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:

Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1mo ago
If women as a whole actually valued male intellect directly itself, there would have been a plurality of young fertile women lining up around the block to suck Stephen Hawking's crippled cock for free in the hopes of locking him down.
And this would have happened before he even became world famous and well-off. Had he not been clearly apt to graduate from Oxford with massive future socioeconomic status/potential at Cambridge despite the onset of ALS, he likely would never have been able to marry or have children. The Burden of Performance on men is that strict.
The reality is that women are just as, if not even more shallow than men. Crippling deformities or injuries are basically a death knell for most men's dating/mating prospects outside of gold-diggers, or exceptional male performance despite those issues as noted above. Meanwhile in comparison, an ugly woman with a working womb still has mating value and has roughly an 80% baseline chance of reproducing just for existing. (note: just reproduction, not marriage. This is an important distinction.) So basically the only thing consistently strong enough to override their shallowness is their materialism in a modern Welfare State. Character in a man only matters insomuch as ensuring security in an insecure environment. Translation: They care about character when fucking Chad instead of Billy means starving or other assured and immediate decline in quality of life. The slightly smarter ones realize that it screws up their future prospects and refrain from fucking Chad without him putting a ring on it. But they are a shrinking minority.
And this is why Welfare is dysgenic. It literally selects for the worst traits in women by not punishing them at all or allowing them to defer punishment until the problem has grown to affect more than just them. At best, this leads to stagnation of a society that will be outcompeted or conquered by less naive ones.
A healthy, sane, society that wishes to survive in the long term should instead be allowing both men and women to punish unfitness in their contemporaries. Women do it via sociosexual exclusion, and men should be allowed to do it via socioeconomic exclusion.
This means women no longer being married to the State as a Husband of Last Resort by default via Welfare. Any single mother who demonstrates inability to feed and house her children without external compelled subsidy (including that of an ex-husband via alimony or child support) loses custody of them and cannot regain it without demonstration/assurance of that capability. If the father is deceased or otherwise unable to assume custody, then the children become wards of the State.
Note: I would conditionally legalize prostitution with the stipulation that a woman wanting to be licensed for such must agree to surgical sterilization and regular health screening as well as public registration as such (marriage licenses and registrations must disclose this status to be issued as well) and compelled tithing to a retirement fund specifically administered for women engaging in it. This would mean the overwhelming majority of women by default have a way to obtain funds to support themselves or their children without adding to the pool of hungry mouths that need fed if they have no other skills or value to offer and refuse to acquire such. It's just officially recognizing and utilizing a default feminine behavior instead of ignoring it or foolishly expecting it to not happen, and not allowing women to obfuscate it either.
Despite the State likely being a deficient guardian as well, the implicit trauma of familial separation would serve as a valuable teaching tool to the children that parental inadequacy will not go unpunished, will not be rewarded, and would discourage them from repeating such once they mature.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1mo ago
1) You know, the 90s and 00s weren't that long ago, and I used to get complaints from women that I would make them feel stupid. My wife still bitches at me about that, and I let a lot of shit go.
2) I used to be a lot more elitist and judgemental, like the uppity bitches quoted in the article. My experience in the Army and in the skilled trades taught me not to underestimate someone just because he (or she) thought (for example) "conversate" or "supposably" were real words.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1mo ago
Why I found this article interesting was twofold:
As near as I can figure, this is the first time I have seen, in print, acknowledgement that "education" when talking about a future male partner, is a euphemism for "income." And women won't say "income" because it makes them look crass, so they have to pretend that his "education" matters. Which it doesn't. Which is why you never hear a female whining "the hot man I'm fucking only has a BA in 'media studies' instead of a hard science, boo hoo." And when they're looking on Tinder they don't say "HMM, this fellow looks like he could get into a PhD program for solid state physics if he passes the qualifying exam that he's yammering on about!" etc. So to pretend that a man's education is just oh-so goddamned important is a queasy-making charade which I find tiresome. Ditto for words like "ambition" and "hardworking". Just say MONEY, for god's sake. Also: And, yes, the airs that they are putting-on are heavily class-based. Words like "Soupçon" or "Croupier" or "Oenophilia" aren't words that working people would necessarily come across, though somebody living in a rarefied world of romance novels just might. An equivalent test would be the boyfriend quizzing their girlfriends about power tools and diesel engine components.
