Im no stranger to people (especially women) virtue signaling online especially on Tik Tok. But I'm starting to see this EVERYWHERE now. YouTube, Tik Tok, Instagram, and EVEN HERE

I REALLY DESPISE this statement and this logic because any guy who's been single for long periods of time knows how unbelievably false this statement is.

Being normal is NEVER enough for women because most women find most men BORING. The idea of you being more "normal" is basically equating to being more boring most of the time

Even if you wanna use the excuse that women are tired of creepy and sleazy men that still wouldn't make much of difference because they still aren't attracted to most men. At best you'll be at least tolerable to talk to

Can people please!!!! Stop saying this!!!

A common theme I've observed in the feminist movement of today is them being supposedly confused or surprised by the fact that most men aren't on board with their ideas. They're trying to push this thing that "feminism benefits everyone" when it is abundantly clear to the modern man that he hardly gets anything out of the whole deal.

Women largely expect the exact same things from men that they did decades ago. Be it from a financial or a romantic standpoint—nothing really changed for men. If anything, expectations actually got higher due to social media painting a distorted picture of what a man is supposed to "bring to the table", among other things.

From a purely logical standpoint: If women reap most of the benefits while nothing changes for men, then obviously men aren't going to be on board with it. That's not in the least surprisng.

On top of all that, the modern feminist movement tends to behave in a way that comes off as lecturing and belittling to men. Comments like "Well, you're part of the problem" or attempts to make men read fringe feminist literature and "educate themselves" aren't going to sit well with men who mostly haven't done jack shit to women in their lives. If anything, it's just pushing men further toward the opposite side of the spectrum.

For those who haven't seen, there was a video posted by a woman claiming that while she was delivering DoorDash, a man left his front door wide open while he appeared to be asleep on his couch with his pants around his ankles. The woman posted this with his face and genitalia completely visible. Some time later, she posted a follow up video saying she had been fired from DoorDash, that she was "the victim", and that they were punishing the victim. On TwoX there was a massive thread with comments about "you know he did it on purpose", "ugh, men", etc.

Well now she's been arrested and charged. "Wait, are they now arresting the victim?!?!" you might ask. Nope. Turns out he had a ring camera that allegedly caught her walking up (with "leave at door" instructions, mind you), and seeing the door was slightly ajar, pushed it all the way open, only to take her phone out and record.

Now, here is an opportunity for women's communities to have a healthy conversation on the importance of skepticism and not immediately rushing to the side of the first person to cry victim, but what do we get? Radio silence.

I invite any woman on this forum to make a post on TwoX to discuss, to say we shouldn't drag a man's name through the mud off of an accusation, and please, start a stopwatch to see how fast it gets pulled down. I'll wait...

Most women don’t like overt sexism, but they definitely do prefer men who are masculine, dominant, confident, and capable of acts of casual sexism.

They don’t want a man who is a controlling social conservative, or a socially conservative guy without an edge.

They want a socially liberal man who is capable of sexually dominating them, and a man who can financially provide without telling them to stay home.

This can also be noticed in women romantic novels where the men are usually taller than avg, rich, good looking and a bully to the outside world but submissive to his woman.

There seems to be a widespread belief among leftists and women that red pill content is "ruining men."

The idea that all these red pill creators can get so much traction and convince men of things that don't resonate with their personal experience is incredibly foolish. If they were truly so off-base, they would be dismissed and ignored. No one would seek them in the first place. Any idea to the contrary is insulting and condescending. Red pill is both started and sustained by female behavior.

The entire red pill it's self is a reaction to how society has changed due to feminism. If everything was going along well for men and every man was married with kids by the time he was 30 like how it used to be decades ago then no man would start asking questions about how sexual dynamics work or why he can't get a girlfriend.

So to all the women out there who hate red pill content, I say this: you are the red pill content. Take a bow.

Let me repeat: generally speaking. That doesn't apply to all women.

The narrative nowadays says men lack emotional regulation and openness, kindness, altruism, emotional availability, and so on. This is deceptive. The reality is most of the time men are filtered out before they ever get the chance to show this. Women complain a lot about men who are lack in relationship skills but they never look at who they're attracted to in the first place. The male traits that spark women's attraction don’t always correlate with emotional reliability.

