires a specific girl. It's actually having to deal with them that makes them a problem and if they remained online just posting general statements like 'I'm a nice guy why can't I find a girl?' no one would actually care that much. It's the ones people deal with in real life that strip all sympathy and lead to online mockery, because lots of girls have actually had to deal with that guy.

Doesn't the idea that career+education=committed romantic relationship also require a specific guy?

And do you think that men don't experience women's "Where Have All The Good Men Gone?" sentiments in person?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

How would men go about experiencing that? You mean hearing it from like female friends? I think this commentators point is that with the nice guy, many women will directly experience him trying to get into her pants that way, and they may be the target of his frustration.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree there. I eventually got that vibe... the BIANG attitude does seem to result in more discussion by the parties in question rather than with third parties.

But I don't see how that challenges the central contention I'm making.

[–]Xholica4 points5 points  (41 children) | Copy Link

The burden of entitlement is general she thinks she should have a man, why don't men want me. With a nice guy it's focused because he's normally nice to a specific girl, I should have you, why don't you want me. You can ignore the first, with the second you need to deal with it.

I don't think it's experienced in the same way. The woman's fantasy man is more general, more like saying I wish more girls were in shape, it has a slightly offensive implication that you suck, but for the most part they aren't trying to tell you specifically that because they have done x you owe them that relationship, they aren't usually trying to get anything from you specifically.

The woman gets her career+education in general, she wants a guy but doesn't have a specific target. She feels she is owed a guy, but not usually that any specific guy say Mark owes her anything. Mark can scroll past her post on FB, he might think she's annoying and whiny but he doesn't have to do anything about it.

Nice guys normally act nice to a specific girl say, Emily. He feels like he is owed Emily and that because he has done those things Emily owes him sex/relationship. He feels like Emily has to justify not wanting him. Emily has to deal with avoiding him/social fallout/pushiness.

I feel like men experience these sentiments in a 'the world owes me this' kind of way more than anything else. Women get 'you owe me this because I did that for you'. A lot of the upset is because of miscommunication, if both were on the same page she could have rejected the niceness and he could have moved on instead he's hurt because he liked her and she doesnt like him the same way and she's hurt too because she thought they were friends and now her friend has either appeared to suddenly change or left.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You can ignore the first, with the second you need to deal with it.

Again, you don't think women ask men "Where Have All The Good Men Gone"?

You know, sometimes women ask men these questions of Nice Guys. And Nice Guys wonder... "I'm a good man, she claims she wants someone nice and understanding like me..."

You can see where this leads.

The woman's fantasy man is more general

Most would argue the opposite, that men are less discriminating and less particular in what will satisfy them.

Anyway, what I'm getting is that you're saying that the difference between WHATGMG and BIANG is that the BIANG discussion will come up more in a face to face situation between the two people in question (as opposed to third parties), correct?

I'm happy to agree with you here, but this isn't really relevant to what I'm arguing. I certainly agree there are some differences between BIANG and WHATGMG. But the contention at issue is which attitude is more entitled.

[–]Xholica4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not arguing general tastes I'm saying that the nice guy has a fantasy requirement of 'Emily' and the woman wants a guy that meets certain conditions. Even if only a million men meet those conditions it's still more general/larger than 1.

My argument is they are both equally entitled as they both believe they have earned the partner. The different treatment is because a lot of people have a 'nice guy' story and have been personally affected so it's more relatable. The WHATGMG is more abstract and a woman complaining about men in general affects people less than a friend wanting more than friendship and getting angry when it's denied.

TL;DR Equal entitlement. Not sexism, just people more affected by nice guys and those experiences make better stories than I had a friend who bitched about not getting a bf.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Does it matter though? They are both entitlement and both toxic attitudes. Not a single good guy said "but I'm a nice guy", just like not a single good woman said "where are all the good men". They both have issues they need to fix first. Sure, there may be a nuance of living in deserted island with very very little options, but then again, we all have a choice to move to a better place. Choice is not free (in terms of money), but free in terms of will power. If you have no man or gf, you have nothing to leave behind or care basically, so just go abroad.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Does it matter though? They are both entitlement and both toxic attitudes. Not a single good guy said "but I'm a nice guy", just like not a single good woman said "where are all the good men".

You aren't challenging my viewpoint here. My viewpoint is that WHATGMG is more entitled than BIANG. If you want to challenge that viewpoint please do.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I won't because it does not matter, there is no definite scale to measure this. That's the problem. One could say that, or the other way round, won't change the fact, that both types of people are shitty people. I can speak only from my point of view, so as a man, I think WHATGMG is more entitled. So what.

I think you brought the good topic, but worded it badly. Personally if not you I wouldn't have connected the dots. Thank you for that. I've known many women who are WHATGMG type, and they all had issues. Serious issues. One was fat, the other had no ambitions or goals. But on the other hand I've known men, including myself, who claimed to be BIANG and that's terrible attitude too. Thankfully, I learned to manage it and love myself and love women. Well, not all women, but women as separate species. Things that are fun to have around. I embraced my sexism and live with it.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I won't because it does not matter, there is no definite scale to measure this. That's the problem.

The article itself proposed a series of three tests for a truly entitled attitude. BIANG passed only one test, and WHATGMG passed all three (and if I am being charitable, it passes at least 2). Do you object to the tests I proposed?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

The burden of entitlement is general she thinks she should have a man, why don't men want me.

I think it's more like "why don't men work hard for me." WHALTGMG implies that there's men that want her, but just not the men she wants in return.

[–]Xholica1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's why don't the men I want, want me? It's the same as a nice guy wanting a nice girl. The stable woman wanting a family wants a stable guy who wants a family.

[–]Xholica-2 points-1 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

It's why don't the men I want, want me? It's the same as a nice guy wanting a nice girl. The stable woman wanting a family wants a stable guy who wants a family.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (27 children) | Copy Link

The stable woman wanting a family wants a stable guy who wants a family.

Who is also Prince Charming.

