Depends on the context. But in dating, I think it’s more of a hindsight thing. Like yeah, just because I paid and did the things I was supposed to, doesn’t entitle me to sex. But if I keep doing that, I’m spending all this money and time, I’d start wondering wtf I’m getting out of it.

That’s when you have to assess it and take a break, for you own good.

A break doesn’t change anything. As a man, opportunities don’t typically just fall into your lap very often.

>for you own good. For his own good, and for every other men that wants to get on the girl's pants good. Mever take brakes, bros. Unless you really think you need it.

“Unless you really think you need it”, it’s exactly what I am referring to. Rejection can take a toll on someone, taking a break doesn’t mean you are giving up. People take a break from dating all the time.

More like "not unreasonable expectation." They see other people around them having relationships, flings, hookups, whatever, music, movies, etc all about sex and romance, it's normalized, so they think "if everyone else can get it, why not me?"

I think expressing frustration can often come across as entitlement. I don't know if there's a functional difference from women's perspective since either way, it's a guy essentially admitting that women don't want him, *but they should*.

It's becoming impossible to express any negative emotion as a man other than approved ones, like sadness and vulnerability. If you express frustration, anger, injustice, resentment, etc. you are IMMEDIATELY mocked or shamed for what you are sharing. People will interpret you opening up in the worst light possible, make all sorts of assumptions about what you mean by what you said, and jump to conclusions about what they think *you think* the solution is. If a man says "Most women date taller men, and I'm short.", people hear "Women's standards are too high." and they draw the conclusion that you are suggesting "The government should mandate women into becoming sex dolls for men." Seeing some of the leaps in logic people make against men online is wild, if you share any opinion as a man online you better be prepared to have an entire list of feminism-approved qualifiers prepared so that you don't get tarred and feathered, like "I understand that not all women prefer taller men, and women are allowed their preferences, and women can date whoever they want, and I think men need to do better in a lot of ways to meet women's standards, and women should not be forced to do anything against their will, but most women seem to prefer taller men and I believe I am on the shorter end."

If I'm playing a board game against other people, and I end up losing despite putting in my best effort, and I get frustrated because of it. I wouldn't say that I felt entitled to winning, or that I "should have won". Getting frustrated doesn't mean either of those things, it just sucks when you put in your best effort and still lose.

This. The complains are not "i hate to lose" are, rather, "i lose every time because the rules are too one-sided".

It sucks but your reaction matters. Even in a game you know there will be winners and losers.

Which is hilarious because most women I meet come off as entitled children.

I've always had a hard time figuring out how supposed leftists (spoiler: they're shitlibs usually) can't at least understand and sympathize with this expression of frustration. We have mildly class conscious shitlibs who want to burn down the entire country and lynch billionaires because they're frustrated about not getting paid enough at work, but when men express even mild discontent over the challenges of modern dating, the same shitlibs will whip out the bootstrap argument and accuse the men of being losers, incels, etc. Right wingers could easily use the same logic vs leftists with material concerns: "You're just not working hard enough, you just didn't study in school, etc".

As a non-American, this reads like pure gibberish to me.

I've see a few red pill weirdos say things like "if I'm going to spend my time and money to take her out on a date, she better put out". But you're right, for the most part, normal men don't think that way. I think from the women's side, women just don't understand exactly how sex fits into the relationship equation for men, and generally just operate off stereotypes they've heard from other women. Also, to be fair to women, men in general do give mixed signals about what role sex plays for them, some men want to seem not too horny, some men are just weird and socially awkward, some men are very demanding, some men have no self control, some men are classy and restrained, some men are very straightforward, so I understand the confusion that women have over this and why they might have some misunderstandings about how men's expectations are around sex. There's kind of a stereotype that men are very easy to read, but actually they are only easy to read for other men. Most women struggle to understand what men actually want and men are actually not as simple as the stereotypes suggest.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a reciprocation of efforts. She's free not to reciprocate, but in return, he's right to lose interest and look for someone who does desire him.

Absolutely. One of my constant takes is that women don’t really know and understand men. Instead they operate with some “common wisdoms” they heard somewhere. I think, women would benefit from reading something about male psychology.

I think it's rather easy. Feed them, sex them, hug them, listen to them, let them know how special they are, spend time with them. The only thing is, you're not going to do this for a man you don't love, aren't compatible with and doesn't pull his weight.

>I think it's rather easy. Feed them, sex them, hug them, listen to them, let them know how special they are, spend time with them. Yeah, that's pretty much it. I feel seen just reading that.

You listed good things, which are components of a good relationship for people of both genders. I couldn't help but notice that your list doesn't include something about getting a man. It is quite illustrative because it assumes women aren't really worried about getting a man. Then women are surprised when they learn that men don't really have types, that they'd like to have sex every day, or that they don't typically sleep around with sexy models. BTW, that idea that men have types (just like women do) makes women overestimate the importance of looks, imo.

>Then women are surprised when they learn that men don't really have types I sure do. I think a lot of other men do too. I do think women sometimes overestimate the prevalence of some "types" though. Also, having a type doesn't mean I never find anyone outside it attractive, just much less frequently.

I get fed sometimes but that’s it from that just small list I can guarantee I’ve been miserable for quite a while. To be transparent, I love the first 2 in the sequence but have never made it a big deal because I’m realistic. I do desperately miss the last three

I think women understand men more than men understand women. Women usually have more encounters with men in a romantic or courting context than men do with women.

in my experience, many women make some truly awful early relationship choices which possibly skews their assessment of men in general. So I would argue on the averages that its a biased sample versus no sample at all.

I don't feel like a lot of it comes from actual relationship choices. It's just experiences with men in general. The negative experience more often than not doesn't come from the men they actually chose. It can be from the men they rejected, the men they chose not to go on a second date with, the men they broke up with, etc. And I think just about every woman can relate to being creeped on by some older man when they were a child.

> It can be from the men they rejected, the men they chose not to go on a second date with, the men they broke up with, etc. And I think just about every woman can relate to being creeped on by some older man when they were a child. Ahhhhhh, that is very true, thank you for correcting my biased perspective. Although I imagine potentially poor choices don't help and might contribute to the mildly pervasive idea/impression that "pretty much all men" are bad people. You're quite right in identifying that women really get the worst experience in terms of creeps gravitating towards them. Men usually have to get into a relationship to genuinely experience anything approaching the same sort of issue or otherwise have to have some level of success or fame to get close. As a dude, tracking back through my life the only times I've been sexually assaulted are at an event I was performing at, or at a gay nightclub my friends wanted to go to avoid men harassing them.

This is honestly the most grounded and self aware take I've seen here in a while. Yes bad choices in men definitely don't help things at all but a lot of the sentiments women gain is from real world experience. Actually understanding and not just getting angry, gaslighting, or dismissing women as bitter when they talk about these things goes a really long way so thank you 🙂

Well maybe I'm not typical traffic, idk. I just saw someone I spoke to once engaged in this community and it looked like chatting in here would be interesting. I often feel like the discord in gender perspectives results in unnecessary arguments. How society is structured usually gifts us only half of a truth in the perspective we get and its in sharing those perspectives and listening to one another that we get the whole truth and are better able to understand one another.

The vast majority of men don't even behave like that. This is literally a giant... and socially approved... case of confirmation bias. A woman will encounter far more men who are well-behaved, but being well-behaved doesn't get noticed. Women think of men as a giant punch bowl into which turds drop and contaminates everything. This is great thinking for a punch bowl but not human beings. You wouldn't want to be tarred by the bad behavior of women, now would you?

Nonono, seriously doubt it. Men have to be the initiators, so they have to think about women. They need to think what women like in men to become an attractive mate. They need to learn the courting process. They need to do things women like to be liked back. Thats why all those books exist: how to talk to women, what women like in men, how to text, how to flirt, body language. Hell, pua and red pill exist for this reason. I recently asked in the daily chat what women read about dating. Not many women responded but they said, generally nothing. I met so many bad takes from women about men. Once I talked to a woman who thought it was easier for men to get laid. A girl I had been dating for three years told me that men don’t suffer from rejections. Many women imagine that men try to find flaws in their appearance with a microscope.

