Harsh Truth: Women pursue the men that they want

[GoodMan32]

yeah, this was me intentionally shooting myself in the foot years ago, but i remember one time i asked a woman out, and she responded to me by saying this "oh are you asking me out?", just so she could be sure of my intentions, and i said to her "WELL DUH!, OF COURSE I'M ASKING YOU OUT, I'M A GUY!, IT'S WHAT WE DO!", you can obviously guess how the rest of it went. I felt like saying that because, i know i'm not alone in which its easy as a guy, man, to resent the state of affairs on how men and women interact with each other.

And yes it is true that women normally never risk having their social awkwardness or social ineptness be perceived or dismissed as weird or creepy or uncomfortable during social interactions between the 2 sexes.

While i don't like to blame autism for everything, reminds me, i'm sure lots of people wonder, why hasn't autism been bred out of the gene pool through natural selection? And its another brutal harsh reminder, even though people and society never say this, they just naturally expect us guys, men, to have common sense, to have the instinctive/innate knowledge for knowing what is creepy/weird behavior when interacting with women, they expect us to just naturally get it or have the social intuition, social calibration, for always being smooth or never making any errors that make women uncomfortable, they will always say "don't be creepy and weird then". Which doesn't help, they just expect us to like be born with the knowledge for never being weird or creepy with women.

To answer your question of why autism hasn't been bred out of the gene pool, there are a few reasons.

1. Up until relatively recently (in the grand scheme of history), society was set up so that just about every man could get a woman.

That's certainly how it was when my grandparents (Silent Generation) were coming of age.

As for my parents (on the older end of Gen X), by the time my parents were coming of age, society was no longer set up so that getting a woman was guaranteed...but getting a woman was still a lot easier in the 80s compared to right now. Millennials (my generation) are the first generation where being an autist really holds a man back (in terms of getting a woman)

2. To build upon what I just said, autism isn't entirely genetic anyway. Neither parent of mine is an autist, yet here I am.

3. That being said, genetics at least partially play a role (if you have an autist for a parent, you're more likely to be an autist compared to a baby with 2 neurotypical parents). Since, as you illustrated, autism/social awkwardness doesn't hold a woman back from getting a man, there are plenty of female autists who pass their genes on.

 

[GoodMan32]

This is a problem that a lot of men have. Most of the men with this problem are neurotypicals.

There's somewhat of a difference between general social conversation (often non-sexual settings) and the conversations in a romantic/sexual context.

In both settings, it is good to avoid conversations about their occupation. Most people have employment that is solely of the purpose of paying life's basic bills. It's not the kind of thing that gets them passionate. If you are talking to people about something that isn't their passion, the conversation has a ceiling on how exciting that it can be. A conversation could extend for a while talking about the day-to-day of one's jobs, but that's not going to create any emotional connectional or good feelings. That's a bad combination in a romantic/sexual context because women are seeking to create a connection through their feelings.

There are men who talk about somewhat safe topics like news and weather. Neither are good topics of conversation. News conversations can lead into politics, which is boring and creates negative feelings.

It's better to talk with women about things that inspire passion in them. Consumer products purchases, home design, some fashion (avoid too much of this because it can backfire), travel, exercise, art, and whatever else that some woman likes.

Spectator sports are a beta male activity. It's good for men to play sports (physical fitness can improve physique - which is good for seduction). Watching sports is not much of a benefit. More women are into spectator sports now than in the past, but few women care about the deep details of professional or collegiate spectator sports.

It takes real skill to talk about automotive or motorcycle related topics with women. This includes repair as well. A lot of men will go too deep into this (because they are passionate about these topics) and lose the emotional connection.



Escalation is difficult for neurotypicals too.

When thinking about escalation, it is always better to escalate than not to escalate.

Escalation is a huge topic and there are a lot of threads on it. Gradual escalation is better.

In sales, there's an idea of Always Be Closing. In seduction, the rule is Always Be Escalating.

Seduction is a combination of sales and marketing.

Good input about topics to discuss.

