Dedicated to exposing all the women who complain about wanting a "good man", to show women's poor dating behavior and unreasonable standards while offering little to no value themselves.
Created by kevin32
Visit the WAATGM forum to view and post content.
We're just a bunch of clueless NiceGuys™ with kindness coins that don't seem to work in women's holes so that the sex we're "entitled to" falls out. Because apparently we weren't demonstrating good relationship material through the attention, respect and stability that women demand. We were only "pretending" to be nice just to get laid.
In response to r/niceguys, this tribe is dedicated to exposing all the women who complain about wanting a "good man" after dating jerks and riding the cock carousel in the prime of their youth, and think they're deserving of commitment and financial stability when all they have left to offer is their depreciating looks, narcissistic mentality, used-up vaginas, and another man's kids.
Women in their 20s have numerous opportunities to date the decent men they claim to want, but many reject or friendzone these men for jerks and promiscuity. She takes advantage of a good dude's kindness for attention and favors, then accuses him of being a bad person who thinks he's entitled to sex.
But when she's in her 30s with depreciating looks, jerks who won't commit, the likelihood of being a single mom, and the social pressure from her married friends, she asks "Where have all the good men gone?"[1][2] Funny how back when she was chasing the bad boys "Being nice is the bare minimum", but now that she's past her prime and needs a bailout, she wants a man with nice guy traits.
Furthermore, dating jerks and riding the carousel before settling down with a good man is planned by many women, and encouraged by feminists. They then come to the dating market with unreasonable standards while offering little to no value themselves. Such women are totally unaware that the mature, stable men they now need are the same decent men they rejected, except these men remember the rejection and are responding in kind to avoid unstable, unappreciative women who view them more as ATMs than romantic partners.
The reason women end up here is because their behavior is not exposed as the lucid, self-destructive, feminist ideology that it is. And we're here to help Good Men guard their commitment and resources by exposing women who would make poor life partners and mothers of their children. Providing observations and opinions on the posts here allows us to better understand women's psyche and later depressive/miserable state when they are not held to a moral standard required for healthy, functioning relationships.
Rules of conduct:
-
1. No shaming men for any reason.
- 2. No white-knighting or NAWALT. This is not a debate tribe.
Recommended reading:
-
Dating profiles showing women's Dual-Mating strategy and unreasonable standards
-
OkCupid study shows women reject 80% of men based on looks alone
-
Milo - The Sexodus: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society
-
Women Want to Know Why Men Don't Want to Marry Anymore...Allow Me
-
WAATGM mod explains why promiscuous women can't get good men to commit.
-
Okay, I get it. You're sick of hearing men complain about girls only dating assholes.
-
Dear Girls Who Are (Finally) Ready To Date Nice Guys: We Don’t Want You Anymore
-
Dear Single Moms: I wasn't your type then, why am I all of a sudden your type now?
-
The Truth About Single Moms Who Bring Young Children To The Dating Market
-
Carol asks WAATGM for the harsh truth after riding the carousel
- Complete list of resources here.
Content Archive:
Related forums:
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 4d ago
Public service message: If you enjoy the content, please consider posting this link to the Reddit version of WAATGM since I cannot. It drives more traffic to this site, such as myself, and that's how the content creation happens. Please do your part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlC5DEp2EOQ
@Typo-MAGAshiv Was thinking about flairing this one “Complaining about Jerks” but stuck with Single Woman Tears instead.
So… how many of these “mature women” remember Madonna’s song: “Experience had made me rich and now they’re after me-eee! Because we are living in a…”
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 4d ago
There are plenty of fish, madam, and most of them really aren't special in any way.
Did it occur to neither of you wahmyns that men like sex?
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 2d ago
I read that there were some physicists who believed that nuclear fission would always be an impractical form of energy because they hadn't conceived the concept of nuclear chain reactions. Then the whole world changed.
For the past few decades, successful, "confident" men have (largely) only enjoyed commitment free sex from multiple women. I suppose it's natural because in our modern society, that largely was the paradigm but what if... these men could demand more?
If I had a son, I'd have him tell this woman that he will be sincere about marriage and he's looking for a woman with (or her family) huge tracts of land. If she's a peasant, he'll be free to consider her if she takes him out to dinner.
Hey, he's gotta filter out the small fish somehow, yes?
In the meantime, as much as these men may disgust the matchmaker whom I otherwise respect, we all know she's not kicking these men out of the rotation since they're in high demand.
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 3d ago
I'm after the ones locally, not in the ocean, and I've been doing well lately as summer kicks in. Gotta fill that freezer full of bass to last us all year!