Basically to say "I don't care if a man knows how to read which is why my boyfriend has a vocabulary of under 500 words" makes one look kind of dumb, which is why they need to make a big show of pretending otherwise. And even when the dude does pass their quiz, they end up sneering at him anyway. Because, win or lose, his reading skills are immaterial compared to the truly important issues of money and height. If the dude were to go broke and lose 7 inches in height, then he'd be told to get out of her life and never come back.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1mo ago
Shit like that is why I say whoredom is a state most women aspire to. They want the transaction but not the costs of it.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1mo ago
If I could fuck my way into a big house, I'd probably be very tempted to do it as well. I can't condemn that very much, I'd probably be a hypocrite if I was suddenly given the ability and opportunity. That certainly seems a lot easier than saving up my own money for a Chateau in rural Gascony.
What makes it different is that I probably wouldn't be living in denial about what I did to deserve the mansion, pool and BMW roadster that my successful, hardworking spouse gifted to me. It would be hard for me to say "It's because of my great sense of humor! And I'm so in love with her many education certificates!"
Feminists loathe Melania Trump, but they never seem to criticize her obvious "fucking into big money" life. They'll criticize her for this, that and something else. But not for fucking her way into a position close to power. Sure, they dislike that kind of floozy, but they don't belabor the point very much. .
mustangfrank1 Sr. Hamster Analyst 1mo ago
I will bet said feminists would jump at a chance to be Trump's next wife if the opportunity arrived. Access to $5,000,000,000 and/or future divorce rape looks real good when making $35,000 as a social worker.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1mo ago
They'll make a big show of saying how much they despise him while walking to the altar. And their personal limo had better have a really good bar in it, dammit.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1mo ago
Yeah I don't have much of a problem with actual honest whoredom.
The problem is most of the whoredom that women try to attempt is dishonest. And the dishonesty never stops just there.
Edit: another layer is that marriage is also a form of whoredom, it's just a long term exclusivity contract (to protect paternity/assets), but by the time modern women are willing to try to sign up for it; they've already got a decade plus of behavior under their belt of demonstrating that they cannot be trusted to comply with the terms in good faith. Which leaves rational men with no reason to offer it to them.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1mo ago
I'm reminded of a prostitute that tried to cheat us on cab fare once. Overall, most of the prostitutes I dealt with were some of the nicest women I ever met. That being said, though, the sex profession is notorious for exploitative behavior on all sides including the customer, dealers (pimps), and workers. The worst, I think, are the strippers who emotionally manipulate men out of money for their mere presence.
Once The Playboy Philosophy was adopted along with Free Love, instead of freeing us from a prostitute narrative it opened it with women scamming men on dates, trapping men with illegitimate babies, golddigging, and so on. Combined with feminism and chivalry, they have the mindset towards men that a car salesman has when someone walks onto their lot.
In regards to the marriage contract as whoredom: In the classic film celebrating golddigging "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes", Lorelei stated that she was entitled to marry a rich guy because she was pretty but in the film, the actor that portrayed her fiance, Gus, Tommy Noonan, is quite handsome and there was no shortage of attractive, wealthy women back then. After all, wealthy women back then, like now, have access to better healthcare and diet than poor people.
And what's ignored as part of The Marriage Contract is piousness: Being a devout person to your church, community, and each other. Although Rose in The Titanic gets heat for cheating with a homeman man on a wealthy fiance, the fiance was abusive and immoral. Modern women want a handsome, kind, moral man who also will pay all the bills. That combination is hard to find to say the least.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 1mo ago
Well, it's difficult if one does not reciprocate in kind.
Which is the real issue for modern women. They're trying to sell cut and shut lemons for above blue-book value.
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 1mo ago
The entire world of "dating" is just obfuscated whoredom. That's why it's funny to me when women get so mad about it. All it ever was is a trade of sex for food/time/money/attention. If women were actually looking for a husband instead of a momentary status boost, they would behave much differently, and the "apps" would not exist.
[deleted]
No-Stress-Cat Jr. Hamster Analyst 1mo ago
Half these dumbass women can't even read a proper sentence out loud. I have to give the men some slack because since the 80's, school has been tailored for females to succeed and men to fail, so these vagina'd idiots have no excuse.
