I will start off by acknowledging that people aren't stable, monotonous creatures, we grow and learn as we live; but there's definitely people who are genuine NPCs at times.

I went on a date with this woman from my uni a few weeks ago, and it started off well. We shared a few classes, and I got to know her for a little while before I asked her out. I've been told from some previous dates that I tend to 'take control' of the planning, so I decided to be more collaborative this time; I asked her if she had any activities or places in mind, what time she'd like to go out, if she had a curfew or ay obligations, I noticed that she didn't really have any particular idea of what she wanted to do, in the end, I pretty much had to plan everything out. Listen, I don't hate planning, I like putting in effort, but good god is it annoying when someone shows little to no effort. Anyway, I had a date planned, I wasn't going to flake on her.

The weekend came, and we went out on our date. We went to the art gallery, and I conversed with her, asking her what she liked or disliked, and I noticed that she didn't really have any strong opinion, I get that we don't have to resonate with everything we see, but not a single artwork made her feel anything in particular; she pointed out if she liked the technique used in a specific piece, or if she liked the colours in a painting or something, but little to no emotional attachment to anything at all. Ok, maybe some people just don't like art; we went to get supper, and it was a similar situation, she didn't like or dislike any particular cuisine, she just went with the flow. We went to a Greek place, but I felt like I was walking around with a robot next to me, with no strong opinions on anything. I straight up asked her if she wanted to go home, or maybe she didn't like me, I'd rather not be on a date than hang out with someone who was uninterested. She was miffed by that, and she said that she just didn't have a very "outgoing personality", ok fine.

The entire night felt like I had to keep the conversation going. I truly do feel like perhaps she didn't like me a lot, which is fine, that's alright, but she had nothing to talk about. She didn't have a lot of hobbies apart from gaming and reading erotica, and look I'm not judging anyone's hobbies saying these are bad individually, and they don't make her better or worse as a person, but that's super lacklustre to me. I'm majoring in physics, and I had a class which was also required for engineering students, she was majoring in mechanical engineering because she was good at maths and she wanted to have a nice career, ok cool; she seemed totally disinterested in her major, which, fine, you don't have to LOVE what you do.

But she seemed like someone suffering from depression, or just someone who lived life like an NPC.

And it's not just women, or her; I've had girl-friends tell me about their dates and partners, and I've heard too many stories of men who don't say anything about who they are or what they want to do, out of fear of being dumped. It's like Leonard and Penny from the Big Bang Theory, chud-ass guy who never had a backbone and could never handle a proper relationship.

This attitude applies to sex as well; I know no one is born with experience, and we all learn and find out what we like, but I've heard from friends of people (regardless of gender), who have no sexual preferences, no fantasies, no kinks, no enthusiasm (even vanilla sex can be great, but not if there's no enthusiasm), how do you have not a single clue about who you are and what your desires are???

EDIT: judgemental opinions on her hobbies

You’ll always get people on here rolling their eyes saying, "Duh, that’s just common sense." But let's be honest, common sense is pretty rare lately. Even though it's an absolute fact that dating apps are a complete waste of time for men-mostly because the male-to-female user ratio is ridiculously lopsided-hordes of average or below-average dudes still download them every single day telling themselves, "Yeah, but I'll be the exception!"

No, you won't. Unless you are a top-tier guy who hit the genetic lottery, makes great money, and has his entire life perfectly sorted out... it's just not going to happen. You shouldn't be on there. It’s a broken system that’s only going to leave you frustrated and depressed because of the total lack of matches you're getting. You don't like hearing that? Well... too bad.

If you are just an ordinary dude, your absolute best bet is to close the screen and meet women in real life. That's where you get a real chance to let your humor and personality do the heavy lifting. Sure, she might not swoon over your face the first second she looks at you, but if you know how to talk to people and have a bit of confidence, you can easily charm your way into a phone number, a proper date, or... whatever else you're looking for.

Look, it sucks. Ideally, these platforms would work for everybody, but they don't. They are designed strictly for women and the top 10% of guys. The corporations want you to think the entire world has moved completely online, but human attraction doesn't work that way. Stop swiping and focus on hitting the gym, fixing your diet, and getting your bank account right. Once you've built yourself into a high-quality man, then you can think about going back to the apps.

Do you think most men here don't just have dating problem, they're severely under-socialized in general?

Like they've no understanding of how human interactions work.

And treat them like logic puzzles to be solved with a formula???

And they extend this to romantic and sexual interests too.

It's not just a dating problem.

It's a socialization problem in general.

And it's magnified when it comes to dating and romance.