[–]Xholica2 points3 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

The nice guy generally wants a pretty girl and it's not normally prince charming, just an attractive, stable guy who wants the same shit she does.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

The nice guy generally wants a pretty girl

Or a girl who will have regular sex with him

it's not normally prince charming, just an attractive,

A lot of stable guys aren't, it's asking too much

stable guy who wants the same shit she does.

Who is also adventurous and not boring, which goes against him being a stable guy in the first place

[–]Xholica0 points1 point  (24 children) | Copy Link

Not really. You can be adventurous and stable. It's not that big an ask.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

It's a personality conflict. Adventurous is risk-taking, stable guys aren't very adventurous, they're too busy building on their stability.

It is too much to ask, women just don't understand this because the burden of being stable and adventurous doesn't fall on them. It's basic entitlement.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Nice guys normally act nice to a specific girl say, Emily. He feels like he is owed Emily and that because he has done those things Emily owes him sex/relationship. He feels like Emily has to justify not wanting him. Emily has to deal with avoiding him/social fallout/pushiness.

On the other hand, Emily usually is pretty willing to accept all his attention and favors, and never wondering why he is so unwaveringly nice to her, willing to build his schedule around her needs and priorities, and make personal sacrifices to facilitate her life.

There are two keywords in "covert contract". One is "covert", meaning that the guy never clearly specifies what he is aiming for, though it usually is abundantly clear what he wants. He never says "I am doing all this for you because I expect you to fall in love with me and date me", even though most women should be aware of that's exactly what's on the table.1 Yet because he never says it (most likely in order to not make the situation more awkward and embarassing), she retains a vestige of plausible deniability.

But the other is "contract", and this is the problem here: Because Emily accepts his favors, attention, company etc., she implictly entered that bargain. And this means that in the eyes of that specific nice guy, he assumes that as long as he continues being responsive to his courtship, that he's "in the race" so to speak. However, this usually isn't the case - he isn't in the race and never was (talk about who is misleading whom). Which means she entered the contract under false pretenses (assuming she was aware of his affection, which, as I said, is usually pretty obvious).

So, if you say "the second you need to deal with", this totally ignores the fact that it's actually pretty easy to deal with the vast majority of these cases - simply don't encourage the guy and refuse to be part of the contract. Here's a list of protips on how to do so once you suspect a guy's interest might be more than platonic.


1: Which is also interesting, by the way - a guy who has been told all his life that niceness is an admirable and romantically attractive trait is vilified if he started to believe that bullshit and genuinely expected some payoff for his behavior somewhere down the road; yet a woman who believes that a man who is literally bending over for her doesn't have any ulterior motive is a poor misled victim? And, let me remind you - the guy who believed the "niceness is attractive"-fallacy has repeatedly shot himself in the foot romantically without getting anything out of it, while the worst thing a girl who has to deal with spurned admirers is him reacting poorly to being taken advantage of.

[–]Xholica5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've been Emily. Nice guys I've met don't get that extreme, they do normal teen shit like inviting a friend over or to the cinema, not rewriting their whole life. Then they do the nice thing and downplay the effort.

Without flirting it's hard to tell the difference between a friend who's attracted to you, like most teen boys around your age and a friend who's actually hung up on you.

It's normal give and take the girl is accepting a lot of the time, she doesn't know he's keeping track, because she's not. My (female) friend learned to drive before me and drove me to school every morning because we were friends.

It sucked for both of us, because we were friends.

I'd say that niceness is part of being attractive relationship material, but it's far from enough on it's own.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Why do you think those women are complaining about where the good guys are? It's because the other ones that she's been with have been unsuitable guys that have taken advantage of her by taking only sex and not giving her the commitment that she wanted. Now, one could argue that some women never make it explicitly clear that they want a relationship, and they just hope that the guy would eventually fall in love with her as she continually provides sexual favors, but this is the same case as the woman claiming plausible deniability in regards to the guy that is falling all over her without her having to give him sex.

If you assume that because Emily cannot retain plausible deniability, and that she should have known that he wanted more than friendship, as an argument that BIANG is not entitlement, then a woman that states WHATGMG cannot be assumed to be entitled. This woman has provided what she assumed was what was needed to get the man that she wanted, but the guy did not reciprocate her feelings, but he was more than happy to get sex from her. This means that she cannot be labelled as entitled for wondering why her tactics did not work and wondering where the men that would repay her with commitment (the good men) are.

So, if you say "the second you need to deal with", this totally ignores the fact that it's actually pretty easy to deal with the vast majority of these cases - simply don't encourage the guy and refuse to be part of the contract. Here's a list of protips on how to do so once you suspect a guy's interest might be more than platonic.

Would you, or any RP guy, ever tell a guy that was getting sex from a woman that clearly wanted more commitment from him, to stop accepting sex from her and basically stop leading her on? Why should 'Emily' listen to your advice about not receiving gifts, time, attention and emotional benefits from the guy that's providing it, if you would never advice a guy to stop receiving sex from the girl that wants more commitment?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why do you think those women are complaining about where the good guys are? It's because the other ones that she's been with have been unsuitable guys that have taken advantage of her by taking only sex and not giving her the commitment that she wanted. Now, one could argue that some women never make it explicitly clear that they want a relationship, and they just hope that the guy would eventually fall in love with her as she continually provides sexual favors, but this is the same case as the woman claiming plausible deniability in regards to the guy that is falling all over her without her having to give him sex.

This is the gender-flipped version of the friendzone and it's commonly called the fuckzone (though personally, I prefer the term "friends-with-benefits-zone" for syntactic reasons).

HOWEVER, these women are usually given an extremely charitable treatment - in that scenario, the guys taking advantage of them are the assholes and they are the poor unsuspecting victims.

I mean, check this thread - you really should - and go through the answers. Then try to imagine the reaction a "nice guy" would have gotten - if you hang around /r/relationships, you should have an idea. If you don't, check this particular comment chain from that thread, because fluxburns nails it.