But please, approach me with those tests, and I will make you look like the dumbass you are in front of everybody.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1mo ago
There's also something which struck me as rather odd: those comedy shows which do person on the street interviews asking them to find obvious countries on a map, "name 5 countries in South America", which are edited to show the dumbest answers possible. Like, people not knowing where entire continents are located, they think South Africa is at the north pole, they think Russia is in Indonesia, or the entire world map is upside down and they don't notice, whatever. All of those questions are really obvious ones for the audience to groan at.
Those never really amused me much because I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. Ever since I was a kid, I loved maps and I loved knowing where places were. I was that kid in middle school where other kids would name a country in an attempt to stump me, and I would be able to name the capital. Yeah, I was a weird kid. And I can understand why a lot of people don't care that Blantyre is the largest city in Malawi: it's useless knowledge, not even usable in a game of Trivial Pursuit.
Once, when I was 16, my classmates and I were working on a 500-peice puzzle which was a very nice composite of cloud-free images of planet earth without the political boundaries. Very often-- not 100% of the time, but often-- they'd show me a coastline or a peninsula and I'd be able to match it up to where it ought to be.
"Okay, smart guy- where's this?"
I twist it around, squint my eyes. "It's Lake Balkash in Kazakhstan, it goes here."
"BULL-SHIT!!" Someone would howl.
"Check the cover of the box!"
"No, he's right. He's right."
"Okay, (grumble), maybe... what's this one?"
Twist it around, squint. "Northern coast of Norway. Probably near Narvik. It goes here."
"OH COME ON, MAN!" etc.
So if you're too good at answering those kinds of questions on tv, you get edited out.
HitTheRoadJill 1mo ago
Chad is an illiterate dumbass because he can’t pronounce every single one of these seldom-spoken words. 2/10 would not date.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1mo ago
She would be typing that with Chad's sperm swimming up her colon.
First-light Jr. Hamster Analyst 1mo ago
I have never dated a woman I considered both intelligent and educated. I would genuinely love to have had such a woman but instead I have spent years trying hard not to make women feel dumb and uneducated. I have purposely reduced my vocabulary and avoided high brow topics for every woman I have ever lain with.
There was one to whom I never once explained that you cannot use whom as the subject of a sentence. She did it when she wanted to sound smart or formal and I bit my tongue every time. The present incumbent likes to say "oh unto you!" when she is angry and wants to sound all righteous -meaning to say "woe unto you" (she has heard preachers saying it, so it must be righteous ...right?). I have never yet set her straight, even when she is in full childish rage pointing her finger at me and ranting it.
It happens that I have worked with lots of men who do not have very large vocabularies or use good grammar but they are good men. Many of them are also better boyfriends and husbands than I.
Still, she might have a point. Probably there are more women who have studied English literature at degree level and there are more men than women who read the Daily Star over the Guardian. High culture when libtard, so high culture became irrelevant to real life and men dumped it.
I think we should have an uneducated girlfriend test too. Can she do some absolute minimum things to be called a functional adult and a useful female? Things like; cook the things she likes to eat from scratch ingredients, change a car wheel, open the hood of a car for that matter, wire a plug, work out which fuse has blown in a fuse cabinet (yeah, just by opening it and looking), gather and chop wood for a single day of heating without it being an act of heroism, light a fire easily without firelighters and cook something simple on it, clean and joint a dead animal, mend clothing with a needle and thread, grow vegetables from seed, care for small children without constantly complaining about it. Genuinely gentlemen what percentage of your wives and girlfriends, past and present can tick all those off? Modern women are nearly all practically illiterate Yeah I know "practically illiterate" is not a logical term and probably belongs in the big talking pseudointellectual twaddle of a sociology paper but its politer than saying helpless, childish and of minimal use to anyone including themselves.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1mo ago
One or two details that I think are important: the Apple iPhone came out in 2006 and over the next few years revolutionized internet use. Social media started to become big after 2009-2010. Common core curricula emphasized the reading of multiple, shorter texts instead of longer texts-- i.e. 'Document Based Questions' became a thing for social studies tests-- around 2011-2015 and got adopted by maybe 40-45 states... the generation which has spent their entire lives within that milieu and is coming into young adulthood now is... different from yours and mine in certain reading-related ways.