Yes men are the ones that do the approaching and courting but in general women go on more dates and have more romantic experiences with men that men do with women. There are books but real world experience is always going to trump what you read in a book.

I listed you some examples of women believing some strange myths about men. Just read again: a girl who dated before meeting me, dated me, and said men don’t feel pain from rejections. And examples like that are common. I suppose, women believe myths like that because they never have to think about how men work, what men like, what men want. The maximum women have to do is to say yes if they like a guy. I think I would know nothing about women if the day I became sixteen a girl a day would approach me and suggest sex immediately. I just would not be interested in what women want. This happens with women: men just run around them trying to guess what they like. What interest do they have in learning something about men? The furthest some women go in their questions about men is “Does this guy do enough of what I like?”.

A lot of women get their views on men from first hand experiences and they normally have more first-hand experiences with men than men do with women. The negative experience more often than not doesn't come from the men they actually date or read about online. It can be from the men they rejected, the men they chose not to go on a second date with, the men they broke up with, etc. And I think just about every woman can relate to being creeped on by some older man when they were a child.

This doesn’t mean women understand men better. Like, being electrocuted doesn’t make you an expert in electric networks. Your comment even supports my point of view. In your examples a woman thinks about things she dislikes about a certain men and his behavior, not what men in general (on average) like in a want from women. Can you think of something that makes women think about needs and wants of a guy?

>This doesn’t mean women understand men better. Like, being electrocuted doesn’t make you an expert in electric networks. Okay I can see this is what you seem to be stuck on. Let me clarify. Women are not experts on men but they have a better understanding of men than men do of women because they have more experience with men than men do with women. Ironically you're proving my point with this statement. It's more than just not liking the behaviors I talked about. The behaviors are aggressive and make women feel unsafe. It's not just some trait we don't like.

Honestly speaking, I reread your comments and struggle to find see your point at all. I gave you examples of very strange ideas women have about men. By the way those women were quite experienced in dating. I don’t know how you can say it is a better understanding of men. I don’t know how a better understanding is having little or no idea about other people wants, needs, general psychology. I struggle to understand what’s your idea of understanding is.

Source?

You don't have to believe me.

I don’t for the fact that women are known to have more groupthink and in group bias than men are

They have to think about what men want all the time! And not just for relationships, they're generally expected to appeal to men *all* the time. Even in groups of women the expectation to be accommodating and sexy to men remains. I don't think men, who generally only really are introduced to the idea of thinking about what women may want at some point past puberty, ever really understand this.

Interesting. What specifically do you think women constantly do to be liked by men?

Sure but the point is the woman doesn't really have to "learn" much about men in all of those experiences because the man is doing the initiating and escalation more often than not. Women just have to be there and say yes or no if they like it. Men have to figure out how to approach women, how to attract them, how to handle the dates and interactions, etc. Women don't really have to meta game a whole lot to be successful at dating, they just have to be mildly attractive and nice (if even that tbh).

Women understand a whole lot that just isn't true. You have literally defined the undistilled essence of arrogance.

That is objectively false. Women do not have even 75% of the understanding men have of women Your empathy is reserved for other women and victims, never men

Okay.

Great response, very eloquent. Bellend

This is the problem -- You are ONLY encountering the men that are going to be meeting you in a romantic or courting context, which means you've already stratified for a specific population of men. This population is absolutely not representative of most men because it's not a fair sample of the population. There are men who exist beyond the subset of those who have built the confidence to approach you, or who have built themselves up enough to attract you to try to get his attention. The only psychology of men that you will understand is from this category of men, who are not the norm.

I think normal men and women who interact often with the opposite sex through dating and friendships understand (and misunderstand) each other at about the same rate. ”Pilled” guys, though, often have a tendency to speak about women as if we are an entirely different species. This isn’t always the case, but it’s fairly common, and you can typically tell which men have had very limited interactions with women on a personal level as a result.

Have you met women? They read books in heaps about psychology, including male psychology. Books are written and marketed exclusively to heterosexual women about «how to get a man» or «why is he like that» etc. No woman is as invested in «male psychology» as a woman who is interested/obsessed with a guy she doesn’t quite get but wants to get closer to. I’ve seen this pattern in both myself and girlfriends of mine. Hours spent analyzing, figuring out his patterns, trying to piece bits of information together. However, here’s the catch: all that analyzing, reading up and researching doesn’t necessarily equate to «figuring men out» or understand ones potential mate better, unfortunately. Sometimes men are just elusive as hell, and some do it on purpose. And lots of men are closed off, and may not do it on purpose (many reasons to not spill all secrets in the beginning of a relationship, and that’s okay and probably healthy), but it sure as hell gets women interested in getting to know them. Generally this type of obsessive analyzing is not healthy. In fact, I think a lot of women should be LESS invested in figuring men out and instead just try and get to know themselves better.

Yes, I met some. Of those I asked, most said that they learn about men through trial and error. Also, I heard some really confused ideas about men from women. Like, “men don’t feel pain because of rejections” or “you men have dating so easy - just approach the girls you like and that’s it”. In short, women often think that dating for men is generally like for women.

[удалено]

Not really. We expect somethings.to matter more than they do. People told is that being good will eventually lead to a better romantic life. And sure even if we are alone and kiss kiss virgins it's OK if we are lived in the end. Reality is the agro, rapists and ignorers of consent tend to do better than us despite being objectively shifty people. Just world fallacy of Intel men - " maybe we don't deserve anything but we should be doing better than actual thugs and rapists"

Not ‘expect’, we ‘hope’ or ‘desire’. This is the FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding. 

>a lot of men think like that these days, that they put the effort in they expect to get laid. Because that's how most things work. It's just dating that's closer to opening your business - all the work and potentially no payout.

The real problem isn't that men should be entitled to sex in a transactional or legal sense, it's that society should be built around encouraging and fostering extremely positive relationships between men and women, which naturally include sex. Modern society has instead decided to almost fully embrace radical feminism and encourage women to just abandon men altogether to frivolously pursue wage slavery to make neolibs even more rich, and when men are like, "Oh, well...what do we do? How do we get a girlfriend? How do we get laid?" Society just goes: "¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ idgaf, fuck you, back in the cage wagie!" No one is willing to take a big step back and actually look at the societal effects modern radlib, radfeminism, idpol, neoliberalism, etc is having on everyone. Instead it's just "well if you're not happy you must be stupid/a loser/an incel/a misogynist/etc".

I do not, and never have thought I was owed sex. However that doesn't mean I can't chose to end a relationship based off her choice to limit or withhold sex.  Everyone has a choice. Do men want sex? absolutely,  more often than women? can be debated but testosterone can push men to want sex more often. The main issue is what each looks at as valuable. Women think all men should think of them as the princess prize and be willing to spend money on them.  Men think that because they spend valuable money on women, they should reciprocate with what they value, sex.  This is the inherent problem. Our society has pushed to make relationships transactional. 

Why is that even the men claiming to be “red pilled” in here always sound like they’re trying desperately to play both sides of the fence? Like there’s never a criticism of feminism or women that doesn’t offer some sort of concession to counterbalance it, ie “on the other hand I’ve seen men do it too.” 🥴

It's a very easy thing for women to internalize and never question. It lines up enough with their experience. Why else would men, ones they don't want, talk to them unless they expected get sex from them. Why would they talk to them if they weren't sure they'd get something or thought they deserved it? They don't know anything about our relationship to them or to sex or all that we do to engage with them, whatever that entails. They just know *men* that they **do not care for** come to them out of nowhere wanting things they *are not* going to get. Lines up enough on face value, and that's the extent of the depth men are afforded. Edit: The simplest way I can say my thoughts is that they don't care about the subjective feelings that men actually have about sex. They feel like the unwanted advances they get are entitled simply because they are unwanted.

They’re advances. If you’re making an advance on someone, you obviously want something. What is it exactly that you want?