I don't have a whole lot going for me. My line of work sounds impressive (even though my job title itself isn't impressive). I was under the impression I could impress a woman by name-dropping the line of work I'm in (as long as I can avoid excessive follow-up questions about what exactly I do)

I have little to no interest in sports. The fact sport talk bores the typical woman is a good thing (good thing in the sense that I don't have to fear boring her with that topic; I have no desire to discuss sports in the first place)

I have no interest in automotive/motorcycle talk either.

I totally believe it's better to escalate than not escalate as a rule of thumb. I guess my track record of coming across as creepy for escalating scares me out of escalating.

 

[SW15]

Millennials (my generation) are the first generation where being an autist really holds a man back (in terms of getting a woman)

All Millennial men have faced a more challenging mating market.

Millennial women have had more abundance than any predecessor generation. Right now, in 2024 going into 2025, older Millennial women born in the 1980s (1981-1989) are still acting as if they are in their 20s. Many 1981-1989 born women are still highly in demand online, despite being 35-43. The fussiness of Millennial women is something that has never been seen before in any predecessor generation.

Millennial women have managed their dating lives more poorly despite more abundance. Koko Beaute on YouTube is a great example of a Millennial female with some of the worst of the Millennial attitudes. She was born in 1991, so she's a later Millennial. She's somewhat different than the women born in the early to mid 1980s.

I was under the impression I could impress a woman by name-dropping the line of work I'm in

It won't make any difference unless it is backed up by serious money.

The threshold for the annual salary that it takes to start impressing women is high. It's at least $200,000/year in the big Northeast and West Coast USA cities. In Dallas, it's a minimum of $150,000 and probably inching closer to $175,000.

 

[GoodMan32]

Duh i know that, i knew that wasn't socially calibrated at all, just felt like giving a sarcastic resentful response, since i know i'm not the only guy in the world that has hated and resented how nature and reality dictates that men have to make the first move all the time and take the lead, be the initiators, yeah it truly does feel unfair being a man at times, and i get more pissed off whenever people and society say that men are supposed to love and embrace that role, they are like, it gives men power and control over their lives, which i will never understand.

I don't get how that gives us power/control.

Yeah, we can make the move...but it's ultimately up to the woman how far we get. Talk about power and control (on her part). The woman also has the power to humiliate us.

As an analogy, my mom said one food-related comment to a girl (where you insinuate the girl eats too much) could end up giving the girl a lifelong eating disorder.

My mom is right. I'd like to counter what my mom said, however, with the following analogy: One humiliating comment from a woman/girl could kill a guy's self-esteem (in the context of courting the ladies) for life.

 

[GoodMan32]

I hear you, and I get where you're coming from. That pressure can be exhausting. Have you ever considered checking your hormone levels? Sometimes things like testosterone can affect how we feel about these roles.

That said, while it's true that some men feel the way you do, most men—especially players—actually thrive on the challenge of making women feel attracted and winning them over. For many, it’s not just about power, but about the thrill of the chase, the satisfaction of being the one who makes the move, and getting what we want. I think it just really depends on the person and how they relate to those societal expectations.

Also, you don’t have to answer to him. He is banned lmao.

I told a male coworker about my brilliant strategy to cause a societal shift where a woman making a move on a man becomes the norm. I told him all we need to do is one simple thing: If all available straight men took a break from making moves on the ladies, we'd notice a massive shift in less than a year (where the ladies would start coming onto us)

The male coworker said (about my idea) "So you expect men to stop making moves on women? Sounds gay"

Based on how many men make moves, perhaps you're right about your claim that most men enjoy making moves.

 

[SW15]

Based on how many men make moves, perhaps you're right about your claim that most men enjoy making moves.

Some men enjoy being initiators. The majority of men realize that if they don't initiate, then they won't have any sexual opportunities with women. Since men are hornier due to higher testosterone, they make moves because they want opportunities for sex.

The societal shift you describe is unrealistic. Women aren't able to initiate well. Even Bumble dropped the requirement for women to make the first move after a match happens. Women were finding it too burdensome to type two letters to make the word "Hi" or send some standard funny gif to start something.