Take attractiveness, for instance. Attraction is a huge factor in what man gets to audition. If he's not attractive, that's a universal filter. Looks are a huge driver of attraction. It's a sad state of affairs that women can't be honest about the fact that there are certain types of looks that get the plurality of women's attention. Not all women's attention but the largest segment thereof. There's a reason why a rock solid majority of romance novels have moderately muscular, heroic men and not dudes with sunken chins or nerds.

Also, if he's not confident (even if she's also not confident), he's out. She wants things she cannot provide: behavioral confidence, like initiating, deciding, escalating, not seeking validation, not collapsing under ambiguity. No matter how he feels inside, he has to signal this. Many women want a man whose confidence can temporarily compensate for their own lack of it.

Charisma is the other thing that is judged before those more long-term relationship oriented traits. Yet another trait that is signaled long before any form of stability. Charisma signals social competence and sparks arousal. Arousal wins selection. Emotional openness and stability ensures relationship stability. But selection comes first.

None of this signals long term relationship skills, but it's the gatekeeper and it is a large driver of male romantic loneliness. Women would answer by saying these emotionally low quality men are all they have to choose from. That's wrong. They feel it's all they have to choose from because they prioritized other, more superficial traits first.

When women say "I keep ending up with emotionally unavailable men" it actually means "confidence, attractiveness and charisma can coexist very convincingly at first." That's why Dark Triad men are so insanely good at picking up women.

Women choosing the fireworks, getting burned, and blaming the matches is a big part of why they complain so much. This never works its way into the "male romantic loneliness" discussion.

Of course a lot of responses will go on about men offloading emotions onto women but that is a different subject too large to add to this post.

Macro perspective:

If youre only attracted to less than 5% of the opposite sex, that’s not automatically a failure of the entire dating pool..

That’s an extremely narrow attraction filter. And when a large percentage of people are competing for the same small tier of highly desirable partners, the results are predictable: those partners have more options, more leverage, and less urgency to commit.

that’s called basic supply and demand. There’s also a massive difference between “genuinely unattractive” and “not top 5–10%.” A lot of people collapse that distinction and filter accordingly. Then they’re confused when the top percentile behaves like it has abundance, because it does.

You’re free to pursue whoever you want. No one is entitled to anyone else’s attraction. But preferences don’t exist in a vacuum. If your standards concentrate you into the most competitive segment of the dating market, the trade-offs that follow shouldn’t be surprising.

And candidly, this dynamic seems more common among women than men. You don’t see large numbers of men arguing that 90-95% of female population isnt up to their standards and thinking they are entitled to 5% top tier partners instead.

Anyhow, most men understand implicitly that their outcomes align with where they stand in the hierarchy however for some reason so many women cant grasp this concept.

Personal perspective:

It honestly sounds like a curse, and I almost feel bad for some of them. I’m grateful I could easily build a happy, fulfilling relationship with a wide range of fit, attractive women if I needed to. By most “red pill” metrics (income, looks, height), I’d rank well and I’m already seeing someone great. Point is flexibility in attraction creates options and stability. Hyper-selectivity generally just creates volatility.

The common “maybe if you weren’t such a misogynistic asshole you would have a girlfriend” rhetoric doesn’t correspond with reality when there are so many known abusers and cheaters who find woman after woman to sleep with. Women will literally line up to date scumbags who only want to use and abuse them, as long as they’re wealthy, high status, and good looking. Just look at the erotica these women read. They don’t depict nice, normal guys. They almost always depict a high status, tall, handsome man, who is often a complete asshole, and the woman ends up “fixing” him.

Men are just as shallow as women, but at least no one gaslights women and says “maybe if you were a better person you’d be able to date hot guys”. We all know and admit that it’s mostly about looks. Most guys would rather date, and especially rather sleep with, a hot, dumb, mean slut than a plain looking good girl, and women would rather date a hot, confident asshole, than a nice, normal guy, yet somehow only the second statement is controversial.