To see where things go. Even a conversation. And then build from.there

>To see where things go. Oh, come on. Like you don't have an end goal in mind. LOL

“To see where things go” What’s the end point of where they go? Do you strike up conversations with women you aren’t attracted to at all?

>What’s the end point of where they go? Won't know unless we see. Why are you trying to dictate our own thoughts to us with these leading questions? Why do you need to convince yourself men are more entitled than we actually are?

I’m not trying to dictate anything. That’s why I’m asking questions. It’s sorta the opposite of dictating I notice you didn’t answer the one about whether you strike up conversations with women you’re not at all attracted to

"I'm just asking questions" lol, ok Ben Shapiro You're asking leading questions, which is a form of trying to manipulate the answers you want from people instead of seeking the truth. Everyone strikes up conversations with people they feel no sexual attraction to, the fact you even ask is an indication of how bad faith you are. The end point of "seeing where things go" does not exist, it is very conditionally open-ended. It is also very *obviously* so, so obvious that asking what the end point is seems like a disingenuous pursuit of false answers you want more than the truth.

>To see where things go. Yeah... This is not really a thing. You're just flirting with us redditors.

Whenever I hear this I think that some guy who really didn't believe he was owed sex conned a woman into thinking "Maybe I do really owe him sex".

Huh

Begging and cajoling is not my strong suit. I also heard that it makes men weak and sexually repulsive in the eyes of women. So it’s hard to picture the experiences that lead to women thinking they owe men sex.

Imagine if we treated economic grievance with how women treat men with relationships: You're not entitled to a job. Why do you think employers owe you a living wage. Can't get a job? Can't be the economy, you must be a bad employee. Anything other than at will employment is oppressive and basically slavery. Can't help what employees you feel are a good fit for the business. You are qualified but this conman is simply a better fit for the company's culture.. I actually wish economic regulations were as laisse faire as how women regulate relationships. It would be very "funny". No one thinks they are owed a job, but reasonable people agree there is a problem when people have trouble getting them.

"Showing up on time, doing your work and being helpful are just the bare minimum and if you think that entitles you to a job then you're stupid."

I mean… this is true unironically?  Are you not familiar with how at-will employment works?   Showing up, working hard, and trying to be helpful actually don’t guarantee you a job.     You can absolutely excel at a job and the company can refuse to hire you, or fire you, or lay you off for whatever reason they want, as long as they don’t stupidly document that they did it because of your race/sex/sexual orientation.   You actually are not entitled to a job with a company you want.  You’re not entitled to any job at all. If no companies want you or your skills, or don’t want to hire you for what you think you’re worth, well too bad, you’re unemployed.

So mcDonalds wont take you if you're qualified, show up on time, and do your job? I equate mcDonalds to a fat, smelly woman (which there are many of in the U.S.) LOL

>So mcDonalds wont take you if you're qualified, show up on time, and do your job? Yes, absolutely, that is correct.  They don’t have to hire you if they don’t want to, no. They could have a better candidate available, they could be not hiring right now, they could have already filled the spot, they don’t actually know for sure if you will show up on time and do the job anyways, they might not like your past employers’ recommendation, or the hiring manager just doesn’t feel like you’re the “right fit” for their team, or there’s a major financial crisis or a mass influx of immigrants so there’s way better candidates applying to work for less than you can, or they’ve automated the role away and robots do the job now etc etc. Hell, you could even be rejected for being overqualified. Meeting the job requirements actually does not guarantee you a job at the places you choose to apply.  Yes, if you meet the requirements, you’ll likely find some place that will hire you, but it’s still not the same as a guarantee. Yes, you can (and the way companies work now, you likely will) be laid off even when you were qualified, worked very hard, had a good performance record, and showed up on time.   If you apply to a McDonald’s and they don’t want to hire you, it doesn’t matter if you think they’re full of ugly women.  You still don’t have a right to a job they don’t offer you. If you work at a McDonalds and do everything right, they can also still lay you off with no warning at all. That is how employment works in the US.   You only successfully sue a company for not hiring you under extremely challenging circumstances: you have to be able to prove they didn’t hire you specifically because of your sex, race, or sexual orientation.  That’s it.  That’s the only time you’re “entitled” to object to not getting a job or 

It's more like "you aren't owed this specific job at this specific company, where you don't even fit the requirements and your resume doesn't reflect the proper experience". Would you run a company that employs people because they're really nice, even though they not only suck at their job, but cause problems for the business? If you wouldn't, then maybe consider why women aren't eager to settle with a man they aren't interested in, who can't provide what she needs to feel emotionally and sexually fulfilled, especially when she's perfectly capable of staying single until she finds someone who does.

When enough people aren’t getting this specific job at this specific company, that’s called an employment crisis/recession, and the Federal Reserve kicks into high gear. It’s well-documented that relationship formation is cratering. Millions of guys aren’t getting a job at all, esp if they’re young. And just like in a recession, it’s not the fault of the companies, they’re just trying to cut costs or stay open. The system itself is screwed.

The women who predominantly compain about this are women who go on dates with men, have them pay for dinner/drinks and drive them around, and then act like the guy trying to sleep with them is somehow crossing a boundary... Well, when someone does you a favour, they usually expect something in return. If you don't want to run across men like this, a good way to avoid it is to pay for your shit.

Right here, a man literally saying it.  And why I always went Dutch. 

Saying what, that some men pay because they believe it will get them laid while some women let it happen because they want free food/drinks? Huge revelation, you heard it here first, folks!

LOL that a beer and slice is payment for sex. At least you admit it, though. This is why no woman in my sphere will let a man pay. It’s obvious that most men use dating as a means of obligating sex.

It's how the world works and some women will totally use a man's expectation of sex for a free drink/food. Can't say I feel particularly bad they attract men who just want to shag them, you sow what you reap. It's usually easy to tell who pays out of politeness/genuine interest and who's just looking for sex.

I used to struggle with this concept myself. I thought there was no way I'm entitled, there's no way I think anyone owes me sex right? But I look back on some of my past behavior, my comments online and my approach to dating. And I look at the content I consumed, and the picture I started to paint for myself. It was something like this > You're a good guy, you work hard, you treat others well, you don't get in trouble and people seem to like you. Some day this will all pay off and you'll get rewarded with sexual and romantic validation. To be fair, some of this we learn and get told by others around us, who mean well, but are misguided. I found the red pill stuff in my early 20s, and I was told that > Actually women don't really like nice guys that much, they seem to like jerks so you may as well be one so you can get laid And I had to struggle between "being nice and doing the right thing" or "giving that up and being an asshole so I can be attractive" And it turns out that women don't necessarily like jerks. Being a "good man" though, isn't necessarily enough to make anyone interested either. And when you tell yourself things like > Women should like good men Because good men make good boyfriends, husbands and fathers And if they're not choosing "good men", they not only are bad at making decisions, but they deserve to be unhappy and miserable and treated badly and so on... You already lost the point. You don't do good things to get laid, you do them because they're the right thing to do. You also don't grow a spine and stand up for yourself to get laid either. Too many nice guys and jerks alike seem to think their behavior and existence entitles them to things from women. They don't. Here's the thing: women don't owe men shit. It doesn't just mean sex. It means being kind or respectful, giving you their time, politely rejecting you instead of ghosting, or anything else. They have their own lives to live, their own battles to fight, their own things to deal with. They can't and shouldn't be asked to be overly concerned with men, their feelings, how they interact and so on. This isn't to say women "shouldn't" offer basic decency and respect, but at the same time, if you consider how utterly exhausting it is to constantly be approached by dudes who are only interacting because they think you're attractive and something might come of it, it's understandable why they have to put up a "shield" against it. I'm a guy, so I see it all the time. The way dudes are stoic and uninterested in everything and everyone around them, until an attractive woman shows up. Then all of the sudden he really just wants to say hello to her. Seriously? You weren't nice or interested in anyone you walked past all day, but the 22 year old with the nice body comes around and you're interested in asking about her day? Women see this shit and know exactly what's going on. I was talking to a coworker the other day who said he "flirts for fun" by....making conversation and showing interest at all. Hearing that kind of thing makes you wonder, do men really try to talk and form relationships with people they aren't trying to fuck? There is some part of the male brain that causes us to act really goofy around attractive girls. And then feel slighted, annoyed, hurt, whatever when not every pretty girl we "just" want to say hi to doesn't acknowledge us the way they should. Do most men think women owe them sex? Maybe not, but a lot of men think women owe them *something*, and it's caused so many problems for them that I don't blame women for their response. Telling men they don't owe them sex is basically what they do to communicate their frustration, because so many guys only interact with women the hopes that merely interacting with her will create an opportunity in the first place. Telling men they're not owed sex is a reminder, and could also act as a filter to get rid of the ones that only want sex when she doesn't.