Was only depressing one time when I told a guy how big my biggest catch was and he was like, "yeah we use those for BAIT fish". Like, thanks for ruining my day.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 3d ago
A man treats a woman like how women treat men on a regular basis. Women most affected.
The reality is only a few men will ever get to pull that off.
And of course women fail to grasp that by them all going after these same few men, and acting in the way that they do, that they are teaching those men to do that.
The Red Pill is just men learning to treat sex and relationships with the same amoral ruthlessness that women do. Women only have themselves to blame. Not that they won't try to blame anyone other than themselves. Because...women. coffee emoji
JennyB Wahmyns 3d ago
I personally think the problem with viewing the world in this way is that it’s in response to the idea that literally ALL women you will likely ever meet act this way, and thus the only way to stay sane is to act similarly.
But if not all women do act this way (which is a hill I will die on), you’re essentially blocking yourself off from potential relationships with genuine people who aren’t as shallow as the rest.
Society has made acting this way acceptable which is a huge moral failure, for sure, and it really sucks that the majority of guys have to take this shit, I can’t imagine how it must feel. But I don’t know, call me retarded, but I just have to believe that keeping yourself always open to maybe the rare few that aren’t as horrible as the others is always valuable
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 3d ago Stickied
I think your energies would be better spent proselytizing to women to not be the genesis of this trend instead of asking men to play Russian Relationship Roulette from a safe distance while 5/6 chambers are loaded and the man is the one paying the price of that. Or expecting men to eat a handful of skittles, and hey two of them aren't poisoned with strychnine! Lucky you! Man up! Lol. Lmao.
This is a women's problem that only women can fix for themselves. Men didn't force women to do this and thus men only have have an obligation to protect themselves.
JennyB Wahmyns 3d ago
Yeah that’s totally fair and that’s my bad if I insinuated that guys should try to do that’, that’s definitely not what I was trying to say. At the end of the day I will inevitably be an outsider to this and any advice I have probably doesn’t mean much when compared to the guys that actually have to go through this
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 3d ago
CCing @Typo-MAGAshiv
Jenny, I'm ok with you here, but I do recommend you read the WAATGM Sidebar Rules to the upper right. They are enforced. Particularly of importance is No shaming men for any reason.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 2d ago
I haven't caught up completely yet, but so far she's OK.
1) women are allowed to participate at WAATGM and WATGMA. They have to follow the same rules as everyone else and don't get any special treatment outside of the pink flair.
2) for anyone relatively new, we've had dozens of women participants come and go over the years, both here and at reddit. It's not that big a deal, as long as they follow the rules.
Treadmill Jr. Hamster Analyst 3d ago Stickied
The psychic damage from holding onto values not shared by the rest of society is not trivial. Every time you are talking to a girl who you think has potential, but then it turns out she is fucking a new guy every week, it chips off a little bit of your sanity. When a girl rejects you for being immature, only to fuck the first hot guy she meets at a party, you wonder what is wrong with you. When young women straight up avoid getting close to you precisely because you are relationship material, you really start to wonder if this is even worth it.
Then, as the women grow older and more "mature" they put all of this behind them and start looking for serious relationships, and you are supposed to just take this claim at face value. Fully believe that now they wholeheartedly value commitment and building a future together, rather than the more likely explanation that they simply no longer have the energy to party or the looks to attract the hot men at the club. If you question this, or if the way that women treated you for the past decade affected you in any noticeable way, then you are "immature", "not ready for a relationship" , and "need to find a therapist".
That is the reality of guys who keep themselves open to the rare few. And maybe that is still worth it; Maybe keeping your soul pure and sticking to that kind of morality is objectively better even if it means you may never have sex. But that is an incredibly high standard to expect of the average person. And crucially, it makes the alternative of just embracing the hedonism inherent in modern dating seem mighty tempting by comparison.
If women insist on not showing restraint or self control, instead choosing to be slaves to their base instincts, is it really so wrong of me to use that in my favor and at least fulfill my basic desire to fuck when nothing else seems available?
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 3d ago Stickied
Related reading: The Maturity Myth by @moorekom.
Promoting you to Junior Hamster Analyst for your continued contributions to the forum.
JennyB Wahmyns 3d ago
You’re right, as I mentioned to another guy who replied to me, I think my original answer was misinformed… I guess I was trying to have the most optimistic approach to the situation, which is undoubtedly a result of me not actually being the victim of this stuff as I’m not a guy and I don’t experience this shit.