If you assume that because Emily cannot retain plausible deniability, and that she should have known that he wanted more than friendship, as an argument that BIANG is not entitlement

This argument was directed at xholica's claim that the specific unpleasant dynamic that's a consequence of friendzoning is in some way something unavoidable (as opposed to women vocally complaining that there aren't any good men left) - I wanted to convey that it's indeed very much possible to avoid situations like that if you simply don't get caught in a covert contract-situation.

Would you, or any RP guy, ever tell a guy that was getting sex from a woman that clearly wanted more commitment from him, to stop accepting sex from her and basically stop leading her on?

I would inform him that it can backfire big time; and if he still does it and it does backfire, that's on him (I can see why he did it, and I can see the appeal of sex without commitment, but I can also see why she might react poorly). And the same goes for Emily.

However, you're mistaking what the motivation of a redpiller is: it isn't about being a good and altruistic person, a "Nice Guy", so to speak (I dare to say that most of us already tried this to our detriment). It's about getting what we want, and we don't claim to be moral or ethical, much less morally or ethical superior (that's more of a bluepill thing).

Which is also the reason why, when dealing with a friendzone-situation, the standard redpill reaction isn't one of empathy, giving the guy a "there, there"-speech and shitting on the woman who did it (that may be a part of it, but is a purely optional one) but about how and where he fucked up, how he can remove himself from that situation and how he can avoid it henceforth.

[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't the idea that career+education=committed romantic relationship also require a specific guy?

Maybe one who's not very logical, yes.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

IMHO the thing that makes nice guys considered to be a problem and not vice-versa is the application. The nature of the idea favours+niceness=sex requires a specific girl. It's actually having to deal with them that makes them a problem and if they remained online just posting general statements like 'I'm a nice guy why can't I find a girl?' no one would actually care that much. It's the ones people deal with in real life that strip all sympathy and lead to online mockery, because lots of girls have actually had to deal with that guy.

WHATGMG is a general 'why can't I get a man?', if they switched into demanding specific men date them and fulfil the role they want them they'd become a real nuisance and be mocked, but since they're generally just articles, facebook posts etc. and can be scrolled past people don't actually have to deal with them.

I disagree, you completely disregarded the Women are Wonderful-mindset and the general willingness to see female complaints (especially when they're about men and their shortcomings) as more legitimate and justified than male complaints.

If a man posted a complaint about the lack of eligible women, summarily painting women in general as severely lacking in several departments, he'd be tarred and feathered in no time. Especially by the women who are the most likely to make posts about male shortcomings.

Also...

The nature of the idea favours+niceness=sex requires a specific girl.

While it is true that the BIANG-effect is often experienced by guys who tend to overinvest in a specific woman (not necessarily in a woman who is objectively out of his league), you're wrong if you assume that's all there is to it. First, these guys repeatedly experience romantic failure and rejection despite their niceness. And what they also experience is that other guys who lack niceness, and who are transparently assholish have romantic success.

I suggest you read this article, especially the part with Henry.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I disagree, you completely disregarded the Women are Wonderful-mindset and the general willingness to see female complaints (especially when they're about men and their shortcomings) as more legitimate and justified than male complaints.

Exactly.

Both genders act with a level of entitlement and demanding the world changes for them, when men do it they get shamed as creeps, potential rapists and general perverts yet when women do it they're raising legitimate issues.

It happens right across the Western world where it's far more socially acceptable for Black people to push their own ethnic interest politics than it is for White people. In general I think a lot of the issues BLM and other pro-Black groups raise are perfectly legitimate and sensible, what has always annoyed me is that when White people do the same thing and try to combat specific issues they face, either you'll be called a Nazi or some sarky twat will say ''You can do have ethnic interest politics, it's called politics''.

As if every single mainstream politician is either a full blown White supremacist or is at least pandering to the politics.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

yet when women do it they're raising legitimate issues.

I'm not sure if anyone, outside of the women whining, is actually considering WHATGMG to be a "legitimate issue"

For two main reasons:

1: It's easily ignored. It's just another drop of sexist drivel, and while it represents the more general problem of it being socially acceptable to shit on the male gender, it's no worse than any other part.

2: The solution would require an actually serious discussion on mens issues and the consequences that feminism has had on masculinity and men in general. And that's unfortunately not going to happen any time soon, i think.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

White people vote for their specific interests all the time, they just don't do it under an explicit banner.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

White people vote for personal interests sure, but very few White people vote for their personal interests along racial lines.

The election of Obama and very open attacks on White people from the media is what has, for first time lead to White people seeing themselves as a tribe.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Tl;dr: the difference is that nice guys can't just be scrolled past and have to be dealt with in real life; that's why people give a shit.

Nice guys are pushovers, therefore they're easy to deal with.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

These articles treat men as facing a moral obligation to provide women with what women want, even at the cost of mens’ PlayStations, bands, and nights in Vegas. These articles treat the lack of attractive men as an attack on women, as a debt to be repaid, not merely a lack of opportunities for mutually beneficial transactions. Not as something confusing or disappointing or unfortunate, but as a wound inflicted upon women.

I can understand why nice guys bug women. These are unattractive men being nice and women must find a way to avoid fucking them, so they find bad stuff to talk about to justify hating on them.

But women demand men must change for them! Imagine a guy complaining that all the women around him are fat lazy sluts who don't want to do a minute of housework. Guys like that already get shat on for oppressing women with their opinions, but no one bats an eyelid at women telling men to give up their fun and change for women's convenience. Seriously, we should not be putting up with this attitude either.

If you want the kind of partner who meets your requirements, how about being the kind of person they would want to be with.

[–]Butt-Factory3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

People complaining "where have all the good men/ women gone? " is nothing new. People have been whining about this for ages.

That said, the ones complaining are almost always no good themselves. There's no shortage of quality men and women, they're just not wasting their time with unworthy partners.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The equivalent of a "nice guy" is "men only want bitches". There is a whole sub, /r/nicegirls dedicated to that sort of stuff.

The equivalent of "where have all the good men gone?" is the guy past his physical prime who spend years having casual sex saying "why can't I find a good girl?"