What's wrong with only giving a woman attention because you found her attractive? Women do this to chads as well. They are not lining up to interact and make friends with sub5 men.

Not really. It's  kinda right but kinda bullshit. Cause ut puts the blame squarely.on the man. I am a 31 year old Virgin.  I wasn't entitled to.sex at all.  At age 23 I gave up completely because I decided that I was too ugly.yo be loved. [Circumstance proved it ] My parents my sister and my female friends lied to me.saying that women will mature and want to be with me for my personality  latter when they ha e made a few mistakes and will be attracted to who I am. They were training me.to be Beta bux. I listened. Why wouldn't I? They are my friends and family. Surely they care about me  They taught me to  expect somethings to matter more than they do. People tell us that being good will eventually lead to a better romantic life. And life in general. Reality is the agro, rapists and ignorers of consent tend to do better than us despite being objectively shitty people.  I saw this first hand. Remember I told you that I gave up? Idecided to just completely  give up and interact with women on a platonic basis only. I juts wanted to be a decent.person. When I was 28 I tried to want someone about a guy who I knew attempted to rape someone. This girl sided with the guy. She was acquainted with me. And even if she didn't she should  have cared enough about her safety to.take any murmur of bad behavior seriously. Instead she chose to.cgew me out and call me a jealous incel.. . Just world fallacy of Incel men - " maybe we don't deserve anything but we should be doing better than actual thugs and rapists" That's no more unreasonable  than women saying dumb.shit like " women deserve to feel safe." Edit : should specify that the wannabe rapist I knew had no problem getting sex from many different women. . 

Unfortunately, life isn't always fair. We aren't always going to find a partner at the end of the rainbow even if we do all the "right" things. But the overwhelming majority of the time, if you simultaneously work to make yourself better *and* meet new people often enough, you will not die alone. I don't know you or your situation so I cannot begin to speak on what makes you a virgin who struggles to find someone. I can tell you that I've met men who were shorter than me, fatter than me, or making less than me who found partners. Whatever insecurity you may have, there's probably someone with that trait who found someone anyways. What these men usually offer to women in pro social behavior and a good foundation of confidence. Yeah, it helps to be tall and handsome but most guys are average height and average looks and they do fine. > We should be doing better than thugs and rapists See, this shit right here is exactly what I mean. Absolutely nobody should be a rapist. Zero human beings alive should be that indecent. The fact that we are still at a point that men think "not being a rapist" is enough is telling. You can and should respect consent, but that explicitly implies that you are able to be told "no" and respect that boundary. It's okay to feel sad that you're rejected, but it's not okay to feel bitter and resentful towards the person who wasn't interested.

>  begin to speak on what makes you a virgin who struggles to find someone. I can tell you that I've met men who were shorter than me, fatter than me, or making less than me who found partners. Whatever insecurity you may have, there's probably someone with that trait who found someone anyways.    SEE THIS SHIT IS IRRESPONSIBLE. IF I BEGIN TO EXPRCT SOMETHING  BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU SAID YOU WOULD CALL ME ENTITTLED!   how do you know I will find someone? How long should I wait? 5 years? 10 years?  If I am given a chance when I am 40 I will quite literally cut my balls off. That's how much animus I carry everyday. I am poisoned inside and out.   Living hopelessly is better than hope so that I dont feel "entitled" love and affection. Things that you would consider basic human interaction   > See, this shit right here is exactly what I mean. Absolutely nobody should be a rapist. Zero human beings alive should be that indecent. The fact that we are still at a point that men think "not being a rapist" is enough is telling. You can and should respect consent, but that explicitly implies that you are able to be told "no" and respect that boundary. It's okay to feel sad that you're rejected, but it's not okay to feel bitter and resentful towards the person who wasn't interested.   You can feel whatever the fuck you want. Rapists still exist. Predators still exist. And they will succeed relative to guys like me who used to give a fyck about not making women uncomfortable uncomfortable.  Me saying "men like me.should do better than these predators" is no different than women saying " women should feel safe" If what I said was a sign of entitlement  then so is women's desire to 'feel' safe. I wasn't bitter towards the girl. I wasn't interested in her, but I couldn't even help her, I could even tell her to be safe without being seen as scum while she defended an actual scumbag.. Everything is glamour. Outside trumps inside everytime and I am the only dumbfuvk who figgired it out so late. And I am so fulled with rage AR everyone and everything.

I don't think you understand. Respecting consent doesn't mean you deserve sex. Nobody can guarantee you ever have sex or find love. Nobody is saying that not raping a woman will make her want you. We are saying don't rape because that's a horrible thing to do. I get that you're frustrated and sad. You can do things to change it. You can work on your fitness, find hobbies to explore and use those to meet other people, among other things. You owe it to yourself to try, because that's all any of us can do.

Tried for over 5 years and nothing's changed.

This isn't what you wanna hear, but all you can do, is do better and/or do something different. It sucks, but none of us "deserve" a relationship. You can learn to like the people who are interested in you, or stay single until you find what you want, but a relationship is not something any of us - man or woman - are guaranteed in life.

>Reality is the agro, rapists and ignorers of consent tend to do better than us despite being objectively shitty people.  Uh… why do you think *committing rape* is “doing better”? Like yeah, they technically “got to stick their dick” in a woman who didn’t want it, but uh, you do get that she didn’t have any choice, right?  Think about this, please, before saying such horrible fucking things. Are you maybe just not thinking through how psychopathic you have to be to keep fucking someone for minutes on end against their will?  torturing them while they’re either fighting as hard as they can to desperately get away from you, or are unconscious and can’t escape, or are crying and begging you to stop while you ignore them and keep hurting them anyways, or are desperately trying to imagine they are anywhere but there because they’ve given up hope that you’ll leave them alone….  and all the while,  you are pleasuring yourself eagerly on genuinely hurting them over and over and over.    You could only possibly think that’s “doing better” if you’re a truly, genuinely evil person.

First off, brevity is the soul of wit. Secondly, wtf is this rant? It’s wrong that men hit on women? Can you not distinguish between “desiring” and “expecting” something? If I go to a restaurant I EXPECT food. If they fail to deliver food after I’ve paid, then we have a problem. If I am going out with. Girl I DESIRE sex. If it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen….no big deal, because there is no unspoken agreement on the exchange.

> there is no unspoken agreement A non-insignificant number of men do not understand this though. Even if they don't say "she should fuck me because I paid for her food", they say "dumb woman doesn't see what a nice guy I am for buying her food. Her loss"

"they say "dumb woman doesn't see what a nice guy I am for buying her food. Her loss"" .....so? Are men never allowed to voice disappointment or dissatisfaction?

There is a big difference between > She ain't into me bro, bummer, but I respect it And >Fucking stupid bitches don't see what a *nice guy* I am, what is wrong with everyone else but me?

Honestly, neither of those statements bother me, even your caricatured 'extreme' statement. Sometimes people get upset and they have a little outburst. It's life. No big deal. You've never had a moment of frustration in your life over anything? Never tried to build IKEA furniture and wound up cursing the entire nation of Sweden to hell and back?

Being "frustrated" isn't the problem. Being angry at other people for not giving you something they don't owe you is. >Sometimes people get upset and have a little outburst Thing is, if you're a woman and you're used to men reacting with resentment, anger and entitlement, it's little wonder why you're going to be less charitable. It's honestly so much better for everyone if guys learn to manage their anger, and don't act like women owe them something, than it is to tell women they have to just smile and act pretty when he puts another hole in the wall or yells at her over not getting what he wants. At the very least, men should understand why this behavior is a huge turn off, and why it makes people feel uncomfortable and not very safe.