I don't wanna call young people dumb and illiterate, but student performance at the college level is heading in an ominous direction.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1mo ago
Back in the early 90's, the Internet was largely 90% male due to only tech geeks or those in academia/tech having access. The few women who wandered on were lavished with attention much like on the dating apps and blue pill behavior by men was more common. It was basically 100 men shaming us 10 red pilled guys to quiet down and not drive the few women on the (early) web away.
When AOL came out, it did democratize things and it was a joke that half of the people on were of low intelligence barely able to click through the free CD software install and FORGOT TO SET THEIR CAPS LOCK OFF.
I have fond memories of those early internet days because it did revolutionize communication and knowledge sharing.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1mo ago
One of my good friends at a different high school set up a dialup BBS. I had a 2400 baud modem on my Mac Powerbook 170, so at night I could dial in while no one was using the phone line. And we would just talk about stuff. It's how we kept in contact. And to talk about this in public would bring in howls of derision. Now I wasn't a savant like he was, I just knew some things about how to find my way around. I first saw the homepage of Amazon.com back in 1994 while using Lynx, and naturally nobody had ever heard of it and it was just a weird idea at the time-- buying books? On a computer?? HUHH??!?.
Anyway, being a high schooler using a modem back then might've been like being a closeted gay man in the 50s. You might've well walked around wearing a sandwich board saying "GIANT GEEK" on the front and "FREE PUNCHES TO THE BACK OF MY HEAD" on the back.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1mo ago
There's this hilarious scene on The Simpsons where Marg picks up the phone and there's the modem tone and she complains about them. Such good times. $5/hour for 2400 baud access to USENET. Back when usernames had an exclamation mark and not an at symbol.
GimmeTheUsual Sr. Hamster Analyst 1mo ago
Pours one out for UUENCODE and PAR2
First-light Jr. Hamster Analyst 1mo ago
I agree that they have different minds to ours. I have also noticed how we have different minds to those who are true illiterates -normal people who had proper childhoods as nature intended never entering a classroom. Sometimes it is hard to understand wise things these illiterates say because they just use different archetypes and refer to a lot of things in the natural world as opposed to using turns of phrase that have become perfectly understood. Even reading Homer (who uses a lot of phrases that were already commonly understood then) you see Homer had a different way of looking at the world because he had oral not literal archetypes.
When they invented writing, they feared it would make people dumb because they could just reference things other people knew without actually knowing it properly. It did too but it also enabled knowledge to move around the world and across time better. Now we have so much access to stuff that understanding it well is less important. It has again made people dumber but maybe it will help people do more too. We are just at an early stage here.
I am not hugely troubled long term. Its just that there will be short term casualties. I really see it in my youngest child -a 14 year old daughter e whose head is just full of what she swipes on a phone. I have rarely seen her do anything useful or learn anything. She has no interest in school past the social side and school is just dumbed down shite anyway. Its like talking to tree. She has no understanding or interest in what is not on social media for hot girls. I fear she will be a casualty.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1mo ago
I had DBQs on AP exams in high school in the mid to late 1990s. They were usually pretty tough, especially with the time constraints. I was a faster than normal reader and still felt pressured.
Not sure what the "Common Core" DBQs are like, but I wouldn't be so dismissive of them out of hand.
"New math", on the other hand...
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1mo ago
I was trained to teach DBQs during a stint in teachers' college and I found it challenging.
Maybe this goes too far into the background, but there was a method of literary analysis called 'New Criticism' which existed between the 1930s and 1960s (it's not to be confused with postmodern bullshit, which I have always found bogus, so I won't go into it)... anyway, New Criticism said that a text should be analyzed closely by what exists in it, rather than by trying to overemphasize the context or the author's biography. It ought to be treated as a kind of technical puzzle. It precludes you from saying "Shakespeare's a white male, so he's racist. And Shakespeare's sister wouldn't have been racist BUT SHE WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO WRITE", which is what the po-mo idiot might end up saying.
Anyway, the DBQ came out of applying this to social studies in an attempt to foster critical thinking and clear writing: comparing documents, putting together a piece of a puzzle to make a historical argument and so on. Be like Sherlock Holmes to pull together evidence. History doesn't care how you feel, just pay attention to the evidence.
Was a DBQ an effective kind of question? That depends on your philosophy of teaching. It's hard to teach historical thinking when students don't know that TV didn't exist in 1620 and that Abraham Lincoln couldn't build the log cabin he was born in. Every method has its problems.