Believe it or not, most women don't want a guy who had sex with tons of random women either. I know if a guy told me he had sex with a 100 women in the past and was now ready to settle down, I would be a hell of a lot more weary than if a met a guy who told me he only had a couple girlfriends in the past.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Believe it or not, most women don't want a guy who had sex with tons of random women either. I know if a guy told me he had sex with a 100 women in the past and was now ready to settle down, I would be a hell of a lot more weary than if a met a guy who told me he only had a couple girlfriends in the past.

I am also realising this.... :(

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you did have tons of sex in the past it's not something to worry excessively about. But for future relationships, you have to be willing to wait to have sex, explain that you're serious now, etc.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're advice is common, but I'd rather not be with someone who judges others that don't "wait to have sex" its just sex! IMO a recipe for finding someone with incompatible values.

[–]Hellothere_15 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I agree that both phenomenons are somewhat comparable. Where I disagree is when you say that you argue that BIANG isn't entitlement but WHATGMG is simply because such a thing is impossible to determine on a general basis.

You cannot determine the degree of entitlement of a person by a single frustrated sentence written in some Twitter feed.

For both statements I can easily imagine situations where it might be completely harmless or situations where it is a clear indicator of a deep seated sense of entitlement.

We can argue about which phenomnenon is worse all day but in the and that can really only be determined in a case by case basis.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you that not all utterances of "BIANG" and "WHATGMG" are entitlement. I stressed this repeatedly in the article.

What I described as entitled was the mainstream discourse surrounding WHATGMG. I provided several examples of respected journalists talking about it, and talking about their friends and such making such comments.

I agree we need to speak on a case-by-case basis. But the attitudes displayed in the mainstream WHATGMG discourse often constitute sexual entitlement by the standard I proposed. BIANG, as I understand it at least, doesn't reach that threshold.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What I described as entitled was the mainstream discourse surrounding WHATGMG.

I don't understand how mainstream discourse can be "entitled". Entitlement seems to be something individual people might display or believe, not the media.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No offense but this is just semantic nitpicking. The mainstream discourse is written by people with opinions and experiences (of themselves and others) that they share. What I am saying is that the opinions expressed by these people are often ones which constitute sexual entitlement.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

There's plenty of good men out there. Problem is many of them are unattractive.

[–]SeemedGood7 points8 points  (29 children) | Copy Link

Witty and insightful.

Those who complain about a lack of "good" men need to change their attraction cues.

Men that women generally find attractive have enough interactions with women that they eventually catch on that there is absolutely no upside to being "good" as judged by women's standards. "Good" guys just get their souls defecated upon - none of us want that.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men that women generally find attractive have enough interactions with women that they eventually catch on that there is absolutely no upside to being "good" as judged by women's standards. "Good" guys just get their souls defecated upon - none of us want that.

Also, even if one rejects that notion, "good" fails to have an upside for the man but is more something that helps women.

For example, I would argue that women would consider it a "good" trait if a man they're into commits to them precisely the moment they expect him to do so (instead of keeping his options open, stringing her along, leading her on etc.) and also being unwaveringly faithful to her. On the other hand, the man doesn't really gain anything from this - if he's sufficiently attractive to enjoy the attention of multiple women, where's the incentive in committing to a specific woman unless doing so is totally worth it in his eyes (and let's not be fooled, most women who expect a specific "good man" to commit to her aren't worth that man's attention)?

[–]TheBlackQuillMisanthrope2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I think you define "good" as someone who let women walk all over them which I agree is really bad. They are going to spend money on the women they like, only to be taken advantage of, without their feelings returned 😔.

[–]SeemedGood1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I did not define "good" in my assertion. Rather, I simply presumed women's definition (emphasis added):

there is absolutely no upside to being "good" as judged by women's standards.

EDIT: If I had to sharpen that, I would suggest that "good" might be loosely defined as "possessing the characteristics which a particular woman finds attractive for a relationship."

As we are nothing more than objects to women, we are far better off being sex objects than we are being relationship objects. Men that women find attractive can typically choose the former and would do well to take that path as opposed to the relationship-object path.

[–]TheBlackQuillMisanthrope1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

As we are nothing more than objects to women, we are far better off being sex objects than we are being relationship objects. Men that women find attractive can typically choose the former and would do well to take that path as opposed to the relationship-object path.

Yeah, I can see being relationship object tend to make you being used and less appreciated... That is because those guys expect their feelings to be returned but those women take advantage of it... that is how someone feels being used... that is why, a guy shouldn't expect much in the beginning... They feel less hurt that way 😔

[–]SeemedGood0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I can see being relationship object tend to make you being used and less appreciated... That is because those guys expect their feelings to be returned but those women take advantage of it... that is how someone feels being used

It's not that so much. If we are good relationship-objects (provide the expected utility), attractive enough to have had options, wise enough to have used those options to avoid entanglement with the horror shows, and thus partnered with a women who treats her objects sensibly, we will typically be appreciated for our utility as objects.

It's the fact that in modern western culture we will likely never be viewed and treated as human beings by women and appreciated for our beings that stings a little. It's the fact that modern western women are almost entirely incapable of generating actual love for men that makes the relationship-object position so untenable.

Being an appreciated relationship-object is predicated on our delivery of expected utility, not on appreciation of our beings in themselves. Thus, being the relationship-object amounts to little more than a contractual exchange of your utility for her appreciation - and women's conditional appreciation isn't worth very much, particularly because women's dichotomous attraction cues often lead them to lose sexual attraction for their relationship-objects (if they ever actually had any in the first place).

So it's not a function of "feeling used" as the purpose of all objects is to use them for utility provision is some way, and it's not really a function of feeling "less appreciated" because conditional appreciation as an object is of relatively low value. It's simply that for us, it's better to be used and appreciated for your sexual utility than it is for your relationship utility. At least that way you have a decent sex life.

[–]TheBlackQuillMisanthrope0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

because conditional appreciation as an object is of relatively low value.