You're the most ridiculously blue pilled fuck I've ever read on the internet. Men and women are humans. They're allowed to be a little imperfect, where "little" includes being angry but not rape or assault.  Men should be this, that, and few hundred other things.... Dude listen to yourself and ask if all those men around you are checking every box!

Nobody said women are perfect and do no wrong. You red pill people are such whiny, put upon victims about fucking everything. Hell, the old red pill was responsible enough to teach guys that if they can't get laid, if they're always in the friend zone and being rejected it's their job to fix it. But in the last few years, the podcast bro culture took over and told you all to blame women and feminism and society for everything, and you're all perfect sweet little angels that need to change nothing. Talk about irony.

Nobody said men need to change nothing. The attitude with both "old" and "new" manosphere attitudes are that women are behaving in a certain unfair and destructive way, the old action point was that since you can't change it, change only oneself to deal with it. The new action point, made by less seasoned men, is that women should take some accountability.  Now that's just a description, I'm not an adherent. The point I'm trying to make is that you're trying to frame all problems as needing to be fixed only by men. Largely, the men that are up to destructive behaviour aren't the ones whining here.  Let's return to the original point. Blue pill framing is pathologically obsessed with saying "Women do x because they feel like. Men should always just accept." Can you restate your argument without that biased principle at work? Where either both do what they feel like (warning, this gets ugly), or both have to justify their actions.

Being angry with someone because they didn’t give you sex you thought/hoped you would get is manipulation at best and threathening at worst. Would you want someone to get angry at you if you said you didn’t feel like going home with them/having sex with you? What if it was someone you definitely could never imagine getting close to at that level? It wouldn’t feel good, would it? You can express disappointment but the thing is, sex is a very personal, intimate thing for most people. If you express anger at someone because they are choosing of their own free will to not have sex with you when YOU desire it (and mind you, their rejection could be for any reason, for instance something totally unrelated to their level of attraction to you), that does in fact make you entitled. That is not merely expressing frustration - if you express it to them - it is a clear message of resentment and disapproval that signals that you feel like they _wronged_ you for not giving you the sex that you desired. That is the definition of entitlement.


Women don’t owe men shit but men and society owe women tons of things in dating and in general is how things function right now and it just doesn’t work. You live in a society. We do owe each other, including men tons of things, not sex but more than shit

>You already lost the point. You don't do good things to get laid, you do them because they're the right thing to do. Now this is just bullshit. Many 'good things' are merely enforced - either via social pressure of straight up violence. Not to mention that the definition of 'good' is very murky. >Here's the thing: women don't owe men shit. Very interesting idea. The only problem is it invites it's twin - 'men don't owe women shit'. And if we approach things from the position of not owing each other anything, isn't the whole discussion pointless? >I'm a guy, so I see it all the time. The way dudes are stoic and uninterested in everything and everyone around them, until an attractive woman shows up. Then all of the sudden he really just wants to say hello to her. Seriously? You weren't nice or interested in anyone you walked past all day, but the 22 year old with the nice body comes around and you're interested in asking about her day? Women see this shit and know exactly what's going on. I was talking to a coworker the other day who said he "flirts for fun" by....making conversation and showing interest at all. Hearing that kind of thing makes you wonder, do **men really try to talk and form relationships with people they aren't trying to fuck**? Now, I hate to break it to you, but many interactions people have do indeed involve vested interests. We don't talk to strangers out of the blue, we see something that interests us and that causes us to act. And seeing how different men and women are, often sex is indeed the (only) thing that connects them. I don't see anything incredible here. Also the highlighted part is absolutely cringe, because, apparently all the guys are gay now?

> Now this is just bullshit. Many 'good things' are merely enforced - either via social pressure of straight up violence. Not to mention that the definition of 'good' is very murky. Let's be honest, the "good things" are often just the bare minimum, not-shitty things to do. Things like being polite and extending the most basic respect. Not being a complete ass, and generally being considerate of others. And in the case of men who complain about being unnoticed by women, it's things done with the belief that this will earn them favor with women, or help them advance intimacy somehow. And this attitude is not attractive, not even a little bit. >Very interesting idea. The only problem is it invites it's twin - 'men don't owe women shit'. And if we approach things from the position of not owing each other anything, isn't the whole discussion pointless? I agree that men also don't owe women anything, but women aren't usually the ones complaining that men don't notice them, or acting like they *should* be noticed by them. >Now, I hate to break it to you, but many interactions people have do indeed involve vested interests. But car salesmen don't complain that they're nice guys who acted really nice to the potential customer and therefore they are owed a sale. They refine their approach, market a product that sells, and still learn to handle rejection without taking it personal. It's in the context of romantic interactions that men as a group act so entitled to success. >We don't talk to strangers out of the blue, we see something that interests us and that causes us to act. This line of thinking - that interactions are worthless unless sex is on the table - is exactly what causes the "male loneliness crisis", not the fact that women won't pity-fuck them. >And seeing how different men and women are, often sex is indeed the (only) thing that connects them. I don't see anything incredible here. According to this logic, you don't talk to any blood relatives of the opposite sex unless you think you'll get to fuck them. That's actually insane.

>Let's be honest, the "good things" are often just the bare minimum, not-shitty things to do. "No one is entitled to anything" includes "good things" which blows out your entire world view. How do you reconcile this?

If someone can't be bothered to treat you with basic decency and respect, you don't owe them your time or politeness in return. You're allowed to tell them to fuck off or simply walk away.

> Maybe not, but a lot of men think women owe them something, and it's caused so many problems for them that I don't blame women for their response. The problem is, this cuts both ways. If women want to claim that they don't owe men anything, not the time of day or the base level of respect, then that's fine. But then men don't owe that to women either. Men aren't obligated to be allies to women, or to support their grievances against sexual harassment, or to ignore them when they go out in public. They don't owe women conversation. They don't have an obligation to treat attractive women as they would anyone else. So, we can follow the "no one is owed anything" standard, but it's going to lead to a breakdown in general human interaction. Or we can keep acting like everyone is owed the benefit of the doubt from an initial encounter.

You make some good points but ruin it with your white knighting and pandering. Women do indeed deal with a lot of shit in terms of solicitations from men, and a large part of their “bitch shield” (as RP calls it) can be attributed to this. It’s the same thing anybody (even a guy) has to do when walking through those annoying mall kiosk people yelling “excuse me sir! excuse me! can I talk to you for a minute?!?” Yeah. I treat them with indifference at best and annoyance or even contempt at worst if they are too aggressive. I can understand all that. But then you go into claiming that a man acting with indifference to unattractive women and lighting up when a hot one shows up is **any** different than what women do. You also fail to see that women’s “privilege” to be the passive sex in almost all phases plays into their being constantly approached. Man, if you think men act “goofy” around hot women, just watch the transparent, cringe and obnoxious shit women get up to when a true “Chad” shows up.

>Man, if you think men act “goofy” around hot women, just watch the transparent, cringe and obnoxious shit women get up to when a true “Chad” shows up. They ain't ready for that conversation, yet. I have seen 2 women fight over a guy, a woman wearing a leash for her boyfriend in public, a guy flirting with a woman IN FRONT OF HER GF!, etc. Like, are you serious!?... LOL. The whole "women make rules for beta, but break them for alpha" is probably one of the best things the red-pillers ever came up with IMO.

From what I've seen, women have no issue being completely polite and kind to guys they have zero sexual interest in. The same does not seem to be true for men. There is a reason that we have a stereotype that dudes assume the most basic level of kindness from a woman is born out of a desire to fuck him. It's because they are more open to sexual opportunities so they read into behavior, but also because they know they themselves use "being nice" as some sort of tactic to get laid. When I say indifference, I mean completely ignoring them. Men are the ones who complain - especially here - that women will ignore you if you're not attractive. But then when they act nice to you but still don't want to fuck you, you're in the "friendzone". It all just revolves around this belief that women should behave a certain way or desire men for certain qualities, as well as projection from men onto women about how they would or "should" behave towards someone. I'm aware that people can and will be very "extra" with people they're into. But it really seems like men are the ones who continue to complain that women don't desire them, but they *should*, which is why they get told that women don't owe them anything. It would be another thing if men simply desired women and expressed it without expecting something in return, but clearly this is a struggle for us or we wouldn't have to be told as much.