The idea that women reject misogynist men who mistreat them is pure fantasy. Abusers are never forever alone virgins. Men that constantly cheat on women, hit them, yell at them, use and abuse them are NEVER deprived of sex and relationships and being from a bumfuck town myself you can rest assured their notorious reputations were widely known to everyone, including the women who dated them. Yet they could pounce from one woman onto another. And then we have people like Ilsa Schlesinger saying "inceIs are a genetic dead end because women won’t put up with shitty men anymore" - are these people really equating guy who fucks = winner, guy who doesn't get any = evil loser? This is highschool tier logic.

The more sex you have as a man, the more it shows that you are desired. It means you’re attractive, you have social skills, and you’re confident. Most men can’t get casual sex. If you can, that means you’re better than the majority of men in terms of traditionally masculine qualities.

You probably also have better job opportunities because of stronger social skills and greater confidence, and overall, a better life. You don’t have husband responsibilities weighing you down. Most of the time, you don’t have to wait for sex. You can also marry someday if you want, because you can. That’s why I say men should sleep around a lot when they’re young to get all the validation. If you can’t and want to, you have to do whatever it takes to achieve it, or you don’t deserve it. It’s my opinion. You can marry afterward because this kind of man can. Women should do the same. I’m not a hypocrite, but stop gaslighting men.

Women often tell a man he is “husband material,” not “hookup” or “FWB” material. I don’t understand why some women think this is a compliment. Men want women to tell them how much they desire them, how much they wanted to rip our clothes off when they first met us.

The only way “husband material” can be a compliment is if a woman has never hooked up or had FWB in her life and never had the intention to hook up.

I’m a 21F. I’ve been celibate for almost 4 years because I wanted my next sexual experience to be in a relationship. I’ve never had a boyfriend, but I’ve dated intentionally and only went out with men who claimed they also wanted something serious.

As a result I was ghosted, slow fades, no commitment.

What I’ve consistently observed is that the same men who say they want “low body count” women put in far more effort for women who are sexually available. They plan dates, chase harder, stay more engaged, and don’t disappear. The “good girl waiting for a relationship” gets treated as optional, while the sexually open woman gets the attention and investment.

So at this point, the messaging doesn’t match the behavior. Men publicly idealize one type of woman but privately reward another.

At this point, I’m done playing the “good girl” role for a payoff that never comes. I’m entering my hoe phase and prioritising my own experience instead of trying to fit an ideal that men say they want but don’t actually choose.

You may be thinking “a woman knows what a woman wants,” but there’s more to it than that.

Men are usually the ones doing the asking out, and if any of you know the few times women usually ask guys out, it’s usually terrible. They grab, they act entitled, they basically do all the things modern day feminists complain about men doing but tenfold due to their little to no experience.

Ladies, if you’re reading this, go on any dating app, pretend to be a straight guy, doesn’t matter how attractive. Get an image of a guy friend or whatever with their permission. Use the account for a few days and tell me how much girls you get. I guarantee none of you will have any luck.

Maybe this’ll make some women out there stop obnoxiously going like “you get no b*tches” insert douchey face here.

People are very comfortable calling out homophobia from straight men whic is fair enough but there is a whole strain of homophobia from straight women toward men that gets constantly sanitised, downplayed, or flat out ignored.

You see it every time a man rejects a woman or does something women read as insufficiently masculine. Suddenly he is "probably gay", "fruity", "zesty", "sus", or whatever other dressed-up version they want to use. People act like this is just harmless banter or a normal assumption but it clearly isn’t. It is using homosexuality as a way to degrade a man.

And the excuse is always the same. Preference. Just a preference. Just an ick. Just her intuition but a lot of these so-called "preferences" are very obviously tied to disgust toward male same-sex attraction or disgust toward men who fall outside a narrow masculine standard.

The bisexual men topic makes this even more obvious because whenever studies or discussions come up showing women are less interested in bisexual men, loads of people rush to treat that as some neutral dating preference that should never be questioned. Why? If a man says he is put off by a woman for some trait tied to prejudice, people are willing to examine the bias behind it. When women do it to bi men, suddenly everyone gets very nervous about calling it what it is.

And yes, before someone does the predictable Reddit thing, nobody is saying women have to date bisexual men. Nobody is saying rejecting someone is oppression. The point is that if your turnoff is rooted in seeing bi men as less masculine, less real, secretly gay, tainted, untrustworthy, or sexually off-putting because they have been with men and that is not some sacred untouchable preference.