A lot of the stuff you mentioned I genuinely had no idea about, b it would make sense that having to experience this on a constant basis would really suck, and I’m genuinely sorry for that
I will always be adamant though that it probably is worth it for the rare few, but again I am just an outsider and it’s not my judgement to make. And I definitely wouldn’t say it’s ‘wrong’ for you to fulfil your basic desire to fuck when nothing else seems available, that’s entirely your position to take and one I do understand
ogrilla99 Pez "The Pussy Dispenser" Pimp 21h ago
I think most people here would agree that there are the rare few women who are worth all the effort. If you stick around here long enough, you'll see that a lot of regular commenters are married or in various types of relationships and are happy with it, warts and all.
The point though is to try to educate men about how to actually find these women, attract and keep them when you find them (after all, a relationship is a two-way street), and how to recognize the women who are not worth it, and cut them out quickly.
Our advice on how to do all of this is starkly different than what the mainstream world tells men to do, but it's still advice that assumes there are rare gems out there to be found (and also, an understanding that no one is a perfect gem; even the best woman is still a person, not a goddess, with faults and weaknesses that should be recognized).
I think the reason why women think we're trashing all women is because we don't value women in a similar way. The mainstream world tells a man that a woman who "has her fun" in college while pursuing an education and becoming a ball busting "boss babe" is a real catch when she's finally ready to "settle" for you in her later thirties. And when redpill folks say that woman is not a great partner, stay far away, then lots of people think we must therefore hate all women, if we're insulting "top" women like these. Truth is, we evaluate women differently, which means different women end up on "top" but women (especially women told that they're desirable by the mainstream media) get enraged that we might not value them the same way everyone else does, and rather than investigate further, decides that we must just hate all women.
It's the same as a guy who asks a woman out, she declines politely, and he assumes she must be a lesbian because, surely no woman interested in guys would dare to reject him!
So yes. I'm not surprised that you're coming here assuming that we're all a bunch of unhappy incels who simultaneously hate all women while being desperate to date them. That's what the mainstream wants you to believe about red pill because then we're easier to dismiss. But stick around and see for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
As a mod, I can state that you -- and any woman -- are welcome here as long as you follow our rules. And we welcome differing opinions as long as they're argued intelligently and in accordance with our rules. Violating our rules is just about the only way people get banned around here, not because they disagree with what we say.
JennyB Wahmyns 18h ago
First off that’s very interesting, like you said the mainstream does push this… I don’t wanna say propaganda and sound alarmist, but certainly propaganda-esque one sided narrative that these spaces are terrible and misogynist and all this terrible stuff, so it is genuinely interesting to hear what kind of ideas are ACTUALLY shared here
Secondly, I wanna make it clear that I didn’t come here assuming you were all women hating losers, if I believed that I wouldn’t have joined. Inevitably I won’t agree with everything shared here, especially as I am a woman and therefore I speak not from a Redpill or incel experience but from a comparatively privileged experience. However the general idea that there is something wrong with the way society treats relationships and men and women differently is something I agree with and wholeheartedly support. THAT’s why I joined.
Treadmill Jr. Hamster Analyst 3d ago
Genuine question: What is the appeal of this site to a woman? Frankly, most of the posters here are pretty jaded and will very much not want to listen to you.
Your attempt at empathy will go unappreciated here, and no one is going to believe that you are not like those other girls. In fact, it is difficult to find a place where women's opinions are less welcome than here.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 2d ago
See my reply to polishknight upthread.
JennyB Wahmyns 3d ago
I mean quite honestly I came here out of a mix of curiosity and genuine empathy. Spaces like these, ‘incel’ and ‘red/blackpilled’ forums and communities are completely demonised in modern media. I genuinely believe that in western society, nowadays is one of the hardest times in recent history to be a guy, and so often are they portrayed negatively that it disgusts even me
Idk I think the discussion here is genuine, if, understandably, from jaded people. And if I’m not welcome here then yeah that’s understandable but I hope I can at least in a small sense be a part of this place that I really do feel is needed
Treadmill Jr. Hamster Analyst 3d ago
So that is a nice sentiment, but in that case let me extend a warning to anyone like you: Spending too much time on these topics will drain your energy and make you question your self worth.
Stare into the abyss and the abyss stares back. There is too much negativity and misery in these spaces for any one person to handle, which is uniquely dangerous for those who are curious and empathic. It is going to affect you much harder than it would ordinary people, and the more you read the harder it is to look away. It is a matter of "if" rather than "when" too; Empathic people absorb these things like sponges.
This is not only a problem with incel and redpill spaces, but extends to basically any part of the internet concerned with personal advice, culture war, and controversial topics. This includes feminist blogs, as well as most of Reddit and Twitter. The more empathic you are, the less time you should spend on social media.
You will make a much bigger difference by directing your empathy and kindness towards people in the real world.
ogrilla99 Pez "The Pussy Dispenser" Pimp 21h ago
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. This is not an incel space. This is not a black pill space. While such people are welcome here that doesn't mean their philosophies dominate here.