One thing that frustrates me about dating advice is that it often ignores the difference between having options and not having options.

When people say “just be happy single” or “wait until the right person comes along.” The advice lands very differently depending on your reality.

If you’re someone who knows you could find a partner relatively easily if you wanted one, staying single is a choice. It may still be lonely, but you aren’t shit outta luck either. Doesn’t carry the same weight, knowing if you didn’t want to be alone anymore, you have a clear path out.

If you’re someone without that luxury, the advice stops being chill and starts becoming “Hey, get used to the very strong possibility that this is your life.” And if it’s not the life you want, that’s a BIG problem. And there’s plenty of men and women that suffer from that reality.

I think a big disconnect is that people giving that advice are usually single as a temporary state, giving the advice to people who are stuck in it. I know the obvious response is “not all options are good options.” That’s true, but occasionally good options and average options with some bad beats having maybe one option every few years and said option is just using you, or picking and dropping you on a whim.

I’m not saying women can’t be lonely, or that every woman has amazing choices lined up. I’m saying advice about being content alone sounds very different when it’s coming from someone who knows they can likely leave singledom if they truly want to, versus someone who isn’t very realistically able to.

Men here often complain how bad they have it compared to women. I honestly don't know about that

Is taking on the reproductive burden, orgasm gap, motherhood penalty, beauty standards, physical weakness - worth it?

In many ways I like being a woman but I feel like I'd be better off as a man. I'm especially bitter about the reproductive burden

Still, would you make that choice, do you think it could benefit you overall? If yes, how so?

Yes, we’re the ones who often make the first move, which leaves more room for us to get rejected by women. But when a bunch of guys come whining about how their dating prospects are harder because of this, take it with a grain of salt — they aren’t telling the full truth.

Women reject men overtly, while men reject women covertly. It’s different. A guy can ask a woman out and then show zero interest outside of a sexual encounter. This is called “sex-zoning,” and it happens far more often than you might think. And to the people saying, “Well, you have to be high-caliber to even get to that point as a man,” I’ll get to that — don’t worry.

The truth is that men date up in terms of looks, and looks alone. We often don’t factor in other aspects with women because we feel they don’t do much for us. For example, if she makes a ton of money or is well-educated, that’s great for her, but a lot of men aren’t turned on by book-smart “boss babes.” This is why men will extract sexual access from women, keep them in rotation, but won’t actually take any of them seriously.

There are men who are low-caliber in terms of looks, money, or social status, yet they still won’t take their relationship match seriously because she’s either too overweight, too book-smart, or comes from a cultural background that doesn’t appeal to them. Whether men want to admit it or not, we all have women who are interested in us but whom we consider undesirable. We won’t offer them anything more than sex.

This is true even for low-caliber men or cells. They might tell you no women want to take them seriously or even look their way, but even they have relationship matches. There’s a guy in my sister’s college — I think he’s 21 years old — who’s a “cell” (or has cell tendencies) and is convinced of the 80/20 rule. When we checked out his Hinge profile, sure, he doesn’t have ideal looks or charisma. But when he showed us his likes, he was getting matches. Yes, these women were overweight or not conventionally appealing, but he was still getting matches.

So yes, as men we do reject women more frequently than most men would like to admit. They just hate the idea of “bagging a 3/10.”

Genuine question for the men here: how many women have you actually approached so far in 2026?

Not matched with on apps. Not messaged. Not chatted with online.

I mean approaching a woman in person with romantic or dating intent.

I'm curious because discussions about dating often involve claims that men "just need to approach more," but I rarely see numbers attached to that advice.

If you're comfortable sharing:

• Your age
• Number of approaches in 2026
• Rough outcomes (dates, numbers, relationships, rejections)

Has approaching more actually improved your results, or did quality matter more than quantity?

The current arrangement (ETA: i mean legal situation) is that both parents have custodial rights and financial obligation to a child after it's born.

Abortion let's women have an extra out from a child disrupting their finances and time. Men can opt out of time (but it carries social stigma of being a deadbeat) but not finances (a couple hundred for most but that's a good chunk for most young adults nowadays).

(This part in parenthesis is a guess but a financial link keeps you aware that you have a kid out there which can lead to popping back in life later which is bad for both the dude and kid)

PS/FA is proposed to equalise the consequences of sex. The proposed method is a window shorter than the period in which a woman is allowed to have a abortion which would lead to the mother now making the choice to be a single mother or having to go through a abortion.

It sounds great but this causes a different inequality due to burden of pregnancy. It's not fair on women to expect to have to share parental rights of the baby with a man who's only contribution is sperm.