The thing is people changed their affection when their loved ones changed. It is conditional. For instance, I know a woman who divorced her husband because he had mounts of debts due to his gambling addictions. I also know a man who divorced his wife because his wife kept spending his money to help her family...

not on appreciation of our beings in themselves.

How do you define beings in ourself? Aren't men defined from what they do? The thing is, no one has inherent value. Value is determined by people who judge us, and those people have sets of standards of what they find valuable. Is it character? Wealth? Beauty? Etc...

It's simply that for us, it's better to be used and appreciated for your sexual utility than it is for your relationship utility. At least that way you have a decent sex life.

Appreciated for relationship utility is not inherently bad. Think of children who feel grateful that their parents raise them and put up with their shit. They decide to repay them back by taking care of them when they are older. Same like a wife who took care of her husband when he was sick and couldn't work anymore...

[–]SeemedGood0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

The thing is people changed their affection when their loved ones changed. It is conditional.

This is very much how women "love." It is the same "love" that men have for their useful tools (cars, watches, laptops, expensive spanners, et c.), and how some men whose development has been retarded by a society with a paucity of masculine energy "love" their partner-mates. It is not, however, actual love. Rather it is just appreciation of the utility that an object provides you. You can tell that it is not actual love precisely because it is conditional on obtaining utility from an object.

Actual love is an energy generated from the appreciation of a person for his or her being not appreciation of what any given object may do for you or the utility that it does provide for you. Some women learn to actually love their children, but many do not even develop that ability.

How do you define beings in ourself? Aren't men defined from what they do? The thing is, no one has inherent value.

Women certainly do tend to value men based on their potential utility (what they do), just like they value any other object. But what we do is only a small part of our being, and it is a very small part as it commonly defined because the vulgar definition limits assesment of what we do to the material plane of existence, which is only a small part of our total existence.

Those who are conscious of other planes (or dimensions) of existence are often able to recognize that the ultimate thing of value is consciousness itself and that the cultivation of that consciousness is the purpose of life. The fruit of that cultivation is valuable, we are all growing that fruit (though at different rates and with different levels of awareness) and thus we are all valuable because we are alive, evolving, and accruing consciousness.

While it is true that many are unable (or more precisely, unwilling) to recognize that value does not erode the existence of it. Rather it simply telegraphs that those particular individuals are not yet familiar enough with themselves that they can fully appreciate their own true life process and thus appreciate those of others.

Appreciated for relationship utility is not inherently bad.

If your concept of the self is limited to your material being, then maybe not because you essentially just view yourself as an object, a complex machine of sorts. How does that view sit with you when stated plainly? Is your sum total simply a machine for the provision of utility to others? Are you nothing more than a more complicated laptop, watch, or sports car? Or do you have an existence that is distinct from the actual machine that you inhabit?

Do you love the owner of your company simply because he finds you useful enough to employ? Probably not, at best you likely have no more feeling for him than an appreciation that he entered into a contract with you to exchange utility. That feeling that you may have for your employer is the value of being appreciated for your relationship utility. So, no, it's not inherently bad, but it is inherently weak.

Think of children who feel grateful that their parents raise them and put up with their shit.

Yes. They feel that way because they do not know why their parents raise them, they do not yet understand that their parents actually love them. Sure, some will assert that parents raise children and care for them in order to "pass on their genes." I would then ask: "Why are people driven to pass on their genes at great expense to their state of material being?" The respondent would have to rely on an ontological structure to respond, either a definitional one ("It's just how we are") or an exploratory one which explains the drive by means of a super-material existence - with the definitional ontology being no more than a clumsy and easily exposed dodge.

[–]TheBlackQuillMisanthrope0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is very much how women "love." It is the same "love" that men have for their useful tools (cars, watches, laptops, expensive spanners, et c.), and how some men whose development has been retarded by a society with a paucity of masculine energy "love" their partner-mates. It is not, however, actual love. Rather it is just appreciation of the utility that an object provides you. You can tell that it is not actual love precisely because it is conditional on obtaining utility from an object.

It is conditional in a sense that you will no longer love your partner if they changed. Like I said before, a wife dumped his husband due to gambling addiction and start disregarding his own family. She dumped him because he no longer cares. Even parents disown their children if they prove to be an ungrateful bastard. It is less about function but more about their character. We can only tolerate so much before we are hurt so badly by our loved ones. It is not dumping after their utilities used, it is about saying enough is enough, and protecting yourself. I agree that dumping your husband when he is sick/poor is basically being ungrateful bastard. But what I am trying to demonstrate here is that people who love conditionally are basically people who can tolerate so much before their loved ones hurt them even more. It is not just about using people for their utilities.

Those who are conscious of other planes (or dimensions) of existence are often able to recognize that the ultimate thing of value is consciousness itself and that the cultivation of that consciousness is the purpose of life. The fruit of that cultivation is valuable, we are all growing that fruit (though at different rates and with different levels of awareness) and thus we are all valuable because we are alive, evolving, and accruing consciousness.

And through one's action we know how someone define themselves. They demonstrate their purpose of life through their action. Action speaks louder than words. And indeed it is. Through one's action, you can know that what type person he/she is. It is not everything about him/her, true, but it gives us a glimpse of his/her character.

Yes. They feel that way because they do not know why their parents raise them, they do not yet understand that their parents actually love them. Sure, some will assert that parents raise children and care for them in order to "pass on their genes." I would then ask: "Why are people driven to pass on their genes at great expense to their state of material being?" The respondent would have to rely on an ontological structure to respond, either a definitional one ("It's just how we are") or an exploratory one which explains the drive by means of a super-material existence - with the definitional ontology being no more than a clumsy and easily exposed dodge.

My point is that people who appreciate someone who did things for them is not necessarily a bad thing. We call that "gratitude". We acknowledge that they have done so much things for us and we want to repay them back to show how grateful we are as their children. I mean, would you love your parents if they dump you to the trash bin instead? Probably not. You love them because they take care of you and the sacrifices they make. And you want to acknowledge that by taking care of them when they are older. Maybe I don't understand why my parents willing to take care of me despite my idiocy. But one thing that i know is that I owe them a big favor and I have to repay them back one day.