 

[GoodMan32]

Some men enjoy being initiators. The majority of men realize that if they don't initiate, then they won't have any sexual opportunities with women. Since men are hornier due to higher testosterone, they make moves because they want opportunities for sex.

The societal shift you describe is unrealistic. Women aren't able to initiate well. Even Bumble dropped the requirement for women to make the first move after a match happens. Women were finding it too burdensome to type two letters to make the word "Hi" or send some standard funny gif to start something.

I agree the societal shift I yearn for is unrealistic (but for a different reason than you)

No matter how much a woman hates initiating, once the reality set in that no single woman would ever get a date or sex again (under my proposed societal shift) unless she makes a move, they'd start making moves.

The reason (in my opinion) my societal shift is unrealistic is because there's no way I could get all available straight men on board.

On the general topic of what you said about a man needing to initiate, I wish I was more willing to initiate. I'd likely have a more fulfilling dating/sex life if I was more willing to initiate.

I've come to a realization as of late: My intense pregnancy phobia isn't what holds me back the most (There's always the 45+ loophole to get around the pregnancy thing)

What holds me back the most is my crippling phobia of risking a rejection from a woman I need to run into again.

I recently learned from some posts on this forum that it's highly unusual for a straight man to hate rejection so much he'd rather kiss a man than run into a woman he got rejected by.

 

[SW15]

What holds me back the most is my crippling phobia of risking a rejection from a woman I need to run into again.

If a man lives in a reasonably sized city, this should not even be a consideration.

Men who set up dates from swipe apps in bigger cities are very unlikely to ever randomly run into a woman from a "1-2 date, no sex, no extended relationship" interaction.

Men who set up dates from most in-person approach venues are also very unlikely to ever randomly run into a woman after 1-2 failed dates.

Men who approach women in real life in bars and generic non-bar venues like grocery stores and malls also aren't likely to ever see a woman who rejects their approach ever again.

I have had to deal with seeing women who rejected me in my gym before. That wasn't pleasant but it wasn't enough for me to change gyms. The women eventually did change gyms or I changed gyms eventually but not due to rejections. There have been very rare instances where I saw a woman I had a failed date with again somewhere around the city.

 

[Hamurabimbi]

No matter how much a woman hates initiating, once the reality set in that no single woman would ever get a date or sex again (under my proposed societal shift) unless she makes a move, they'd start making move.

I don’t believe ‘women hate initiating’. When I’ve had women initiate, they usually seem happy, confident & as if they are enjoying themselves.

 

[deadmasterx]

I don’t believe ‘women hate initiating’. When I’ve had women initiate, they usually seem happy, confident & as if they are enjoying themselves.

I agree with that. But my experience tells me that almost no man will experience a woman approaching them because it will either be "exclusive" to someone they're really attracted to (regardless of how actually attractive that guy is) or a very "sex positive" woman, that will literally open her gates for you to come and get her. Usually the second kind of women will either be the love of your life or the dirtiest s--- you have ever been with. Some women just go for what they want.

I think that every guy should once make a fake female account on any dating site to understand how the female reality feels like. The overwhelming amount of likes and messages you get goes from amusing to boring real fast. Most average girls won't even need to approach a man at all. There are dozens, hundreads, even thousands of men just constantly throwing themselves their way. Even when I made that experiment (not gonna lie, I just wanted to joke around at the time) I felt disgusted by how a considerable amount of men behave. No wonder most men are left on seen.

 

[Hamurabimbi]

I agree with that. But my experience tells me that almost no man will experience a woman approaching them because it will either be "exclusive" to someone they're really attracted to (regardless of how actually attractive that guy is) or a very "sex positive" woman, that will literally open her gates for you to come and get her. Usually the second kind of women will either be the love of your life or the dirtiest s--- you have ever been with. Some women just go for what they want.

Women do approach.
But (at least in my case) it certainly isn’t an everyday occurrence.