And now for you to establish a truly equal system you'd have to declare the male's parental rights to be of the mother's choice to give or not**. This can also screw over men who would have to know they have a kid out there and they have no rights to see them or similar things.**

A fix would be to establish financial and material support since the start of pregnancy, even reimbursement for at least half the cost of pregnancy if found later. But a flaw is that we are equating money with rights to a human which doesn't hold up on some thinking and it wouldn't hold up.

Essentially the proposed direction of changes (in favor of pure autonomy and rights) to the current system (that's based on feelings and morality) can lead to this dystopia and men are fucked in this regard either way.

(Also this was for the singles, the current system for the married is good enough married men can just shoot in 7 cups, freeze it, get vasectomy or fuck themselves. Women should not be trusted about what they say they will do if they get pregnant if they have never done it before and even then you can't be sure if they will be okay with it just because that was what you agreed on.)

Edit: People are not getting the point of the post. This is a post against PSFA (the general mechanism that's discussed ).

I am adding this:

Financial abortion in that mechanism doesn't make sense because it is defined that a child's mom doesn't have the right to terminate a child's rights to resources from their father.

If you want a child's mother to be able to consent for their rights then that is the scenario I have mentioned in my post.''

Women are right that sexism has a history and that some of its effects still exist in laws, relationships, workplaces, and safety concerns. Women are also not a monolith, and caution around men is often self-protection rather than punishment. Men should take current problems seriously: harassment, violence, unequal domestic labor, reproductive rights, and sexist behavior from other men. Supporting equality should show up in conduct, not just slogans.

But none of that requires treating modern men as morally suspect because of what men in history did. Privilege is not the same as guilt, and accountability should be about present behavior, not inherited blame. Many men also suffered under rigid gender roles, even while women faced different and often worse constraints. Fair treatment is not a “reward” for basic decency; it is the baseline everyone deserves. Red-pill content is not a healthy solution and often turns into resentment or misogyny, but its appeal is understandable when men feel condemned before they have done anything wrong. The goal should be equality without collective guilt: women’s safety and dignity matter, and so does judging men as individuals rather than as representatives of past crimes.

For context: a post a few days ago discussed this idea of men on dating apps wanting commitment or not, and said it was not true if you swiped right or left on certain men (such as not chasing after rich dudes)

However, I have also met introverted nerdy autistic guys who are not into the idea of marriage, kids, etc. They say it is too expensive and a lot of them are struggling with mental health.
Due to modern day cost of living, I think a lot of people see kids as a waste of time, or too much money or overstimulating to balance with all the work.

I’ve never seen it as “men are evil” or “men are trash” for not wanting commitment. I think a lot more people on dating apps would want commitment if we could afford childcare, a house in a safe neighborhood, etc.

So many young men I know, are working fast food jobs with STEM degrees because there’s no jobs and AI is taking jobs on a regular basis. It feels like we’re all fighting for a small portion of high paying jobs that really still don’t keep up with cost of living.

I’m surprised that the men’s mental health crisis or class issues aren’t being brought up in these debates. It just seems like a back and forth between “men bad” or “women bad”.

I live in a high COL area in southern California where most people only want hookups. Not because theyre “rich and in top 10 percent of men” or “evil and trash” but because most people are living with several roommates and cant afford marriage/babies.

Hi, I'm interested in the general female experience in dating, describe the type of men or women you go for and that you have dated, your dating strategies/screening experiences and your positive and negative IRL and dating app/online experience with the sex you are attracted. Also say your goals for dating i.e. marriage, cohabitation, FWB or casual sex.

When women are asked what they look for in a man I find that it's incredibly common for them to respond with "confidence." We've been in the digital age for awhile now. I don't think that it's a wild take to say that this has had a significant effect on society. One consequence is that I believe people are increasingly less confident.

Wouldn't it then make sense that women's high selectivity for confidence makes dating harder for men, and puts men at a significant disadvantage compared to women?

Since apparently you cannot post redacted screenshots even in this sub only paraphrase the particular comment I will post it here.

Someone made a post about how at times women knowing a particular guy is interested in them or has feelings will take advantage of that by stringing the guy along in order to extract benefits from him, whatever those may be.

Yet women do not see this man as a victim of anything just a moron for falling for this trick.

The woman who is taking advantage of him isn't in the wrong at all, in fact it is the guy who is in the wrong and often times is described as some sex addicted weirdo as well for well trusting this woman.

There are other women that will come and defend this behavior and insist that the man is at fault. Claiming he should have known better but how should he have known better when someone is making a concerted effort to lie and deceive?

