Yet what do the horndogs do? Blame the women. Reminds me of Eve Teasing.
We aren’t oversensitive to view friendly socializing as flirting! She make me think things on purpose!
Yes, it’s a subtle claim to mind control via feminine wiles.
Yet if an ugly woman, for example, fancied them? They have a right to say No, to have that right respected and to have standards.
If you don’t treat women like equal humans, don’t be shocked when they refuse to stick around.
Depends. Are you the sort of guy who believes a woman owes you something merely because you fancy her, and she’s done something wrong to you because she doesn’t fancy you back?
If so, yes, you should end the friendship…for her sake. You were never her friend to begin with. You were only playing the role of a friend in order to try to get something from her. Do her a favor and drop the pretense.
Are you the sort of person who is genuine about friendships and who values his friends? If so, no, keep the friendships, because real friendship rocks.
Instrumental relationships are not true. Some of the lower quality of either sex try to wiggle their way into a higher league’s affections via friendship. They did this from the beginning. It’s a deception. It is insulting. It is fake as fake tans, false nails and weaves.
Fake emotions are a million times worse than fake hair colours (the preening which men can do too). Those are the clinical actions of a sociopath.
And it doesn’t work.
Take responsibility for a failed con? Nope. When in doubt, blame the bitch. Is it a man, who can never take responsibility for his own actions? Really, is anyone socially attracted to that?
Not to mention, physical attraction can wane in both sexes over time, making them seem more like a sibling. There is a window of opportunity where intentions must be made known, verbally. This isn’t anyone’s fault. The petulant boys who blame girls for not fancying them are displaying an ugly entitlement. Entitlement is ugly. Arrogance is ugly. Status is attractive. Confidence is always an act, but attractive when based on real character traits.
You don’t buy sexual favours with kindness. Gentlemanly behaviour is extended to everyone, even animals. It is the right thing to do and quite noble, it is about the person themselves, merely exposed in how they treat others. It is unconditional, the opposite of instrumental.
On the topic of another impossible situation, there is no such thing as a non-shallow choice for a woman, when viewed by a hostile man. If she chooses the poor boy, she’s dumb and he must be a bad boy underdog. If he’s rich, she only wants his money and resources, but the evolved needs of her sex is also her fault? If she chooses based on looks, what about smarts? If she chooses based on smarts, what about appearance? If she wants someone who can make her laugh, what about security? If she wants multiple traits because she can command them, what a shallow bitch!
There is no correct answer when you are dealing with an immature boy.
You cannot win. They will rationalize whatever you have done because their feelings Uber Alles.
Women are not the enemy. They are the prize. You must earn and win them. That is called romance. You do not need to play.
Men are the enemy. Other men are the competition. You need to keep them away from your wife and your wife happy, even if you get one, it never really stops, the need to prove yourself. However, you’d never see these bitter brats mouthing off to other men, for fear of a fight. And that’s the problem. Men do not self-govern within their own sex anymore, forcing women to behave in masculine ways to protect ourselves. They’re cowards, bullying women for having agency, then gaslighting us for ‘having none’ (overtly false claims of hypoagency) because we didn’t make the ‘right choice’… They are terrible prospects for any woman, absolute losers that will never reproduce short of rape. But they feel entitled to a woman, like a piece of property (the term side piece springs to mind), because aside from the sex they presume to deserve too, and be amazing at (or called such), they want to boost their status among other men.
Yep, it’s all homoerotic.
The natural solution is to go gay.
Please, just go.
If you want a woman with a man’s mind and sex drive, you want a man. Stop kidding yourself.
Either you want women for being womanly, or you don’t want us at all. Those deluding themselves on the last self-sabotage in relationships they do get. They need the Right Woman to ‘fix’ them… nobody can do the work you refuse. Self-improvement originates from the Self.
Previously, women would have been protected from exactly these sort of socially dangerous men.
Two types of sexual harassment, the obvious kind – swiping, petting, groping, lewd remarks etc.
Then the nagging. The whining. The guilt-tripping. Begging like a dog. The rape law calls it coercion. Consent must be freely given or it is not consent, similar to signing a contract under duress brings it into dispute. Simple contract law, applies to the verbal kind too. It isn’t even about the sex, legally. It’s about the emotional arm-twisting, the passive-aggression under the various guises of faux innocence. They know exactly what they’re doing. You know, male borderlines are under-diagnosed?
Sexual harassment isn’t really a male problem. Should we scream about it? Say the nature of crime data itself is sexist? Of course not, that would be futile.
Doesn’t mean we should tolerate criminal behaviours either, because the criminals belong to a certain group or sexual culture is normalized.
At this point, these whiners have constructed a narrative so twisted as a logic pretzel, it is impossible to make a ‘correct choice’. On one hand, we must protect ourselves against rapists. On the other, any man, no matters how much he bothers us or politely we refuse or let him know he is making us uncomfortable, any man should be treated kindly, because it takes a lot of ‘courage’ to talk to us, fellow humans in heels.
Pick a correct answer to agree upon before you bitch among yourselves that we don’t select it.
Counter-signalling only works if you have status to signal in the first place.
Otherwise, the error counts as beneath those who signal normally, and those who don’t signal at all aka the bottom of the shit heap.
Tying in to the emotional incontinence point firstly, if women are the more emotional and default oversensitive sex, why don’t we harass men in public?
Where does lust count in the hysterical hormonal stakes? They can’t plead special exception because aside from being a fallacy, and we know men love to be logical, women have lust too and we manage to treat men with dignity in public so much so, they complain about the most trivial things as if they’re comparable e.g. did you see the way she looked at me after I said I wanted her to ‘sit on my face’? What’s that bitch’s problem?
In context, those males make MEN, real, good men, look terrible, and at the very least, you need to sort out the conduct of your peers socially, get some new sexual etiquette into society, before starting on the people re-acting to the chaos.
Immature men are not the responsibility of stranger women. They do not make us look bad.
Evolution isn’t an excuse, or women would have the right to kill any man who flirts with them, on the grounds that he could have raped them, he had the physical strength, so all she could do was defend herself from the unprovoked interaction.