I think that every guy should once make a fake female account on any dating site to understand how the female reality feels like. The overwhelming amount of likes and messages you get goes from amusing to boring real fast. Most average girls won't even need to approach a man at all. There are dozens, hundreads, even thousands of men just constantly throwing themselves their way. Even when I made that experiment (not gonna lie, I just wanted to joke around at the time) I felt disgusted by how a considerable amount of men behave. No wonder most men are left on seen.

My first Tinder date had 60 guys messaging her, in just the ten minutes while we were setting up our date.

 

[GoodMan32]

If a man lives in a reasonably sized city, this should not even be a consideration.

Men who set up dates from swipe apps in bigger cities are very unlikely to ever randomly run into a woman from a "1-2 date, no sex, no extended relationship" interaction.

Men who set up dates from most in-person approach venues are also very unlikely to ever randomly run into a woman after 1-2 failed dates.

Men who approach women in real life in bars and generic non-bar venues like grocery stores and malls also aren't likely to ever see a woman who rejects their approach ever again.

I have had to deal with seeing women who rejected me in my gym before. That wasn't pleasant but it wasn't enough for me to change gyms. The women eventually did change gyms or I changed gyms eventually but not due to rejections. There have been very rare instances where I saw a woman I had a failed date with again somewhere around the city.

It's true that we're highly unlikely to organically run into a woman from a swipe app.

It's also true that we're highly unlikely to run into a woman we meet through daygame or night game.

That being said, it's been pointed out on the forum that we live in the worst possible time period for men on swipe apps (with how oversaturated swipe apps are)

As for daygame and night game, while it is possible to succeed using these methods, I recall starting a thread where I asked about the rejection rate of posters. Multiple posters said they have pretty high rejection rates.

The type of woman I'm probably most likely to succeed with is a woman I already know in person. Yet, unfortunately, that's also the demographic I'm most likely to run into after a possible rejection. This sh1t sucks.

 

[GoodMan32]

I don’t believe ‘women hate initiating’. When I’ve had women initiate, they usually seem happy, confident & as if they are enjoying themselves.

I believe what you're saying.

It's been said on this forum that a woman with high interest levels will initiate.

I suppose the difference between dudes and gals is: We'll initiate if we're even marginally attracted to her. On the other hand, they have to be extremely attracted to us in order to initiate.

 

[GoodMan32]

I agree with that. But my experience tells me that almost no man will experience a woman approaching them because it will either be "exclusive" to someone they're really attracted to (regardless of how actually attractive that guy is) or a very "sex positive" woman, that will literally open her gates for you to come and get her. Usually the second kind of women will either be the love of your life or the dirtiest s--- you have ever been with. Some women just go for what they want.

I think that every guy should once make a fake female account on any dating site to understand how the female reality feels like. The overwhelming amount of likes and messages you get goes from amusing to boring real fast. Most average girls won't even need to approach a man at all. There are dozens, hundreads, even thousands of men just constantly throwing themselves their way. Even when I made that experiment (not gonna lie, I just wanted to joke around at the time) I felt disgusted by how a considerable amount of men behave. No wonder most men are left on seen.

The last time I had non-escort sex, the woman knocked on my door. Then we banged.

I'm not sure I'd count that as the woman initiating. Her actions weren't totally out of the blue. I had kissed her (my idea) earlier in the day. I also had flirted with her off and on for 2 years.

As for the experiment you recommend, I set up a username on a chatroom once where I pretended to be a woman. Even with no picture, I got lots of attention from men.

The extremely thirsty behavior you describe in men is a catch 22. When social norms dictate the man is supposed to initiate, and when you have to be a top 10% alpha male in order to easily do well with the ladies, of course the end result will be a lot of thirsty men shooting their shot. This is where my proposed societal shift (where the woman making the first move becomes the norm) would do wonders.

 

[SW15]

As for daygame and night game, while it is possible to succeed using these methods, I recall starting a thread where I asked about the rejection rate of posters. Multiple posters said they have pretty high rejection rates.

Rejection rates while approaching strangers in the real world are high. The rejection rates are more acceptable for 80-85th percentile + men. That's men who are 8+ level.

Men who are anywhere below an 8 will be taking high rejection rates when approaching strangers in any venue. The rates might be slightly below his Tinder/Hinge/Bumble rejection rates, but will still be very high and he will have to leave his home looking presentable to achieve those very high rejection rates.