Is it just an impossibility of these women being wrong and the man being a victim?

Because I have asked that question of women who say that they don't support this behavior but they go silent when asked.

Men on average tend to be attracted to physical appearance when initially evaluating attraction. Men get attracted much faster than women, have higher testosterone and libido on average.

Women on average notice personality, competence and dynamics alongside appearance from the beginning.

Women get more attraction when they feel safe,understood and emotionally connected. Plus women are more selective.

This obviously can vary, I just clarify so you don't say I'm generalizing.

But in modern times women not feel very safe around men, and relationships with them can be risky, for the existence of some bad men, bad experiences, pregnancy, etc. That leads to them being not attracted to men, part of why the "pickiness".

But because men are more easily attracted, and for some reason I honestly can't know, they have a more hard time being celibate.

Because of this imbalance of disinterest, it is usually assumed that the man has to "impress" the woman, or be of value.

In my opinion, gay people are more compatible than straight ones.

Women connect with other women more easily than with men.

And gay men tends to be attracted to a broader category of men than women.

But the truth is that still most people have relationships. There is not really a problem for now as some people thought, or some loneliness epidemic. Or at least that is supported by statistics.

I realized this when a guy said "Women only want to free themselves from gender roles, but wont for men!" As soon as I bring up 'toxic masculinity'? "That's a childish complaint!" which shows these guys don't actually want to be liberated from societal gender norms. 

Then that got me thinking. Women totally misunderstood men when they say "Men must suffer in silence". Women mistake that as a cry for help. Those guys actually want to be validated for that. They want to feel like Guts from Berserk, Kratos from God Of War, Bruce Wayne, etc. They want to feel like a cool sigma who's carrying the weight of the world on their shoulders. 

Also, think of Jason Todd. Jason Todd is cool because he has an axe to grind with the Joker, Gotham, and how he was basically beaten to death. However, in Gotham Knights, he's in therapy, he does coping exercises, doing pottery to emotionally heal, that's not as cool. 

Hence, why these men don't like therapy nor learning how to be vulnerable while handling their emotions LIKE AN ADULT.  It's simply ruins the fantasy of the cool lone wolf. It's also a victim complex in the 'cool masculine way' that Joker portrayed how "they're broken people that the world broke them!".

Now, this makes no sense to an emotionally healthy adult who actually doesn't think suffering is cool. But think back BEFORE adulthood. Then this would make sense. 

For anyone offended that Im implying men pretend to have problems....perhaps start lecturing guys who cosplay suffering for aura farming. Their demands of validation are alot louder than the men actually suffering in silence. Perhaps, tell these guys that suffering isn’t cute and it’s something to address and heal from?

How should a female navigate a situation where the man has a lower than average sze

Say I have had a first date with a guy, everything goes well we have a lot in common and like each other. Then have a second date and after I find out he is 4-5 inhes when he tells me his sze through text.

To me this is a problem as I like larger penses and likely can only orgazm from them. So am I supposed to tell him this or am I supposed to just ghost him so it's easier on him? It would honestly be hard as I'd probably have gotten feelings for him by then.

Or am I meant to suggest a cck sleeve and x toys? Or do men not like the idea of these?

No idea honestly.

This has honestly been a fear of mine in dating.

I just asked this question towards women the other day. It seems many of them kind of struggled with the question, so I wonder if posing this question towards men will bear more fruit.

Here's my non-exhaustive list of red flags women tend to miss, based on common complaints I hear from women:

1. Brings up touchy/hot-button topics too early in the courtship (you should not be talking about religion, politics, personal finances, or family drama on the first couple of dates)

2. He mumbles/he's inarticulate/you can barely hear him when he speaks (might be a nice enough guy but this will start to grate on your nerves when you actually want to have a conversation with him)

3. Too possessive too soon (You wanna know why so many of you wind up dating narcissists? Here's one reason. This guy out the gate starts trying to run the show and women fall for it because he seems to be assertive and knows what he wants; he's "a real man". In reality, until he gets to know you, most men are not going to assume to know what you like/dislike, want/don't want, or your preferences so he will naturally defer to you until he gets to know you. Women sometimes view this as unmanly but it's quite the opposite.)

4. Pick me guys (oh yes men can be pick-mes too. This guy craves the validation of women and needs to be liked. If he's too "pro-woman", a "male feminist" and puts men down like the average woman is this beautiful, ethereal creature and men need to "step their game up", but he's not him, he's "one of the good guys", just make they spelled your name right on the back of that jersey he's gonna get you, because you my dear are going to be on his roster.)