I disagree that red pill is like staring into the abyss. If anything, men find red pill after staring into the abyss for too long and looking for a way out.
Even specifically this forum, we created the rules specifically so that it doesn't become like most Internet garbage sites. That's why we're strict about e.g. no shaming of men. Even the worst, most blue pill, neck beard, incel, [insert insult du jour] man doesn't get shamed here, but rather the goal is to point out behaviors he has that are counterproductive to his goals, and how such a man might improve his life and be happier.
Where a lot of vitriol is directed at, is women, usually the woman who is the subject of the post, but even here, people are specifically posting women with poor behaviors as a means of teaching men how to recognize them. It's easier to learn this when it's an example that you're not emotionally invested in, like you might be with a woman you know in IRL.
JennyB Wahmyns 3d ago
I always make sure to direct my empathy to everyone I meet irl, but I see no problem spreading my empathy online too. And if I suffer for it then it’s my own fault I guess
I also think that, really it’s not that deep. I support places like these and decide to interact with them if I’m allowed, I’m probably not gonna come out of this a jaded soulless wreck because some people on an online forum told me that all women are horrible
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 3d ago
Hello JennyB. I personally don't have anything against you being here because we appreciate the feminine viewpoint of the matchmaker who has to mitigate between men & women making for pithy observations. That's why nearly all of the media posted here are from the viewpoint of the woman who blurts out truths.
"The modern media" is still largely the legacy media but on a digital platform comprised of man-hater feminists, entitlement trad-queens or male chivalrists (more on them later). Men are supposed to be handsome, work hard, and shut up and "lead" by giving women what she selfishly wants without any obligations from her.
Oh, wait, Emma Watson said she "wants men to be part of the conversation" but that conversation is entirely about what more stuff men need to do to please women and she thinks this is magnanimous on her part. If you like, watch the whole speech and how she's applauded for standing up for herself because she's been so oppressed! One time, the boys at school didn't just obey her commands when she decided to be leader and they called her "bossy!" Look at her tears! Women have a RIGHT to be boss when they want to be! That's how ALL men who are successful got it, yes?
https://youtu.be/Ug6adjb8u88?t=370
Ironically, it was actually men who built the foundation for rights that we take for granted today. The so-called "manosphere" is associated with right wing ideologies that call for nationalism, opposition to globalism, and even fighting against crony capitalism.
JennyB Wahmyns 3d ago
I actually used to be a full on feminist, and I’d even go on marches and protests and etc, but over the past year or so I’ve learned the truly malicious force behind modern feminism, it’s not equality, I don’t know entirely understand what it is but it’s somewhat scary and somewhat disgusting.
In recent years, the pendulum really has swung the other way when it comes to sexism, it’s horrible to see how in many or even most situations nowadays men truly are more oppressed and limited, and this ‘legacy media’ you mentioned makes you think you’re retarded and hateful for even acknowledging it.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 3d ago
Although it may be a cheesy comedy by today's standards, I highly recommend the film The Toy which I thought was a comedy when I was a kid, but turned out to be a wonderfully philosophical film. Spoiler alert!
A spoiled rich kid sees Richard Pryor and thinks he's funny so he "buys" him. Literally has his father's henchmen box him up. Yes, there's a humorous racial element as part of Pryor's humor that's deliciously underplayed: A rich white kid buying a black man as a toy but the comedy works because that is not called out.
Jackie Gleason plays the villain while male oligarch who dominates the community around him. So what does the spoiled rich kid do with his father's generosity? Turn it against him by having the "toy", whose an out-of-work journalist, publish a newspaper exposing his own father. It's the ultimate turnabout.
But here's the twist, and the spoiler: Jackie Gleason instead of being enraged simply calmly tells his henchmen to recover every newspaper published and sits his son down and tells him that he loves him and will do anything to protect him. Even Richard Pryor's character is touched at this selfless paternalism.
The story ends with Richard Pryor getting a job at the newspaper and happily ever after.
The reason I say this is that feminism was a product of white male chivalrous patronage. Treating bourgeois women as literal princesses "oppressed" if they got a splinter in her pretty ass while rowing off in a lifeboat while rich men drowned on The Titanic. Fiddle dee dee! "Women earn less than men sitting at home going through catalogs while men work all day! Can you believe the oppression?!?!"
Astonishing.
They're like this spoiled child with the father continually forgiving the rebellious transgressions but what if the boy never "got it" and kept escalating and the father even encouraging the boy to lash out?
I've utterly ruined the movie for you now but maybe not. I think the comedy timing is excellent even by today's standards. The 1980's was such a special time.