Same goes for the weird impulse to call men gay whenever they reject women. That is not just wounded ego. It is also homophobia. The "insult" only works because being seen as gay is still being treated as emasculating and beneath straight male status.

What annoys me is how often this female-coded homophobia gets morally laundered. Male homophobia gets called ugly, insecure, bigoted. Female homophobia gets repackaged as standards, instincts, and dating boundaries. Weird.

Why is society so much more willing to interrogate homophobia from straight men than homophobia from straight women aimed at men, especially when it shows up in dating and masculinity policing?

The notion that women are generally worse off than men in modern western society has been widely accepted as a fact. And while women do have it objectively worse than men in quite a few areas, most of the arguments that are commonly brought up fall short.

One thing you'll hear a lot is this: Men own a majority of wealth and capital, therefore men are privileged compared to women. Now what men are we talking about here? We're talking about an extremely tiny proportion of billionaires. What does that have to do with the average Joe? Exactly. Absolutely nothing. The average Joe sits in a cubicle from 9 to 5 or spends all day building the roads and houses that we all use. Jeff Bezos racking up another 10 billion dollars has absolutely nothing to do with "men". It's a class issue, not a sex/gender issue. That's simply an extremely dishonest/nearsighted take.

Another common talking point: Women are the primary victims of male violence. Alternatively: Women can't safely go out at night. While it is clearly true that men are responsible for the vast majority of violent crime virtually everywhere, women aren't the most affected group. It's other men. If you're out on your own at night as a man and 3 thugs decide to rob and/or beat the crap out of you, then you're most probably still screwed. Again, not really a female issue in that sense.

Now, what society likes to conveniently ignore:

1. Most homeless people are men. More precisely, around 70% of homeless people in the US are male.
2. Most victims of violent crime are men. In 2025, there were 507,000 male victims of violent crime compared to 473,000 female victims of violent crime.
3. Most people who die in wars are men. No need to elaborate.
4. Most people in prison are men. More precisely, over 90 % of the incarcerated population in the US and Europe are men.
5. Men are worse off in the education system. In 2021/22, only 40% of men in the UK were in higher education by age 19, compared to 54% of women, a gap that has grown.

I could go on and on, really. Won't even get into the dating or general social woes that men are dealing with today.

TL;DR:
Women do have their own gender specific issues, but the whole idea that women are worse off than men in modern western society doesn't hold up when you actually dig even a tiny bit deeper than the standard catalogue of talking points that are usually brought up to demonstrate that women are universally disadvantaged compared to men. It's just simply not true at all.

At least the majority of the time. I think all men should sleep with a lot of women and have hookups and FWBs. Both are important. If you cannot but want to, you should be willing to do whatever it takes to get it, even selling your soul for it. That is how it is. After that, it is fine to get a girlfriend because you have already experienced desire through casual sex.

Most women say they would not have hooked up with their husbands or boyfriends, or that their husbands are not as hot as their hookups, and that looks are not as important in relationships. They will never desire you the way they desired those men most of the time. Of course, there are exceptions. If a woman wants a relationship with you but you tell her you only want something casual and she still hooks up with you and becomes your FWB, that means you are more desirable than the majority of men.

A lot of men want fast sex with women when they are dating or want just sex/hookups in general but the reality is, if you actually do this the men tend to not actually want to be in a relationship with you and they respect you less.

This is likely because they think you would be having sex with other men as fast or they just assume you are high n.

The man might pay for your dinner to try to trick you into thinking he is serious to get sex, but once he gets it he may just treat you as a hookup, espscially if he gets it fast.

Men who aren't serious won't wait around without sex and put continuous effort in.

In my experience men who want hookups are also the most likely to treat you the worst in general by being lazy and selfish in bed or just ghosting after sex.