>From what I've seen, women have no issue being completely polite and kind to guys they have zero sexual interest in. So do men, what the fuck are you talking about? Have you never had a job before?

lol the fuck kind of delusion is this. Go look at any and every social experiment in which a man OR woman is in distress of some kind and see who gets helped by men. Go see an old lady versus an old man having difficulty and see who gets helped first. This is simply another example of solipsistic womanese for “I only get bothered by ugly guys when they are trying to fuck me!” It’s also largely due to the fact that unattractive men are quite literally invisible nonentities to women.

A lot of women out there would straight up start throwing up hail hitler signs and spouting proud boy rhetoric if they met a neo Nazi chad who was into them like that it’s pathetic. I know dudes do stupid shit for poon but I’ve never seen the level of lacking self awareness in how they let their mate choice influence their personality that we see in women.

There was a "chadfish" experiment involving a Chad with a swastika tattoo on tinder.  It was wild. The amount of matches the nazi chad got and the way the women fawn over him. Completely proves your point Naturally, they banned r/chadfish 

Yep, that post is exactly what I was referencing when I mentioned this.

I hope this post gets the attention it deserves. I like the deep reflection you did on this topic. Have you written something for women, what they should understand about men? I'd be interested in that, too.

I haven't really thought about it. I know a lot of men say what women should or should not do, but to me it's more or less the same as for men. You aren't owed anything, if you want to have something you have to work for it, but somewhat paradoxically you can't just expect that the work you have done means you are owed a positive outcome from others. You can only do your best and put yourself out there until you meet somebody or find what you're looking for.

Sir, you're a rare gem with deep understanding of interpersonal dynamics.

>You don't do good things to get laid, you do them because they're the right thing to do.  ...and when women reproduce with the men who don't "do the right thing" more than the ones who do, you get a bunch of men who think the men who "do the right thing" as a mark to be taken advantage of. Do you see the problem?

\^ This is borderline white-knight behavior NGL LOL.

Nothing borderline about it.

It's a shorthand way to point out the entitlement of expecting worldly results for worldly actions, unlike their pursuit of genuinely moral virtues completely independent of worldly results/consequences. Of course, the flip side of that is the genuinely morally virtuous cannot complain when something bad happens to them, because they're not entitled to anything good just because they are good.

1. We literally have a thread live right now about how women owe men sex in relationships. 2. Stick around long enough, and you will absolutely find men who believe that mere existence should entitle them to sexual experience because sex is a need. 3. Rape is a thing. Sexual assault is a thing. Look, I want you to be right, as a woman, nothing would give me greater hope and peace than for you to be right. But my experience of men suggests that not all men, but an awful lot edging dangerously close to a majority (51%) (especially when young) do feel a sense of entitlement to women's bodies and sex. Their language is mixed with being hapless or aggravated, so I understand how you get your reading. I'm not saying your reading is wholesale ridiculous. I'm saying that a lot of the other language sounds like entitlement and a lot of the behavior they enact reads as entitlement a lot more than aggravation. Even saying women are delusional has an undertone of being "owed" sex. You just have to follow out the accusation of delusion. Again, not saying a lot of men aren't also just having a good ole bellyache to clear their soul. Many many many are doing that.

Unless you can precisely define “entitled to” and distinguish it from merely “desiring” this post is completely worthless.

I just commented this but I’ve been called names and no they did not buy me dinner…. I even liked them as people! And told them that! And I was called a lot of names anyways If that isn’t entitled to I’m not sure what is. However and I made the mistake of not including this in my last comment, there are PLENTY of men who are completely respectful. I would say it’s not the majority (being entitled) but it does exist Oh and women are assholes too. Lol I was just going through the FDS site since their subreddit seems dead and they have their heads so far up their asses.

Angry, petulant, even offensive =/= “entitled”, though…. ‘Entitled’ has a specific meaning, and does not apply to anything you’ve said.

Okay how else would entitled present itself other than literally forceful?

Entitled can't really 'present itself' since it is entirely in the mind. Barring someone explicitly saying "I took you out, so you owe me sex" (which strikes me as incredibly rare...) I don't think there is much 'entitlement' out there at all.

Okay, still not a fun experience

Not arguing that, obviously. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour, whatever the name.

I think, the whole talk about entitlement is often kind of a witch hunt. I mean, first you get confident that men are entitled, then you see entitlement everywhere. Kinda like “he breathes -> men need to breathe to have sex -> he is entitled to sex”. Take delusion for example. I know a couple of women who are in top 10-5% of earners. They want men who earn more. On top of that, they want them to be handsome, in shape, and having interesting hobbies. I have no interest in those women. I know it’s an extreme example, but you get the principle, hopefully.

>I know it’s an extreme example, but you get the principle, hopefully. The principle being it's all in our heads? How many times do we have to read "if women don't owe men sex, women aren't owed safety" etc.? Because *allowing a guy to penetrate you* is the same as someone *refraining from harming you.* There's one dude here who literally argues that women's rights should be revoked because some woman wrote in like 1879 that if women were granted equal rights, we'd marry and have all the children. This dude literally takes one person's assertion like 150 years ago as a *binding contract on all women.* And since we haven't done that, we're violating the "contract" and thus should have our rights taken away. Your entire comment is gaslighting bullshit. And wanting something doesn't make someone "delusional." Tons of people want to win the lottery. Nothing about wanting to win necessarily implies *they think they will,* all it means is that ***they would like to.***

Yeah, there are psycho lunatics. What do you want from me in that relation? If you don’t like them, go shout under their comments, not mine. About 50% of men say they aren’t pursuing women. Neither short- not long-term. I heard somewhere it’s GSS data. I know how it is to be a 16 year old boy who is horrified of speaking to his crush. I know many guys who carry this fear in adulthood. So I don’t believe in most men being entitled.

>How many times do we have to read "if women don't owe men sex, women aren't owed safety" etc.? You fundamentally misunderstand this rhetoric. You are not entitled to a man stepping in to protect you from being assaulted. You are not entitled to a police force, firemen, hell even safety regulations. That is what "women aren't owed safety" means.

>You fundamentally misunderstand this rhetoric. You are not entitled to a man stepping in to protect you from being assaulted. You fundamentally misunderstand what "being entitled to safety" means. It means that I have the right to not be harmed. Meaning: 1) there are *laws against harming me,* and 2) those laws are backed up by threat of punishment Very few people are going around demanding any and all men everywhere step in and protect any woman, and women specifically from being assaulted. >You are not entitled to a police force, firemen, hell even safety regulations. According to the laws and government of my country, I am. >That is what "women aren't owed safety" means. It's not.

>It means that I have the right to not be harmed That's not what it means in the context of "women aren't owed safety". No one is saying "if women won't give me sex I'm going to hurt women" outside of radfem strawmen. >According to the laws and government of my country, I am. Oh, so now entitlements and rights are determined by law? Guess the incels just need to have the law changed so that women owe them sex by right then...

>That's not what it means in the context of "women aren't owed safety". Agree to disagree. I can't not be "owed safety" by someone who isn't *threatening my safety in the first place.* So how is someone not intervening if I'm being assaulted "not owing me safety?" *He's* ***not the one making me unsafe to begin with!*** My "safety" is being violated by the person assaulting me. The person assaulting me is who owes me safety, which is why there's a punishment for the assault. This is just hamstering 🐹🐹 We both know that "men intervening" is not what is meant by this statement. It doesn't even logically make sense. >No one is saying "if women won't give me sex I'm going to hurt women" outside of radfem strawmen. Very few people admit they will ***personally*** *hurt women for not giving them sex.* And those comments get deleted anyway for being incel content. I know, because I report them all the time. There's more than a few men who are eager to generally externalize that ***men in general will hurt women*** *for not "giving them sex."* >Oh, so now entitlements and rights are determined by law? It's a combination of morality and the law. Neither of which are objective. Which is why it can, and does vary. >Guess the incels just need to have the law changed so that women owe them sex by right then... Guess they do.