Another film I recommend to show why Gen X is better than The Greatest Generation and Boomers put together:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085764/
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 3d ago
Hello Jenny. I appreciate what you're saying but want to put it into context. I'm married as are many here and even most of us see these behaviors from our women but to a lesser extent or we handle it via RP or Game. In other words, RP doesn't drive men to MGTOW, necessarily, but rather to at least understand women's Game and mitigate it. Hence when women or chivalrists say "If you men play Game or use RP, you make it worse!" they fail to realize that men NOT utilizing RP/game was how this all happened in the first place.
The most powerful element of women's Game is ambivalence: Refusing to make the first move with men. It's a powerful negotiating strategy but it can be a game of chicken. If men no longer approach, or the ones who don't need to approach don't, then they're left high and dry which is what happened with the above complaining woman client. Not only that, she has a taste for "successful" men which is hilarious kind of like Shallow Hal complaining all the supermodels that talk to him are stuck up.
Let's ponder this matchmaker's scenario: Young, pretty women in her client roster are going to be more popular than aging career boss babes and "above average" looking "successful" men (as the matchmaker puts them) are going to tend to want the popular young girls versus the aging boss babe career women.
She can say she "recognizes" their attitudes but she's going to need them because the non-succesful "nice guys" who are "average" looking aren't going to be matchable to women such as the above.
JennyB Wahmyns 3d ago
I always make it a rule to approach a guy if I wanna ask him out, rather than waiting for him to ask me out, it just seems childish and self centred. I think I even mentioned that in my profile box on relationships lol
I’m going to be honest I didn’t actually watch the video linked above hahaha, I was just responding to a comment somebody else made that referenced more general points than I decided to give my two cents on… and I’m afraid I’m not up to date with the jargon you used, you couldnt torture out of me what the fuck “MGTOW” means… or RP, I thought that meant ‘Roleplay’…
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 3d ago
You can google MGTOW for a decent overview.
Indeed, the fact you say you ask out men and risk rejection shows you have developed a level of empathy for men as human beings if only because it helps to improve your success rate.
When someone sits on their tukas and waits for someone else to approach them and doesn't risk rejection, they can construct elaborate entitlement schemes and rationalizations since they're never subjected to a sanity test, yes? Imagine someone going through their entire lives, say, never having gone on a job interview but having given plenty. Like dozens of employers reaching out to them saying they want to hire them but she will have to "filter" out qualified companies.
When I got started in my industry, I went with contractors who reached out to me because it was so easy. They handled EVERYTHING! I heard one of my colleagues refer to them as "scum". I didn't get why he felt that strongly but I realized later it was because at least a 1/4 of my salary went to commissions. I realized that as painful as being a free agent was, it was more profitable for me to deal with the employers myself.
Unlike the employment market, there's a strong cultural inertia for women to avoid asking men out: They'll be shamed by other women but also they have this mindset of entitlement that is shaken by risking rejection. "You mean the hot guy I want would be doing ME a favor by giving me a chance?" Well, yeah. This vision of a bunch of suitors begging them for her approval is a HUGE thing to give up.
I asked myself when I was 30 if standing on a principle of not going through the humiliation ritual of paying for dates was worth a severely restricted supply of women. I finally concluded no and coughed up the money and married the prettiest, nicest one I could find.
I asked women who, quite frankly, weren't going to get Sir Chadworth to approach them and beg for a date if they wanted any Game tips and they said no. The WHOLE POINT to them was to be approached and if that meant either winding up alone or even with a lesser quality of man, they would choose that. I made an effort to get an actual consent sign off from them: "You are aware that you are giving up the perfect man simply because you're refusing to take agency?"
Think about it: Imagine asking someone with a great family, kids, home, and life if they'd throw it all in the trash if it meant going back in time and asking the person out and paying for the date. A lot of women would actually say "yes" to that. Toss it away!
Which astonishes me because I would jump under a bus to save my wife and daughter. Not because I'm this chivalrous selfless person because because I love them. I enjoy that feeling of love. Such women sacrifice love on an altar of ego.
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 3d ago
Yes, but how is a blue-pilled young guy, prone to one-itis, to know the difference? Women are very skilled chameleons and can make themselves appear virtuous and charming. This is made worse by the fact that predatory women are not even aware they are doing it.
This forum is filled with men who were fooled once and don't want to be fooled again. Get suckered by one Nigerian prince and you're going to read email differently from now on.
No, it's a way to stay sane. Monk mode/MGTOW is a great way too. These men may be "closed off" but they like it that way. Better than being burnt again. Promiscuity with absolutely no commitment can be pulled off if you are a decent PUA, but it's not a good long-term solution and catches up with you eventually (Roosh is a good example of this).