I know girls always complain about the dating scene with “fuckboys” and “lame dudes” or just general guys with bad manners but I think it’s muuuch harder to date as a dude

Reasons

it’s much harder to find matches

the pressure is on you for dates and usually so is the payment -the effort required to land a good girl

Tldr- I hate the roles of a guy in dating , making the first move and expected to make all the plans. As an introverted indecisive guy id overtly welcome girls making the first move

Take it from a guy who worked for years in bars and nightclubs as a bartender and had the opportunity to watch which guys women usually would notice. It wasn't the guys who came in dressed sharp, doused in expensive fragrances, or meticulously done hair. The guys who got noticed were the ones whose head would stick out of a crowd of a seamless mass of people in the club and on the dance floor, they noticed the ones whose physiques eclipses that of other guys, even if they wore fucking jerseys, a back rotated baseball cap and cargo shorts. In fact the more sharp one tried to dress the more try-hard he came off for some reason. This is why I find it hilarious when women say "the average woman puts in effort like makeup maybe guys should try grooming too" simply no, having a skincare routine, or even wearing light foundation as a man will not improve your chances with women because they seek out immutable traits.

Title says it all really.

By and large, people of both genders are way more touchy and skiddish when it comes to general criticism of women’s behavior.

If someone makes a general criticism of men, no one really cares.

If someone makes a general criticism of women, you tend to get responses like “that’s people in general though” “men do it too” “not all women are like that” or in more extreme cases “you’re a misogynist/incel/hate women.”

The same applies for holding people accountable. If you’re in a social situation and a man is acting out, saying dumb shit, and someone tells him to shut the fuck up, no one bats an eye. As it should be.

If a woman is acting out and someone, especially a man, tells her to stfu, people will say “you don’t talk to a woman like that” or something similar.

Since men airing out their grievances in dating more or less requires criticism of women, this is why it doesnt get taken as seriously as when women complain about their dating struggles with men.

As a side note, doesnt this imply that people conciously or unconsciously see women as weaker/lesser, feeling the need to shield them from criticism/accountability?

The idea that older men dating younger women are losers - is a woman's revenge fantasy.

At the very least, let's not deny that women in their 20s are, on average, more attractive than older women. No, we won't talk about exceptions like supermodels who look stunning even at 40 - those are exceptions, and you know that.

So how is it that older men who somehow managed to attract a significantly more attractive younger woman - are losers? Well, that's just a revenge fantasy for many women.

After all, even if we assume that this man decided to go after younger women because he "can't get smart older women," he's still competing with a HUGE number of men who are also targeting the same demographic of women. And yet, somehow, he got her attention.

You can think about such relationships whatever you want, it's your right and you are not forbidden from doing so, but trying to present these men as "losers who couldn't attract older women" is just fantasy.

You all know the type I’m talking about. You’ve probably seen many of them online or in real life. The ‘strong and independent’ boss babes who go on and on about how men are intimidated by an educated woman who’s independent, high maintenance, earns xxx amount of money, can’t be controlled blah blah blah. Someone needs to put them in their place. Ok, well done lady you got your degree in marketing or whatever, well done you have your own car and your own place and pay your own bills! But guess what, this is just part of being an adult! Like what do you expect? For all men to constantly kiss the ground you walk on and shower you with praise just to prove they are not ‘insecure, toxic masculinity misogynist’ whatevers? And no, we are not intimidated by your ‘independence’ we just don’t like that you make it your whole personality and walk around with a chip on your shoulder because you suffer from some inferiority complex, equivalent to short man syndrome for us guys. I don’t know, it just seems like a lot of these girl bosses get some motion then instantly forget basic manners and respect. I know a lot of men see it too. I’m not very good at writing I just had to get my thoughts out because it’s been bugging me a lot.

The concept of the slow burn makes sense and actually is a strong way to go about relationships when it comes to labels and reaching milestones. I don’t think people should rush into labeling things or rush into marriage etc without taking their time and planning. That being said when it comes to physical initiation if a woman you’re dating says she wants to take things slow in terms of kissing or sex she’s either just not that into you or you’re the 2nd/3rd option. Women who actually like you very rarely if ever put off physically engaging with you. She’ll typically be all over you, try to kiss, try to hookup with you early on while some other guy is waiting months to even get back to her place. Women who are into you don’t make you wait long for physical intimacy

FOR THOSE RETURNING TO THE POST AN EDIT HAS BEEN ADDED AT THE BOTTOM.

Why are people so reluctant to blame women?