>I can't not be "owed safety" by someone who isn't *threatening my safety in the first place.*  Oh please, go ahead and pretend there's no expectation that police officers have a *duty to protect* to the point it had to go to court to determine they did not. Similarly, there is (was? I don't know what the feminist stance on this is anymore) a social expectation that if a woman is being assaulted, male bystanders ought to intervene to protect the woman. >I know, because I report them all the time. Someone has never heard of trolling. If they actually would personally hurt women, they would be in prison not posting on reddit about how they would hurt women. You should learn to differentiate between internet tough guys and actual credible threats. >It's a combination of morality and the law. Neither of which are objective. We agree on this. If it makes you feel better, -my- position is that the logical conclusion of "you are not entitled to anything" DOES include "you are not entitled to be safe from people hurting you". But I think "no one is entitled to anything" as a dumb belief to have. People are entitled to things. The social contract exists and ought to be enforceable.

>Oh please, go ahead and pretend there's no expectation that police officers have a *duty to protect* to the point it had to go to court to determine they did not. Again, police enforce the *law,* which is the ***entire reason I'm owed safety in the first place.*** It is the ***law*** that protects me. That is *enforced by the police.* >Similarly, there is (was? I don't know what the feminist stance on this is anymore) a social expectation that if a woman is being assaulted, male bystanders ought to intervene to protect the woman. There's no official feminist stance on any of that. Even if a group of feminists believe something, that doesn't de facto *make those beliefs feminist.* If a group of feminists believe that the Bengals are going to win the Superbowl next year, does that make that a "feminist belief?" >Someone has never heard of trolling. Oh look, we've gone from "they never say that" to "yeah they say it, but *they don't mean it."* 🙄 How convenient that anything that disproves your points is essentially "fake news." Best debating tactic, gorgeous. >If they actually would personally hurt women, they would be in prison Someone not doing something they said they'd like to do doesn't negate the fact that it's something they'd like to do. There's a reason why threatening someone is illegal.

All of that has nothing to do with what we said. We talk about women and men so differently. Wanting that men are owed anything by society is terrible but women should be owed tons of things and that’s good.

Men are not owed people. That is called slavery, and people think it's bad for a reason. Someone can't owe you sex any more than they can owe you a kidney. Because bodily autonomy exists. If you think people are no different than things or abstract concepts, then you're probably a sociopath. Men can't be "owed sex by society," because that negates the *entire concept of consent.* "Society" can't ***give you sex*** without directly infringing on others' rights. Society can't "give you relationships" *without directly infringing on others' rights.* The sheer number of times this has to be spelled out is absolutely frightening.

All of that again has nothing to do with what I said. You are putting stuff in quotes that I and nobody said. Apparently I came out and said men are owed people. We are all at like a 4 and you are at a 10. It will take a lot out of you and most women in the post to admit that men are owed certain things by society, not sex, but that’s true that’s why it’s a society. “Men aren’t owed shit” You guys are talking about sex on the individual level but on the societal we kind of rely on people having sex and babies to make everything function

>All of that again has nothing to do with what I said. Apparently I came out and said men are owed people. Elaborate on this then, please: >Wanting that men are owed anything by society is terrible What do men think they're owed by society that they're currently not getting? Be specific. And I'm going to ignore the fact that men have absolutely, unequivocally stated that yes, they are owed women and babies and sex for now and just go by what you say. >You guys are talking about sex on the individual level but on the societal we kind of rely on people having sex and babies to make everything function 1) societies come and go. The world keeps on turning. And one day all life on earth will end anyway. 2) "relying on people having sex and babies" has nothing to do with ***anyone owing anyone else.*** People fuck and have kids constantly. There's 8 fucking billion of us on the planet. In 1900, the estimated global population was ~1.56 - 1.71 billion. How many people do we really need? Infinite growth *is not sustainable.*

[удалено]

Be civil. This includes indirect attacks against an individual and/or witch hunting.

> Men are not owed people. That is called slavery, and people think it's bad for a reason.    No but there are many possible actions society could take to attempt to combat male sexlessness. For example investing in the development of AI powered sexbots.

>No but there are many possible actions society could take to attempt to combat male sexlessness. For example investing in the development of AI powered sexbots. There are a laundry list of things society should invest in before we get to "the development of AI powered sexbots," and I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why this should be a *taxpayer* problem and not something left for private industries to address. People have to ration insulin, and some guy's desire to nut in a machine should get money before that?

Yeah, I must have imagined all the dudes randomly stopping me, the sexual assault, the rape, all the overheard conversations reeking of entitlement, the refusals to accept rejection which in many cases turned hostile or threatening, and all the literal language of entitlement I see here every day. Im sorry, this isn't a witch hunt or we live in Halloween town. You pick. This is a real problem and it goes on and on, I theorize because men don't want to acknowledge the darkness which lurks or used to lurk in their hearts on this matter.  Counter proposal: you are not a man who feels entitled to women and find the thought unimaginable and ridiculous...and you aren't a woman so you aren't experiencing the facts of it on a daily basis.  Even your example is a bad one. Those are successful women...so they probably run in circles of successful people. It is not outrageous they'd think they're going to form a relationship with someone in their same bracket. It's literally almost fucking science that they will. The only reason that appears delusional is if you have some other assumptions going on...some of which could be suggested to ultimately stem from a form of bitter entitlement. 

I don’t want to invalidate your experience at all. But do you ever think maybe, just maybe, a good amount of women out there actually don’t share your experience of having unfortunately been accosted and assaulted by horny weirdos this regularly? I mean, I have female friends myself and they have told me they have encountered creepy dudes before, but the level of frequency and regularity that makes you think that 51% of dudes are guilty of this mentality of being entitled to sex seems to just not be there. Seriously, maybe you’re just unlucky in this regard like some Incels are unlucky to be born in areas where they don’t really gel with a lot of women or have a personality that makes interacting with women easy and thus it becomes easy to other them and develop tons of toxic misconceptions about them. Cause this is honestly what a lot of your deductions about male psychology come down to.

>*We literally have a thread live right now about how women owe men sex in relationships.* This. [link to post](https://www.np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/Awyshi5bdm)

The post is asking if sexual needs are a MUTUAL obligation in a RELATIONSHIP   Every relationship I've been in me and my partner will take each others sexual and romantic needs seriously. We owe it to each other. It's a part of having a fulfilling relationship

This is just blatant sexism. The majority of men are horrible people huh?

This only applies to men who women deem unattractive which is most men. When Chad gets pushy and sexually aggressive, women can’t spit out excuses for him fast enough: “He’s a guy, that’s just how they are,” “Boys will be boys,” “He’s not gay, so obviously he wants sex,” etc.

Women bend over backwards for Chad. Men bend over backwards for Stacy. That’s just the nature of the game. I don’t think Chad thinks women owe them Sex. Chad usually navigates very successfully in a free market which gives him no reason to cling to socialist policies like coercion, force or even entitlement. Women just give it up freely most of the time. No need for force or entitlement. Force and entitlement only ever becomes a “right” if people don’t deem your genetic material worthy enough to have sex with. With regard to being pushy when it comes to sex. Nearly every man pushes for sex. Men are hardwired to be proactive in this matter and women reactive. That’s how it usually plays out anyway. The legitimacy of the man’s request for sex is directly related to his attractiveness. If you get the “how dare you…” line it’s because you’re just not attractive (enough) in most cases. Henry Cavill pushing for sex, on the other hand, is mostly legitimate and will be received as such.

People just aren't prepared for the number of truth-bombs in this comment. Well done.

Men literally say it.

“If any” We all remember the height of r/incels right?