"Woman" is often synonymous with "retard" here. Not always. We know: you're a bright, shining exception :)
No one really cares what you think here. State some facts, and maybe even your opinion about them, if you want, but it's not really about you. I'm a recovering gamma, I had to learn this too. When you walked in, we all paused our cigar smoking and raised our eyebrows in mild curiosity, wondering what insights you shall bestow upon the brothers. Don't let us down, now!
[deleted]
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1d ago Stickied
I'm finally catching up on reading the threads here.
Do read the rules on the sidebar, which if you're on mobile is visible by tapping the half-black and half-white square at the top of the page.
I'm removing this comment under rule 1: no shaming men for any reason.
JennyB Wahmyns 1d ago
I don’t remember what comment this was, how did I shame men?
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1d ago
This portion:
You were using shaming language on both Roosh and @NotaBene.
JennyB Wahmyns 1d ago
I wasn’t criticising NotaBene… but also, is the rule that I can’t criticise any man at all? I thought it was I can’t shame men for being men, or some sort of generalisation against them rather than individuals
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 17h ago Stickied
Telling him:
...is manipulative, shaming language. It's a difficult habit to break, but if you want to participate here, then break it you must.
No shaming any men, for any reason.
Additional reading on WAATGM's rule 1:
PSA: We are not here to shame beta men by @moorekom (and additional commentary by other mods within the thread)
"NO SHAMING MEN FOR ANY REASON" is Rule #1 For a Reason by @lurkerhasarisen (also with additional commentary from other mods within the thread)
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 2d ago
Roosh gave up his life of promiscuity after being a highly successful PUA for years. He became a staunch Orthodox Christian and ran a forum I was a part of for a bit until he closed it down. He's a good example of the long-term unsustainability of being a PUA, and a good man as well, for what it's worth.
Monk mode means exactly that - a life of celibacy and pretty much just ignoring all women. It's how huge numbers of young men right now are behaving, because they realize the futility and idiocy of dealing with modern women, with very few exceptions.
No, it's not better. "Predatory" is the best word to describe women like this, who prey upon the souls and wallets of men, extract every last bit of resources they can, and then leave with no remorse with the next victim in mind. It's literally vampiric. I've seen this first-hand, most of us here have.
You're missing the point. For men that have been burned by this, it's simply not worth the risk. The rotten juice is not worth the squeeze. The risks outweigh the potential benefits. Huge investment of time and money for a big headache. It's much easier, and better for most men, to simply stay away from danger.
Unless you understand both the low quality of modern women and the insane risks men run by marrying/dating one, you cannot understand the logic behind MGTOW.
Then stop using words like "I/me/mine/my" so much. For fun, I counted 16 uses in three paragraphs in one of your posts. No one cares about you personally, or your feelings, unless you have a brief anecdote that directly pertains to the subject at hand.
JennyB Wahmyns 2d ago
“Then stop using words like I/me/mine/my” I can’t lie dude this is a retarded take… the whole point of this site is for people to spit their opinions about shit that happens irl, and any attempts at objective fact I’ve responded with nothing more than agreement and empathy… I’m not sure why, out of all the people to be complaining about, you choose one of the few people who aren’t affected by this and yet still agree with you
Treadmill Jr. Hamster Analyst 3d ago
This is literally how young women treat men. Notably, the advice the coach gives is more or less the same that one would give a young man looking for serious commitment too. I kind of like the way she is handling this to be honest.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 3d ago
Yeah though I noticed she didn't really bother advising the client that she was filtering for the wrong kind of man to begin with due to her unspoken standards.
That's 90% of the problem for these women, they overwhelmingly go for men so far above their station in life that of course those men can treat them the same way these women treat "lesser" men. That 6'13" Trustafarian with 6-pack abs and a summer home in the Hamptons doesn't have to commit to an average woman, nor even most above average women. Replacement concubines are a right swipe away.
First-light Jr. Hamster Analyst 3d ago
I am wondering how much he played with her emotions versus how much she didn't land him and got upset?
We don't know as this is all very second hand but she was very serious only interested in marriage and they did not have sex it would appear. What is a very serious and respectful man to do in this situation -spend time with her and see how things develop. He didn't rush in and introduce her to people because he wasn't yet sure. He didn't see things developing the way he wanted, so he dropped her. This is not bad behaviour it was an all or nothing offer on her side and on reflection,, he chose nothing.
While it might be fair to say he could have been leading her on if he was having plenty of sex with her and keeping options open by refusing to go non exclusive, in this case he was not getting anything from her but the work of staying in touch and setting up dates and driving to see her and such. This is not something you will do for someone as fun or as charity. He was still interested in her as a marriage prospect until he wasn't.