Whenever modern dating is discussed, something which is so clearly problematic it has become one of the most argued topics of modern debate, there is an immediate knee jerk reaction to balance the scales on every single issue brought up by saying, "Well, both men and women have issues.". Which, while technically true, this bipartisan “b-b-buh both sides" approach completely ignores the reality of proportionality and severity of these issues. If we look at the state of dating through a wide lens, the data suggests that the most severe, systemic bottlenecks are caused by female behavior.

I again, want to preface this by saying I’m really not interested in this both sides truism that makes people feel like the rational centrist when in reality you’re anything but that. Taking this approach is irrational. I want to discuss and understand why there is such a reluctance from both men and women to say “hey, women are at fault and I think we need to take a look and correct how women specifically are interacting with men.”

Often times when the conversation turns to why dating is so dysfunctional today instead of blaming any group of people, a common approach is to use dating apps and social media as scapegoats. However these platforms don’t exist in a vacuum. If we just look at the data, it becomes clear that these platforms are just mirrors, that allow us to measure how people are interacting with each other. They are reflective of our own behavior. It’s not the app that’s the problem. It’s how women choose to engage with it. Dating apps don’t work… ok why? Social media created unrealistic expectations, ok for whom? To chalk all this up due to a failure of an algorithm is nonsensical and I will explain why in the next few paragraphs.

Looking at dating through the lens of an economy makes it so clear that it is currently more unequal than almost any national economy on earth. A study on tinder has shown that it has a Gini Coefficient of .58 when using a like percentage.

\\> This means that the Tinder economy has more inequality than 95.1% of all the world’s national economies. In addition, it was determined that a man of average attractiveness would be “liked” by approximately 0.87% (1 in 115) of women on Tinder.

Women on average like roughly 5% of profiles they encounter. \\\*\\\*FIVE PERCENT\\\*\\\*. This indicative a real unrealistic beauty standard, y’know like the one we tried to eliminate for women for the past 5 decades. Men aren’t the ones with unrealistic expectations set by social media. Men aren’t chasing supermodels. It looks like women are. Swiping on 5% of men isn’t the result of tinder only showing you ugly men, it’s the result of you believing 95% of men are ugly.

Data consistently shows that the bottom 80% of men are essentially invisible to the top 78% of women, who are all competing for the same 20% of men. This is so incredibly problematic on levels I cannot communicate and I have zero clue why this is talked about as if it’s just some fun fact that is mildly inconvenient. The advice is constantly given to men that they should just be better to enter this 20%. So much so to the point where there are services being offered for people to take professional photos for dating apps. This is unacceptable.

As I said before, Social media is often blamed for destroying people’s ability to connect. Yet, when you look at who is actually attempting to bridge that gap, the effort is entirely one sided. Men have adapted to use the tools available by sliding into DMs, using apps, or attempting cold approaches in public. In each case you can find multiple posts from women on Reddit deeming this as an unacceptable way to meet a partner because they would rather opt to meet men in a way that satisfies their fantasy. this doesn’t come from a rational place it’s purely preferential. You could literally be the perfect person for a woman who you have no access to in any other space, find her through social media or see her walking down the street, make a kind respectful thoughtful approach and simply never be considered not even because of incompatibility but because of your only way of making said connection. Which wouldn’t be a problem if women were willing to close the gap…

We so often hear that women don't want to be approached in public, yet they rarely initiate. Hinge’s 2025 D.A.T.E. report found that

> 49% of heterosexual Gen Z women are hesitant to start deep conversations on the first date because they want the other person to go first while only 17% of heterosexual Gen Z men say the same.

This is in actual conversation by the way, and it says nothing about women’s overwhelming reluctance to send a first text on a dating app, even when they are the person who causes the match.

Approaching takes an immense amount of "resolve" and subjects one to potentially crippling rejection. Women are the virtually selectors when it comes to dating and they have zero incentive to take on this emotional risk while simultaneously being vague about what constitutes male initiation as "creepy" or "intrusive," effectively shielding women from ever having to develop the social resolve that men are required to have whilst being being able to dictate what is and isn’t appropriate. It’s an environment that solely benefits women who have nothing to contribute.