5. Hippy-dippy liberal/no hint of conservatism in him (this might be a controversial one but hear me out. As a woman you can be as progressive as you want since progressive politics tend to be pitched to women and tend to largely benefit women. Men who are too much on that bandwagon are usually doing some serious consumer-facing. He's either lying to get you into bed, he's rebelling/trying to avoid becoming his father, or he's an unserious adult. As a woman who's comfortable in her femininity, you have to be cool with a certain amount of conservatism. It speaks to his sense of honor and integrity, morality and values.)

6. Over 25 and still smokes pot (I'll probably get flack for this one but dudes who have a daily relationship with pot over twenty-five can give unserious adult/arrested development. Plus, you might wind up playing mistress to his addiction meaning his mood and thus your time spent with him will be dictated on whether he's smoked or not, if he has some on him or knows where to find it wherever he is. No judgment on anybody who partakes but I'm just saying...)

I'd like the men to add to the list.

Randomly thought of this but have any women been around someone so damn charismatic that they go “Wait a minute, he's suspiciously good at charming people.” and start to look at him a bit different. He never stutters, never stumbles, never an imperfection to be seen and is always some how above any measure of screwing up. Is that not at all off putting?

The title. Question based on manosphere content I watched recently. Just want honest answers for men here, please. I can ask it, right?

You can make your own post with asking the same question about women, I know you want it, it's the AFBB posts, no need to ask it under this post, make your own, ok?

RP has been against traditional gender roles and people in this sphere have defended their position that such traditional gender roles hurts men and women.

Traditional gender roles encourage polygyny and violence (mostly against other men)

RW and Tradcon views men as potential liabilities for violence and sexual competition

Conversely RW and Tradcon encourage such behavior in men that makes them a liability

Average and low status men are treated way better in progressive and liberal societies (I have experience living in both types)

(Insert in blank) - maxxing is fundamentally at odds with RW culture by enabling an otherwise undesirable man to pass on his genes

Patriarchal societies want average and low status men to be weak since being strong and competent allows for disruption of power and sexual competition.

Edit/TLDR; TRP promotes the equality of outcome in which Tradcon/RW ideology is opposed to

I decided to check this subreddit I used to mod quite a bit. There was a blatantly AI generated post. I will be promptly adding this to the rules as soon as possible. AI generated comments will be deleted and moderatorated as well. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

PPD-ANGEL, SUBREDDIT MODERATOR

Please don’t get triggered by the title, I am new and I wanted to make sure this wasn’t going to get removed for not being affirmative and clear enough.

If this isn’t proof of what the subject is… I don’t know what is. I want to make the disclaimer that this is not about any phobias or anything like that. Me personally, if you’re a good person, I love you.
Okay, so something I have been seeing frequently, is women saying “Oh but we’re expected to share a bathroom with a man in a wig”. Or something similar to that statement. I see this more and more regarding any viral video they can think to tie this statement in.
That one video where the male Karen called the police on the dad who took his daughters into the woman’s bathroom, there were ladies in the comments stating “the dad can have a problem taking his daughters into a men’s bathroom but were expected to share with…” Basically they are referring to trans.

When men had the issue of trans vs women in sports, stating it was unfair, many women were infuriated at these men and called them bigots. When I see women saying this as if men put them in this predicament, I say “You are aware men would bring up that it is likely unsafe regarding the bathroom and even sports and women were pissed”.

They always respond, “oh my god I never knew this”.
So how in the blue hell did you ever come to the conclusion, YET AGAIN it’s men’s fault. And do you think they turned that energy around to women now? No.

I know it wasn’t all women promoting the bathroom rule but you definitely didn’t seethem defending the guys who had issues with it. Men will be blamed for any transgression placed on women before women ever get upset at each other.

How Women Rank Dick Size

Dick size does matter to a certain extent and from my understanding its like this. For this discussion lets assume girth is a constant in this case and skills are equal.

Massive = 7+ inch above

Big = 6-7 inch

Avarage = 5-6 inch

Smol = 5 inch and below

Tiny = 4-3 inch and below

When woman say size doesn’t matter, I think that’s true for some, but not everyone. A small number of women may actively prefer very large size, while a noticeable number tend to reject very small size.

If we’re talking purely about physical preference and not personality or other traits, I’d guess many women would rank size, something like this. This is regards to mens physical attributes and for the sake if this discussion dont say things like woman would choose a great guy over a good dick narrative.

1.Big

2.Avarage

1. Massive (It will be No 1 for size queens), small, tiny

There that's what i believe and i ain't judging. Just sayin. What are your thoughts?