[–]Butter-Passing-Bot0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

what is my purpose?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (19 children) | Copy Link

You can't will yourself to be attracted to someone. It's natural not logical.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

If a 4\10 woman is only attracted to 7\10, and absolutely shits on 4\10 and even 5\10 men, then she is a shitty person and a MASSIVE hypocrite.

[–]SeemedGood4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

then she is a shitty person

She is not a "shitty person." Rather, she is just another of the vast legions of semi-conscious women who are unable to see the men around them as human beings and appreciate them for their beings, and thus doom themselves to chronic dissatisfaction with the men available to then and consequently nurse resentment towards those men for their own self-created state (externalizing the source of the grievance as evidenced in the lead phrase of the topic).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

She's a shitty person only because she shits on men she's not sexually attracted to.

Her lack of attraction to 4/10 and 5/10 men doesn't make her shitty. It just makes her unreasonable and not very realistic. No, what makes her shitty is her shitting on men she's not sexually attracted to.

[–]SeemedGood0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, what makes her shitty is her shitting on men she's not sexually attracted to.

Fair enough, though I would argue that such behavior accrues to her own detriment more than it does that of the men upon whom she defecates. Those men just get the lesson in the nature of women that they need (and will get anyway) from her instead of some other woman who might be nicer to them until it is her turn to defecate.

Edit: And I put forth that argument as a man to whom women are generally attracted and therefore treat well (I have learned in retrospect) relative to other men.

By way of example I noticed on flights to and from Europe last week how well the women gate agents and stewardesses treated me relative to the other male passengers on the flight. It was like I was in a different world flying a different airline. All but one elderly and somewhat butch-looking check-in agent had nothing for me but smiles, pleasant chit-chat, extra drinks, food, pillows and blankets, prompt attention to any request, some light flirting, and even some brief singing, while simultaneously ignoring and being downright nasty, rude, and aggressive to other men. When writing my review I had to take a bicameral approach, noting how everyone bent over backwards to help me yet treated all the other men with whom I observed them interacting like insects - and hated insects at that.

I am now realizing a large problem with having been treated similarly my whole life since puberty - it delays realization of how women actually perceive (and treat) men generally and leaves one confused as to why they eventually defecate on you no matter how well they treat you initially.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

She's a shitty person only because she shits on men she's not sexually attracted to.

First of all, shitting on anyone is bad. Secondly, if a 4\10 woman ONLY accepts 7\10 men, that's not reasonable.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

agreed

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

What does that have anything to do with what I just said?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

You said "You cant will yourself to be attracted to someone".

I'm saying that, for some women, it's not a matter of "attraction", it's a matter that their egos are SO boosted, that they think they're WAY better than they really are, hence the 4\10 woman only accepting 7\10 men, and ignoring the 5\10 men.

[–]SeemedGood1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Hypergamy is feminine imperative.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

So what? We're evolved civilized sapient beings. We've created laws and implemented justice throughout the years. How come women are exempt from doing this too?

How would you feel if someone said "Free rape is male imperative"?

[–]SeemedGood1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, my previous reply assumed that you were replying to another part of the thread, and has therefore been deleted.

Your assertion presumes that there is something "uncivilized" and or"unthinking" underlying hypergamy (or at least juxtaposed to them). That is a false presumption. On the contrary, one might put forth a sound argument that the fact of both civilization and our sapient state are the result of approximately 175,000 years of hypergamy.

Thus, this question:

How would you feel if someone said "Free rape is male imperative"?

is both a non-sequitur and a completely inept analogy without any relevance to the discussion.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Your assertion presumes that there is something "uncivilized" and or"unthinking" underlying hypergamy

Of course there is. We've become (more) civilized humans throughout the decades and centuries, therefore we dont need to focus on animalstic needs and could instead focus on building emotional connections with our partners. To put it simply, "I love her" is superior to "I wanna fuck her".

On the contrary, one might put forth a sound argument that the fact of both civilization and our sapient state are the result of approximately 175,000 years of hypergamy.

You could argue that, yes. However, like I said above, we've (somewhat) moved past that as a species, and could now focus on more "developed" goals.

is both a non-sequitur and a completely inept analogy without any relevance to the discussion.

If women using their sexual leverage over men is seen as an "imperative", then by that logic, men using their physical leverage over women would also be an "imperative".

[–]SeemedGood1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You can't will yourself to be attracted to someone. It's natural not logical.

This is what you believe to be true because you are not conscious of your own attraction mechanisms - they lie in your subconscious and operate innately. Yet, they are neither magic nor random - your attraction mechanisms follow a process. Just because you are unaware of the process does not mean that it doesn't exist. Rather it just means that the process is hidden to your consciousness. You can change that if you wish, though it does take a lot of work.

If you develop your consciousness to the extent that you gain mastery over the zone of your sub-conscious in which your attraction mechanisms operate, and strengthen your will such that you can use it to alter your innate behaviors, you most certainly can change your attraction cues to reflect the priorities of your conscious will. Many men develop the ability to do this out of necessity arising from being the selected sex (and thus having fewer options than women). Even men with a variety of options develop this ability in order to improve the tenor of our relationships by bringing our attraction cues more into line with those qualities our conscious wills admire and appreciate in a woman.

We are supposed to grow, evolve, and subsequently develop such mastery over ourselves. It is a natural part of our maturation process and primal experiences within our natural existence have evolved along with us to present the necessary conditions for us to develop that self-mastery if we choose to practice diligent objective self-observation, self-critique, and introspection and if we refuse to externalize the sources of our grievances in favor of taking responsibility for them.

Unfortunately, modern society has encouraged us all (and particularly women) to eschew those primal experiences, to spend very little energy in objective self-observation, self-critique, and introspection, and to externalize our responsibility for our respective states. Our modern western society encourages all of us (and particularly women) to acceptance of a substantial sub-conscious state of existence - sleep, in essence. Thus, your own belief that you cannot control and direct the entirety of yourself.