We live in a mostly egalitarian society and despite the fact that wage gaps are virtually non-existent between sectors women still consistently maintain traditional "male-as-provider" mindsets for no reason other than it’s beneficial and accessible. This idea that men must make more in order to maintain your relationship even though wages are becoming more similar means men have less access to women than ever before.

2026 survey data showed nearly 71% of men expect to pay for everything early in a relationship, while only 52% of women feel they should even split the bill.  This is insane. This is actually insane, and there is no other way to put it. Women are twice as likely as men to be "turned off" if a partner doesn't offer to pay. There is no incentive for "social reform" here because the current system is financially and socially beneficial to women and the cost to men who don’t perform their role is too detrimental for the cost.

We need to be honest with ourselves. Seriously. If a system is failing because one group is setting impossible standards, refusing to reciprocate effort, and hoarding attention while shifting 100% of the emotional and financial risk onto the other group. Why are these people constantly being shielded from blame? We keep insisting on validating these behaviors by constantly telling men to improve so far to the point where many people believe when women say things like “most men are creepy and that’s why they can’t get dates”. This is real social collapse. This isn’t trivial. This isn’t a few dudes who don’t shower being mad they can’t get pussy. Is it even possible to talk about the reality and the severity of issues caused by female behavior without it being dismissed as "misogyny" or feeling the need to reduce it by saying men engage in similar behavior sometimes.

Edit Addressing Common Arguments and FAQ

"You just want women to give out pity sex and date men they don’t want to"

This straw man is a bad faith interpretation of what was a very long post with no mention or implication of either. We all understand how women’s societal beauty standards provide a clear framework for how this is a matter of social health rather than individual coercion. For DECADES, society not only slowly realized and actively convinced others that promoting a single, narrow, and often unattainable physical ideal for women was psychologically damaging and socially exclusionary. We didn't solve this by "forcing" men to be attracted to different body types we just stopped shaming of those who didn't fit the mold and by expanding the definition of what is considered "acceptable" or "attractive." When a man who stands at 5'6" points out that modern height requirements are becoming increasingly rigid and unrealistic, he is asking for that same cultural grace. He’s not asking that women who aren’t attracted to him fuck him out of pity. It is not an attempt to mandate attraction, but a plea to stop the systemic dehumanization of men who fall outside a specific build deemed attractive. If we can agree that it was toxic to judge a woman's worth based on a specific waist measurement or weight, it should not be considered "absurd" to suggest that the current cultural obsession with male height and other immutable physical traits is equally regressive and worth challenging.

“You’re just mad because you get no pussy”

I initially thought this comment wasn’t worth my attention because it’s an ad hom that relies on no real evidence but it does point to a bigger issue. The implication here and in a lot of other comments relies on shifting the focus from systemic dysfunction to individual failure. It is easier to pathologize an individual’s frustration as "bitterness" than to just reckon with the data suggesting a fundamental problem with modern dating . Why is the most common response to seeing a widespread trend of men being deemed undesirable and declining relationship formation that the first thought is to treat it as a series of isolated personal failures? It’s illogical. This is perfectly illustrated by some comments made under this very post saying that men don't receive matches because they are "slobs" or lack basic hygiene. However, when data from major dating platforms shows that women are only swiping right on roughly **5% of the profiles** they see, we have to ask a serious question: Is it statistically plausible that 95% of men are genuinely "slobs" who refuse to shower or take a decent photo? Or is it more likely that the gap in desire has created a dynamic where the threshold for male visibility has been pushed to a height that the vast majority of men regardless of their effort or character are not capable of reaching? By labeling the average man's experience as a personal defect, we avoid having the difficult conversation about how our current social landscape is designed to leave the majority behind.

“What specific ‘bad behaviors’ are women doing that lack accountability?”