The type of woman I'm probably most likely to succeed with is a woman I already know in person. Yet, unfortunately, that's also the demographic I'm most likely to run into after a possible rejection. This sh1t sucks.

The typical man has his best options within his social circle. If a man can find a girlfriend from his social circle, then he's going to be motivated to do that. He will get less grief and frustration by doing that as compared to approaching strangers.

Men resort to approaching strangers and using swipe apps when they have no social circle options.

 

[GoodMan32]

Rejection rates while approaching strangers in the real world are high. The rejection rates are more acceptable for 80-85th percentile + men. That's men who are 8+ level.

Men who are anywhere below an 8 will be taking high rejection rates when approaching strangers in any venue. The rates might be slightly below his Tinder/Hinge/Bumble rejection rates, but will still be very high and he will have to leave his home looking presentable to achieve those very high rejection rates.



The typical man has his best options within his social circle. If a man can find a girlfriend from his social circle, then he's going to be motivated to do that. He will get less grief and frustration by doing that as compared to approaching strangers.

Men resort to approaching strangers and using swipe apps when they have no social circle options.

On a post yesterday (when I asked you where you'd say you fall on the 1-10 scale), your reply was essentially "Ratings are meaningless unless they come from a woman"

I then mentioned that I can only ever recall getting a numerical rating from a gal 3 times (8.5, 9, and 1)

If we take the average of the 3, I'm a 6.1

If we exclude the 1 (since she, a high school classmate, was obviously rating my social standing at school moreso than my actual looks), however, I'm an 8.75

If I really am an 8.75, there's no reason for me to struggle as much as I've struggled (even being an autist, 8.75 would offset the ASD)

In addition to getting a woman through a social circle, what would you say about getting a woman you know in person, yet isn't necessarily in your social circle? Asking because that's the type of woman I have in mind when I say I'd probably have the highest success rate if I went for a woman I already know in person.

 

[SW15]

I then mentioned that I can only ever recall getting a numerical rating from a gal 3 times (8.5, 9, and 1)

If we take the average of the 3, I'm a 6.1

If we exclude the 1 (since she, a high school classmate, was obviously rating my social standing at school moreso than my actual looks), however, I'm an 8.75

If I really am an 8.75, there's no reason for me to struggle as much as I've struggled (even being an autist, 8.75 would offset the ASD)

It's a sample size of 3. A sample size of 3 is not going to be reliable in any way. Your sample size from women would need to be much larger.

If you could get your photos only rated by 500 - 1,000 women between ages 22-32, your sample size would be more reliable. It is highly unlikely that you wouldn't be an 8.75 off of that. Those ratings would only consider your looks and nothing else about you.

If you could get photos and somewhat extended videos of you behaving rated by 500 - 1,000 women ages 22-32, you would get some number as well, one that is not likely to be near 8.75. In this setup, the videos would give female evaluators some sense of your personality, so you'd get a review on looks and personality. If your annual salary and/or net worth were included in the data surround you, it would be even more accurate. Your SMV rating is dependent on looks, money, status, and personality.

If you got your face/physique rated by Wheat Waffles, it would be Wheat Waffles' opinion of your looks based on a comparison with thousands of men based on factors indicating attractiveness (jawlines, muscle size, etc.) and his assessment of how he thinks women would rater you.

 

[GoodMan32]

It's a sample size of 3. A sample size of 3 is not going to be reliable in any way. Your sample size from women would need to be much larger.

If you could get your photos only rated by 500 - 1,000 women between ages 22-32, your sample size would be more reliable. It is highly unlikely that you wouldn't be an 8.75 off of that. Those ratings would only consider your looks and nothing else about you.

If you could get photos and somewhat extended videos of you behaving rated by 500 - 1,000 women ages 22-32, you would get some number as well, one that is not likely to be near 8.75. In this setup, the videos would give female evaluators some sense of your personality, so you'd get a review on looks and personality. If your annual salary and/or net worth were included in the data surround you, it would be even more accurate. Your SMV rating is dependent on looks, money, status, and personality.