The thing to do would have been to talk about exclusivity and when it comes in in their specific case of not having sex and talking about marriage only. If no promises were made, it was just a high stakes situation, she risks a year of her youth hoping to land a rich man (not idea if she was of a similar background herself or how compatible his richness made her). He risked losing so much if he married the wrong one. Likely as not the right answer was reached. Play high stakes, you can be hurt.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 2d ago
Probably the latter given an obnoxiously common feminine tendency to editorialize. Long story short, slinging only pussy at a man that can get pussy everyday of the week ending in "y" and from a different woman every time, only gets a woman dick!
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 3d ago
Classic expression: "Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine".
That being said, from what I read, this woman claims they were seeing each other for a half year and he didn't at least introduce her to his family so she felt strung along and I think she's correct. That being said, let's turn things around: A man dates a pretty woman who says she is interested in a sexual relationship and after 6 months of him buying dinners, she hasn't put out, He'd feel strung along but it's his obligation to decide when to tell her to, quote, "put out or get out."
Her anger is that, her words, "confident" "successful" men feel they have rights.
Well, they do!!!! Just as young, pretty women do and that's what makes this so damn amusing. If this was a young, hot girl stringing men along for months for free dates without putting out nobody would blink an eye. She's a "mature" woman making her situation even more precarious. Guess what? She's now a beggar not a chooser.
As Bruce Willis/John McClane put it: Welcome to the party, pal!
First-light Jr. Hamster Analyst 3d ago
I am pretty much agreeing with you here but I would say that "strung along" may still depend a bit on which end of the telescope you look through. He was investing in seeing her, in talking with her. You just don't do this unless you have some interest in a relationship. So he must have been considering her as potential. She just needed to quantify how much of a chance she actually had once they knew each other well enough and decide if it was worth the risk.
If a daughter of mine came to me with this story I would say "were you just standing still waiting for him to decide? Were you listening to your intuition here? Were you asking the right questions of him of yourself and of people you trusted as advisers? I think you may have handled this less than perfectly because you were blinded by his financial status and waited and hoped.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 2d ago
My guess is she was content to let him wine and dine her while she did little else than dispense sex at just enough of a trickle to keep him semi-interested, but failed to do enough of anything else to get him to invest further and thus was gobsmacked when he didn't feel motivated to escalate the situation-ship further. If she was actually investing any effort past meal and entertainment prostitution I suspect she would have mentioned that for the sympathy points if nothing else.
Not a tactic that's going to work out with a man high enough up on the status ladder to be able to be picky. It's a great way to get DiCaprio'd, as she found out.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 3d ago
I love how they have to walk on eggshells for fear of setting him off and coming across as "needy" or naggy. Gee, it's almost like the experience normie men go through on first dates where he has to carefully watch every element of what he does: Does he text took quickly or slowly back to her? If he escalates too fast, he scares her off or is "creepy". Too slow and she "friend zones" him. Yes, having to pander to and watch yourself around hotter people while looking natural is tough.
Imagine someone who lived on easy mode for the past 30 years of their life suddenly has to play the game at double-difficultly level.
No-Stress-Cat Jr. Hamster Analyst 3d ago
Responding to DMs: Dealing with "Immaturity"
Oh boy, there's a lot to unpack here, gentlemen (and ladies in the chat), so let's GOOOOOO!
In other words, she tried to lock down Rich Chad
This is correct. A Rich Chad does have millions of options. Because he's rich, and because he's Chad.
Of course she did. Rich Chad always gets the benefit of the doubt for as long as it takes. Because he's rich, and because he's Chad.
That's a failure on her part. She was aiming for Rich Chad who is way out of her league, thinking she's a 10 when she's at best a 6 or 7. She doesn't realize her "value" is in the eye of the beholder, not what she claims her value to be.
Again, another failure on her part. This was her sign that she needs to step up her game and become worthy of being exclusive with Rich Chad. Instead, she sat around waiting for it to happen, thinking he was the only one who had to put in the effort to keep the relationship from stagnating.
A few more months go by without her putting in any effort. She failed the Rich Chad Test. Notice it was he who dumped her. She was more than willing to keep the charade going, but she kept pissing and moaning about commitment instead of enjoying the time together, and he'd finally had enough.
Here comes the shaming language. His age has nothing to do with her actions. Instead of womaning up like a mature adult, she acted like a child and got dumped. Rich Chad isn't interested in dating children.
Rich Chad vetted her for a whole year. I'm surprised it took that long for her to show her true colors. Now, she wants to frame it as "emotional abuse" and make him out to be the bad guy.
This is just another lesson for men to vet their women properly, because women will eventually out themselves. It may be 6 months. It may be a year. It may be 5 years. Women can't hold out the facade forever.