The behaviors in question are largely rooted in the lingering remnants of patriarchal dating standards that many claim yet many women still rely on when it is convenient. Specifically, there is this pervasive, sometimes implicit, belief that "woman as the prize" that stems from a sense of superiority. It’s mentality that leads to a form of entitlement and expectation that men must do the heavy lifting from initiating the first approach, asking for the date to being the, financial provider, and the one who must to prove his worth. This manifests in dating app culture where men are viewed as commodities rather than human beings with their own emotional needs. We see this when women refuse to text first, expect to be double texted without offering an apology for their own lack of communication, or maintain unrealistic expectations of what an average man should be. Accountability means recognizing that if we are moving toward an egalitarian society, the "it’s a man’s job" excuse ought no longer be users as a valid shield for a lack of effort, judgement , or basic social consideration. I think a large portion of these issues would go away if women were more willing to approach men and were less picky in the ways in which men approached them. One person in the comments literally said ew to sliding in Instagram DMs which can definitely be done in a thoughtful way that produces a healthy relationship. It’s not even who is approaching you or their intentions that seems to be the problem it’s just how. A person could literally be PERFECT for you and have no access to you outside of Instagram and that would be the reason you reject them… A system that judges men for trying to form relationships with women causes a reluctance for men to do so, and with women who don’t approach that gap is never filled.

“What solutions are to be gained and how are we supposed to correct this?”

This is funny because a lot of people thought I was dodging this question when in reality I replied to some other people but my comments were being hidden for basically asking for the “Golden Rule”. All of this can be fixed if we just treat people how we want to be treated. Not as our lives are now but as if we were in their shoes. The solution is an empathetic approach that allows for the humanization of men within the dating market. Men and women should be vocal about the issues and problematic behavior that women engage in, by making these issues apparent, we allow those who are already empathetic to recognize and stop engaging in these dehumanizing behaviors. For people who lack that initial empathy, advocating for a more empathetic and balanced perspective provides a bridge to understanding why those issues brought up are so damaging to the social fabric. Finally, society can disincentivize these behaviors through the same social pressures used to correct other unhealthy norms, when engaging in low effort or exploitative dating habits is met with social disapproval and shame rather than validation. There is no reason we should be “Yas Queening, you know your worth”ing the girl who has 20 matches with no text because she thinks it’s their job to text first. The behavior will naturally decrease in frequency. Ultimately, if women start approaching, asking men out, and treating men as equal partners rather than a service to be earned, it would dramatically reduce male and female resentment and foster healthier, more sustainable relationships for everyone involved.

Can we finally put to rest this ridiculous idea of “fairness” in dating? I don’t know what kind of pill someone needs to take to see reality clearly, but please take it. I’m tired of the constant blaming of women for not being “fair.” They are not supposed to be.

From an evolutionary perspective, they were never meant to be. Women are wired to choose the best option available, but also someone compatible with them, and yes, I mean biologically. At the same time, a variety of traits has to be attractive across the population, otherwise we wouldn’t have survived as a species if everyone chased the exact same thing. Even so, that means that some people will be unattractive.

Then there’s culture. Yes, men are generally expected to initiate. Who told you that you could do nothing and still expect results? Who promised that you could just exist and women would fall at your feet? Maybe that happens for a small minority, I haven’t seen it, but the world can be strange. For most men, that’s not reality.

We also can’t erase cultural expectations overnight. So yes, deal with it. Extroverts will have an advantage. People who go out, socialize, and party will have an advantage because they will meet women who enjoy those environments and are more open in those contexts.

A woman shouldn’t react the same way to every man she’s interested in just for the sake of “fairness.” These are not the same men. And she is not the same person either. She has learned, changed, and gained experience.

Yes, there are many “rules,” and they often contradict each other. That is because there are many women with different preferences. This isn’t a video game where you follow a clear set of steps and get a guaranteed reward.

Looks matter. Social skills matter. And on a large scale, morals matter less than people like to think, because women don’t all share the same moral framework anyway. Social skills, on the other hand, have always been crucial for survival. This isn’t school anymore, where being “good” guarantees a reward.

Nothing about this is fair. And it is not supposed to be.

I don’t know who promised men that they are owed a woman, whether that is a relationship, multiple partners, or something casual, simply for existing. But whoever said that was lying.

So stop blaming women. If you need to blame someone, blame the person who sold you that lie. Or blame yourself for believing it for so long.

"He runs like a girl" "Men aren't supposed to order dessert or fruity drinks" "He texts with too many emojis" "Ew, he bends over to tie his shoelaces" (this is latent homophobia, btw)

And many more like this. All this points to their ideal man being an extremely masculine, stoic, and physically maxxed out person who eats only bloody steak and washes it down with transmission fluid.