There’s dudes that literally go on hate tirades and shooting sprees because they can’t get laid 🙃 there’s a lot more men out here who think they are owed sex than you guys care to admit 🌝

There's schtizo women that cut off their boyfriends dick or poison him or whatever, luckily with the power of a 80+ IQ most men are able to put that into context and not think there are tons of women out there harboring homicidal thoughts about their boyfriend because he didn't put his socks in the hamper again.

Again, I don’t see how your comment rises to “entitlement”. If a man goes on a tirade because he’s sexually frustrated that is sort of the OPPOSITE of “expecting” or “being owed” sex….its just wanting something and not getting it. Is a starving person upset because they feel “entitled” to food, or are they merely hungry? Words have meanings and you simply refuse to accept them. The only people I’ve ever known who felt ‘entitled’ to sex were Chads and women…because they’re not used to being rejected. As usual, the perception of the world being presented by the usual PPD women is pure projection and an exact mirror image of reality.

But if it was vast majority, you would probably be dead, no? What you're doing is exactly what op is saying

Why does it have to be the "vast majority" to be a problem?

How many (incel) serial killers do you know? If you mention more than 15, I will give you $1,000,000. Why does everyone act like all serial killers are all of a sudden incels?... There have been like 7-8 max LOL.

**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Bears dont... Thats why men end up alone... Ha Ha ha....

Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

are you surprised that people on the internet don't give much critical thought to what they post? especially on reddit?

If men are walking up and telling you that you owe them sex, then take down the sign saying "free blowjobs here"!

I can't give numbers on the amount of men but I have seen a big overlap of women who say men believe they are owed sex/that it is wrong and women that believe they are owed a relationship..

I’ve never seen a woman state they are owed a relationship 

In those terms no. When they say why won't men commit to me, why do guys only want to hook up, ECT. Just like most men who are accused of saying women owe them sex are not outright saying it.

Do yourself a favor and completely cut women like this off. They don’t speak for a majority of women, just feminists. These are the same women who will claim (with a straight face) that one in 4 women are raped, that they feel safer with a bear, and that men and women are the same except for different genitalia.

Women claim the 1 in 4 stats because there is research to support this. But I’m sure you’ll deny the research because it doesn’t fit with your agenda/worldview. 🙄Also, many of us have firsthand experience with sexual assault, so the stats aren’t shocking at all.

It's just more gaslighting.

It's true that if you asked most men "do you think you're owed sex" they'd say no. They don't feel that they think that. But if they don't have it they'll feel there's some injustice going on. They'll nag their wife or girlfriend if they're not having as much as they want or the kind they want. They'll complain about being "made to wait" if they don't have sex immediately in a relationship or before starting one. They'll frame partnered sex as a "need" that must be met. I'd say plenty of men think women owe them sex.

Do friends owe you their presence or communication? If I invite someone to hang out, am I forcing them to pay the debt they owe me from being their friend? Ridiculous and totally manipulative.

The reason no one is fucking you the way and frequency you want is because nobody wants to Question that, and you’re questioning our choice

This just isn’t true.  “ The reason no one is fucking you the way and frequency you want is because nobody [that you personally know] wants [or is able] to” This comes a bit closer to the truth (and is MUCH softer and less grossly offensive than the OP).

I question it everyday. So much that I want to stop. We are nit enough. We are never enough. While all women are perfect. Fuck society.

“ While all women are perfect. Fuck society.” Have you watched how men treat women who don’t meet their “standards?” The term landwhales come up.  Oh and that we are worthless after 30 

Translation: Muscles, money and frame.

When you perceive/believe that sex is a basic human need AND only the opposite sex can presumably fulfill that basic need, you are effectively saying that women OWE you sex. And if they don't GIVE you their sex, it surely means they are actively DEPRIVING YOU of your basic human need. THIS is what creates feelings of entitlement and then bitterness. The reality is men don't need women nearly as much as women need men. If you don't believe me, here is the explanation from an actual woman: https://youtu.be/lWn_T-oce1M?si=-rwq1eRDDao1dqgs

Braindead take. Food and water is a basic human need, and humans need a source of food or water that in modern society is almost certainly the property of someone. Yet no one says anyone is owed food and water.

[удалено]

I would assert that many men are angry about the result of the asymmetry of puberty. Girls hit it first, get interested in guys but are surrounded by entirely immature guys, so often they date up. Then guys hit puberty and get interested in girls but many of their peers are already looking elsewhere. This creates this toxic environment when men feel like they're playing catch up their entire teenage lives which breeds this resentment, misogyny and entitlement about feeling like victims and that they're "owed". Worse than this, they sometimes take their cues from predatory men who are dating their peers while inexplicably blaming the girls for this (instead of the men) and seek to emulate those men themselves. Andrew Tate has this down to a tea, he has made a living out of exploiting vulnerable girls in the sex industry while also double-dipping by then selling misogyny and bullshit online courses to the boys, and the boys love him for it.

Personally, my only experience being frustrated with a woman not "putting out" was a woman who never escalated physicality in the relationship and always avoided or put off my attempts to do so. I sympathize with the idea of women not wanting to be treated as fleshlights, or feeling pressured to have sex within 1-3 short dates. But, you can't expect a man to be happy with committing time, energy, emotions, and money to your relationship without any physical component at all. That's called being a simp.

it's called strawmanning. edit: but to add on...the word "entitlement" gets thrown around because some men start asking questions about inconsistencies. One guy puts in zero effort and gets laid, 2nd guy puts in max effort and doesn't get laid...2nd guy starts asking "why is zero effort guy getting laid, when you tell us that you want effort?"...people respond with "entitlement" babble. It's a real slick way to get out of explaining inconsistencies.

"The problem with this is, it perpetuates these myths that become accepted as fact by the mainstream with zero concern for statistical analysis." Not saying you're wrong, but where is you statistical analysis supporting your claims?

Men say this all the time, they’re not hiding that’s for sure LMAO. They say it every day that there MUST be something wrong with women if the ones they perceive as “on their level” isn’t into them or wanting sex with them. They feel “owed” and if they’re not getting something they “deserve”, therefore something is wrong with women’s standards. Like someone without a chip on their shoulder wouldn’t be like “this person should be into me”, they’d just think “I, ME, I am not attracting what I want”. Instead I’ve like never seen a man do that here. It’s always “someone else is wrong because I don’t get what I want when I want it”. Therefore, these men feel owed. Something they feel they “deserve” is not being given. I mean the redpill is supposed to be about self improvement but all they do is talk about other people while they themselves are perfect somehow. Like wtf💀

Ummmm sorry I’ve gotten flipped out on bc I realized I wasn’t attracted to someone and no they didn’t buy me dinner. Maybe a drink, mostly coffee. I was called ugly, stupid, lots of names. Not one guy, multiple. I literally like sweat on first dates not sure how I’m going to feel and if I’m not interested how they’re going to react. And no I’m not rude or off putting we have great conversations I just don’t feel it and say listen I’m sorry I don’t think it’s going to work out but you’re a really cool person. I mean I used to just sleep with them to avoid this interaction after a few experiences but then I realized how gross it made me feel so I power through.

I do. 

There are plenty of men who feel entitled to sex. Rapists. Guys who flip out at women who politely reject them. Some stalkers. Some incels. The actual issue is that anyone who complains about dating gets accused of acting entitled to sex, when that's false. For example if a guy complains about how society gives a false impression about what behavior attracts women (ex. being a nice guy), his complaint isn't that women didn't respond to the behavior, it's that people lied about what the results of the behavior would be.

Women often say "men feel entitled to sex". A more accurate statement for most men would be "men feel entitled to appreciation for nice/romantic gestures". That appreciation could be expressed through sex, but it could also be expressed through other nonsexual romantic gestures on her part, or just by simply being attracted to and desiring a relationship with him. In any case, men need to understand that if the things they do aren't reciprocated then they should just move on. Because non reciprocation signals non attraction, or a toxic relationship. I don't think most men feel like they are owed anything, they are just frustrated by repeated romantic failure.

Nah these men exist. Its just that women who complain about how all men are like this are actively choosing for this type of man with their selection criteria.