Now, on the therapist side,
Of course, it's Rich Chad's fault. She isn't pointing out that her client tried to punch way above her league, and that he gave her the benefit of the doubt for an entire year, and that she failed to live up to Rich Chad's standards.
The shaming language continues. Rich Chad can always find better. She is being kept around because she has potential, because he thinks she's worth a bit of his time, but it's up to her to prove she's worth it. It's not an ego thing. Rich Chad doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks. He's merely weighing the risk vs. reward and how much return on his investment he's getting.
OOPS! She said the quiet part out loud. However, it's not her that's the one that's doing it, and she steers clear of saying directly it's her client that's doing it, but in general it's other women that's doing it. It's all their fault, not hers.
Women are always interested in Rich Chad. Not because he is interesting, has a great personality, or is generally a good guy, but because what he brings to the table is what they exclusively benefit from. Because he is Rich, and because he is Chad.
Solid advice for both women and men, but women with ($.$) in their eyes throw away all reason and do whatever they can to try and lock Rich Chad down, because they know what comes with Rich Chad is money, status, and bragging rights to other women.
The thing is, she didn't waste her time. She got all the benefits of getting time, attention, and resources from Rich Chad while she was in his presence. What she did waste was her opportunity to prove she was worth even more. Instead, she became complacent and acted like she had already sealed the deal when she was far from it.
She couldn't land Rich Chad, so she wants no other woman to be able to get a shot with him. Because Rich Chad's money and resources should have belonged to her, Ms. Matchmaker should kick Rich Chad out. She has his name and number, so she thinks that there still might be a chance she can get her claws dug into Rich Chad outside of the matchmaker's purview, but that won't happen as long as he's still up for grabs.
However, she's not going kick Rich Chad out of her applicant pool because Rich Chad is driving her business. She can afford to lose the low-cost subscription that the women bring to the table, but what Rich Chad brings to the table is time, attention, and resources for her.
So, yeah, while not all of Rich Chad's resources are hers, she is at least successfully getting a slice of Rich Chad Pie, and when she has many Rich Chad Pie slices, eventually, they do add up to a whole Rich Chad Pie, without having to have the actual Rich Chad.
Notice she doesn't have a ring on her finger. It's obvious she can't land a Rich Chad herself, otherwise she wouldn't even be in the matchmaking business. She'd be shopping and traveling. Unfortunately for her, this is the best she can get, influencing women into buying her services by having Rich Chad applicants to flaunt in their faces.
She's not matchmaking for women. She's selling them a dream. Rich Chad isn't the manipulator. She is.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 2d ago
Yup, thus why I made this observation:
Specifically a man high enough status that she was unable (or likely just unwilling) to make the effort to lock down via being worth his time. Top-tier men don't stay top-tier by hard carrying sandbaggers.
Unfortunately for Ms client, her continued money and Chad's continued money and the money from all the other female applicants desperate to throw snatch at him (failing to grasp that they collectively cancel each other's ability to influence him using only pussy alone - ladies, don't cross the quims!), is worth far more to the Matchmaker than telling them a hard truth and losing out on that.
She's basically a pimp at this point.
ogrilla99 Pez "The Pussy Dispenser" Pimp 21h ago
This is an underappreciated point about these matchmakers. They're a business. Superficially their business is about finding you a marriage partner. But their first priority is ensuring enough subscribers. And fundamentally, their value, what gets people to pay their fees, is the quality of their book.
In that way, they really are no different than a pimp or madam. Yes, they will claim that they can "match" you by taking into account your preferences, yadda yadda. But that's like a brothel owner telling you she can line up the best women for you if you tell her what hair color and body shape you like.
My point here, believe it or not, is not to insult matchmakers (or pimps :) just to make clear for people who sign up with one, what you're actually buying, and how a matchmaker's interests may not align with her clients'.
In this case, you can be 100% sure she didn't drop this guy. Not because she likes him or genuinely wants to help him (although maybe she might) but because having guys like this in her book is what gets female clients to pay. Heck, in many ways, he's more valuable to her than a guy who signs up, marries the first woman she sets him up with, and then drops out of the service. If this guy is truly just playing the field, then she can get him to go on dates with maybe 10 of her clients. Those are 10 clients that she can legitimately claim she found a "great guy" for, but that it just "didn't work out". And most importantly, those 10 women will most likely keep paying her fee, because they got "so close" to landing a desirable guy, that surely someone else from her book will finally be the one.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 19h ago
Yup, fucking exactly, it's probably why all her responses about the guy are non actionable evasions. She damn well knows which one it is and has zero intent of ever kicking him out since he draws in dumb cunts like moths to a flame.
If anything he's a prize horse in her stable. A reliable moneymaker.