And for the sake of accuracy, the state of being natural does not preclude a logical process. Quite the opposite actually, nature itself could be described as a giant complex logical process.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

In no way are you going to convince me that men are so much more enlightened about how they operate or are attracted than women are.

[–]SeemedGood4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I did not set out to convince you of that.

Yet, because it is less socially acceptable for men to eschew responsibility for their condition, and because we are more likely to experience unabated failure in life if we refuse to develop some objective observational, self-critiquing, and introspective ability, we are more likely to reduce the regions of our sub-conscious activity than women.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Underrated comment.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If he's not attractive to me he may still be "a good man" but not for a relationship with me because who wants to be in a relationship with someone they aren't attracted to?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like we're on the same page, then. Too many people settle in the attraction department, and that's why they end up in unhealthy/unhappy relationships. Many guys expect someone out of their league to "give them a chance", not understanding what they're getting themselves into if she does.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I disagree with them being equivalents. I do agree though WHATGMG comes from a place of entitlement.

Your idea of the BIANG is off

The unfortunate fact is that because many women prefer to be diplomatic over being honest (and women do in fact benefit from the positive prejudices which being honest would dispel), the “but you’re a nice guy” talk doesn’t mean what it actually says. What it means is “I don’t find you sexually attractive, in spite of the fact you’re a kind and polite person, and as such I don’t want to have a romantic relationship with you.”

This leaves men in a state of disillusionment and disappointment; didn’t they act precisely how they were told to act in order to be attractive?

The issue with nice guys is not men being told by women to do X and that X not working. If this were true most nice guys would just be acting more jerky or simply doing things they see are successful.

The real issue is some men have a hard time grappling with a society or sexual sphere that isn't morally guided or obligated. See, there is no sexual incentives to act moral or real emphasis on making virtuous or moral sexual decisions. You can if you want, but there's no consequence if you don't.

The nice guy doesn't comprehend this. He doesn't comprehend sexuality in a space outside of morality. He can't contemplate this girl he might be helping with her homework getting cum stuck in her throat from some dude at a party.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

What would a virtuous sexual decision look like?

[–]trail220 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

not hooking up with a girl with a BF.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Is that what soccerstar was talking about? It seems like he was saying that a girl choking on cum at a party was committing an immoral act.

[–]trail220 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

are nice guys complaining about women getting laid or not going otu with them.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not going out with them.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's seems immoral because they've been trained to get women the wrong way, ie helping with homework and not being the life of the party

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The issue with nice guys is not men being told by women to do X and that X not working.

Well...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But that's not the reason nice guys keep staying nice guys. Like I said they can walk on any college campus and see what guys are getting all the girls.

There is just a sort of denial or the liberation of women, that even the cute nerdy girl you saw in one of your classes took a huge one at a party last night.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

So you would argue that the Nice Guy attitude is primarily internal to the guy's moral attitudes and not something culturally reinforced?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well it used to be culturally enforced when the standard of dating was courting or being a gentlemen , but not anymore.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I have to personally disagree. I've seen Nice Guyness get culturally reinforced repeatedly by women. Maybe my experiences differ from others but other people claim to have seen this too.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I've seen Nice Guyness get culturally reinforced repeatedly by women. Maybe my experiences differ from others but other people claim to have seen this too.

Well yes, but remember the other component of being a nice guy is the savior complex. "Oh, that girl, she is so clueless, she just goes with the assholes and bad boys. One day she will see the light and choose me, the right man". -> somewthing like that.

There is a sort of moral virtue signaling foundation behind the nice guy.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a very fair point.

[–][deleted]  (9 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

But these crappy magazine articles often have anecdotes about how other similarly situated women are in the same situation. And of course we have entire sites devoted to mocking 'Nice Guys' so the phenomenon exists. It may not be overly widespread.

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Once you get into your 30s, you will start to.

[–][deleted]  (6 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Lol, she landed one?

Honestly, I'm finding if I take the grievances of men at 20, it seems awful Similar to the grievances of women at 35.

Had a woman whom I used to work with who was divorced, slept with the CEO, and milked medical leave of absenses for a good year, in order to avoid a reprimand for being late to work.

Another one was 23, divorced, and headed down that road. Though she was young and pretty, so much less angry about it.

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

It's a weird thing, to hear people who live outside ones experience.

Ive never known a hooker. Strippers yes.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I have a funny story about that. I'll pm it when I get back

[–]decoy88Black Male in London1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There's no difference.

See subreddit posts of r/nicegirls vs. r/niceguys

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]TheBlackQuillMisanthrope6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

The WHATGMG women are usually those who never see themselves in the mirror and reflect on their flaws. They assume there is nothing wrong with them and everything is the fault of men. The problem is not with their entitlement because everyone feels entitled to something. For instance, if we treat other people nicely, we want them to treat us nicely too and we get upset when we are treated like crap. No, the problem with WHATGMG women is the fact that they don't have to bring anything to the table. Just exist and expect their prince charming to come. They don't have any extraordinary career/skills and expect dream guys to pick them up. lmao what a joke. 😂

[–]Pope_LuciousSeparating the wheat from the hoes4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think OP would argue the expectation for Prince Charming is entitlement. Good post!

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Not so much the mere expectation (in the sense of thinking there will be a large number of Prince Charmings out there). Its more the response that, in the absence of a large number of Prince Charmings, men who don't live up to that ideal are morally obligated to become Prince Charmings entirely for women's sake. Women don't have to offer anything; men are just obliged to man up even if women don't give them anything in return. The lack of hot men is seen not merely as a sad and disappointing thing a woman tries to change through offering an incentive... rather the woman in question sees this situation and acts like she's been offended or attacked by this lack of potential suitors.

[–]TheBlackQuillMisanthrope4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup exactly. Those women also don't offer anything apart from existing lmao. If they want to compete for UC men, they need increase their own social status first lol.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No, the problem with WHATGMG women is the fact that they don't have to bring anything to the table. Just exist and expect their prince charming to come. They don't have any extraordinary career/skills and expect dream guys to pick them up.