If you got your face/physique rated by Wheat Waffles, it would be Wheat Waffles' opinion of your looks based on a comparison with thousands of men based on factors indicating attractiveness (jawlines, muscle size, etc.) and his assessment of how he thinks women would rater you.

I looked up Wheat Waffles. I selected the $15 option (where he gives a rating plus analysis)

It will be interesting to see what he says. Before getting the rating, I am skeptical though. When looking him up, I found a reddit comment that said Wheat Waffles is a failed pizza delivery boy who's learned to make a living by insulting other men. Either way, $15 is cheap enough I was willing to take the chance.

When I was in high school, I met/added a decent amount of girls from other schools on Facebook (through various Facebook games). Many of these girls indicated they found me attractive (without giving an exact 1-10 rating). My experience on these Facebook games in high school would suggest my looks weren't the problem; my freaky creep stigma at my own school was the problem (seeing as plenty of girls from other schools found me attractive)

As for where I currently stand, I'm aware most 33 year old men would prefer 22-32 year old gals. In my specific case, on the other hand, wouldn't it make more sense to get rated by older gals (as that's my preferred demographic)?

What good does a rating from a 22-32 year old woman do if I'm more interested in getting with their moms?

 

[SW15]

I looked up Wheat Waffles. I selected the $15 option (where he gives a rating plus analysis)

It will be interesting to see what he says.

It will be. His opinion will have more merit than mine.

Male raters who are good will consider what women would typically say about the man.

I'm aware most 33 year old men would prefer 22-32 year old gals. In my specific case, on the other hand, wouldn't it make more sense to get rated by older gals (as that's my preferred demographic)?

What good does a rating from a 22-32 year old woman do if I'm more interested in getting with their moms?

It's an oddity.

It's difficult to get at least 500 women in a specific target age range to rate you. The only way it could be done is online and even getting that done online is going to be a challenge.

If you could get 500-1,000 women in the 45-54 age range to rate you (unlikely), it will have limited meaning. Most 45-54 year olds would be married and not actively looking. It's very hypothetical for them. Unmarried 45-54 year olds could rate you but would also be unlikely to date you. It's also hypothetical for them. This is likely to impact the outcome and the analysis of results.

If you used a sample size of 22-32 year old year old women who were never married, far more would be likely to date you. It's true that some of the 22-32 year olds participating in the rating effort would be in relationships and not actively looking. They are more likely to hit the market again at some point. It's a little bit less hypothetical for them and that helps.

 

[GoodMan32]

It will be. His opinion will have more merit than mine.

Male raters who are good will consider what women would typically say about the man.



It's an oddity.

It's difficult to get at least 500 women in a specific target age range to rate you. The only way it could be done is online and even getting that done online is going to be a challenge.

If you could get 500-1,000 women in the 45-54 age range to rate you (unlikely), it will have limited meaning. Most 45-54 year olds would be married and not actively looking. It's very hypothetical for them. Unmarried 45-54 year olds could rate you but would also be unlikely to date you. It's also hypothetical for them. This is likely to impact the outcome and the analysis of results.

If you used a sample size of 22-32 year old year old women who were never married, far more would be likely to date you. It's true that some of the 22-32 year olds participating in the rating effort would be in relationships and not actively looking. They are more likely to hit the market again at some point. It's a little bit less hypothetical for them and that helps.

Wheat Waffles' opinion still isn't worth as much as a woman's opinion. He can guess what a woman would say...but that's still not the same as getting an opinion directly from a woman.

It's true a 22-32 year old woman is less likely to be married. It's also true a 22-32 year old woman is less likely to disqualify me based on age alone. When all is said and done, however, if I were to ask out 100 22-32 year olds as well as 100 45-54 year olds, I wouldn't be shocked if I had a similar failure rate among both demographics. The only difference would be why they rejected me (The older ones would, in many cases at least, automatically reject me solely based on age...before they even gave any thought to my social awkwardness/baggage. The younger ones would reject me because of my social awkwardness/baggage)