That basically describes NiceGuys too though. Extremely boring, uninteresting and weak-minded men, who just arbitrarily decided that they are nicer than other men because they let themselves be treated like a doormat.

If you ever ask a nice guy to describe why a girl should date him, he will never be able to list any extraordinary skills, careers etc. either.

[–]Pope_LuciousSeparating the wheat from the hoes0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea, it's a good comparison. There are a lot of guys who need to take an honest look at themselves and ask what they bring to the table.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Where have all the good men gone?" is essentially a 3rd wave feminist lament about how they have scared off perfectly valuable men

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

/u/yetanothercommenter

Unsurprisingly, I fully agree with your writeup, I would just replace "sex" with "intimacy", because the latter, while less specific, is more accurate in the context we're dealing with.

Because - which I assume you're aware of - the "Nice Guy" (and with this I mean the persona you've described in your article, not the malevolently distorted caricature used by feminists) more often than not isn't exclusively out for sex, but for relationships (albeit of course he operates under the assumption that sex will be part of the relationship). Therefore I would say that "intimacy" is the better term, simply because it avoids confusion of that sort: Intimacy can be anything - romantic affection, a relationship, but also sexual desire, kissing and sexual intercourse.

Also, a few other things that came to mind:

  • an additional problem that often affects guys with the BIANG-mindset: their bewilderment isn't just because a specific woman doesn't reciprocate their attraction (this would be the exception from the rule that can always happen), but that women in general aren't attracted to him, which belies the claims that niceness is indeed a very important and universally attractive trait.
  • if you want to back up your claim of female insincerity regarding attraction markers, this is a nice place to quote.
  • the WHATGMG-mindset also has another dimension: it basically comes from a place of not only of demanding men to change their priorities so they better align with that of the women in question ("manning up" and wanting to start a family), but also of demanding men who do have similar priorities to forego more attractive options in favor of the women who complain about WHATGMG. Specifically, if a woman in her 30s wants a man of similar age and ambition for her life plan, but the same man is more likely to go for another woman 5-10 years younger, this (him not choosing a similarly "accomplished" woman) is also treated as a shortcoming on part of the man.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's very true. You're right; the Nice Guy isn't just looking for sex but for a relationship. For a girlfriend.

I apologize for any lack of clarity. I focused on sex because I was trying to address the charge of "sexual entitlement" so the discussion is inherently sex-centric. But you're entirely correct.

I'm glad you liked the article. Thank you.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Edited my post for format and additional pointers.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Very underrated post.

[–]caesarfecitPurple Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't disagree with OP because I think he's spot on. Who we decide to commit to and who we decide to bang are emotional decisions, not logical ones. There's no set of personal criteria that is guaranteed to get you what you want.

That being said, the best advice I can give everyone is guys bring the serotonin, girls bring the dopamine. The overwhelming majority of girls won't sleep with guys they don't trust (and if they do, it's more about them than it is about you), and the overwhelming majority of guys won't stay invested in a girl that doesn't show any interest in them.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

WHALTGMG are only more entitled because women are the gatekeepers anyways. It's just the dynamics playing out, I don't think it's conscious choice to be more entitled than men

[–]rulenumber3030 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Do WHATGMG women see themselves as deserving of an “eligible” man? Perhaps, but only in a passive sense. Most emphatically they do not see themselves as having to earn such a man or of actually earning such a man.

The idea of "earning" a partner is just ridiculous. Finding a suitable and willing partner is a HUNT not a JOB.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree its a ridiculous idea. Unfortunately is a socially prominent one.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

CMV: * Sth obvious to which any opposition will be either very insane or very insubstantial * is terrible for this sub imo

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I admittedly did not make it all the way through your argument and analysis because I was annoyed that despite its academic structure, it was very lacking in academic sources to support its arguments.

I found that your arguments regarding BIANG not satisfying the "entitlement" test to be pretty weak. For example, this sentence is basically all the proof you have for BIANG not satisfying the positive obligation test:

Look at how “Nice Guys” react when they’re accused of feeling like women actually owe them sex; they are confused by this accusation and deny it[...]

I mean, sure I've seen some men react this way but I've also seen some men react differently. Without studies or statistics backing up statements like the one above, your arguments aren't strong at all.

I will say that I do agree that WHATGMG is entitled, but I find both BIANG and WHATGMG to be entitled attitudes. Plenty of BIANG men that I've met have satisfied the criterion that you put forth in your test. I can't say which attitude is worse (although it's important to note that BIANG seems to lead to a lot of violence against women) but I can say that both attitudes are harmful and should be done away with.

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Both of them are equally entitled.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

May I ask why you think so? Do you object to the "test" the article laid out for what constitutes entitlement?

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I will say 1 thing though, many of the where have all the good men gone women may have unrealistic expectations, but they are usually at least somewhat eligible - many of them keep themselves in shape, have a good career, are socially functioning. Whereas many of the But I'm a Nice Guy guys are usually lacking in many ways that would lead them to not be eligible for a relationship - supplicating doormat, often doesn't understand people and social situations, bad at inferring what other people want.

Honey Badger Brigade doesn't sound like an unbiased source tbh.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Can we just stop with this "entitlement" bollox?

Once you feel "entitled" or worthy around women you become sexy.

The problem with nice guys is we were wondering, almost asking women (subconsciously) if we are good enough?

Entitled man is a cocky alpha.

[–]pinkgoldrose-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Where Have All The Good Men Gone = I'd rather stay alone than date any of the guys I know

But I'm a Nice Guy = I want to date these girls, I'm better than their boyfriends, I deserve a girlfriend

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

But if this were the case, we wouldn't have all of those WHATGMG articles literally commanding men to give up their hobbies, "man up" and start acting how women want. WHATGMG in the popular press isn't merely disappointment with the dating pool, its accompanied by demands being leveled at men.

[–]pinkgoldrose-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry I didn't read those.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter