/b/ - Random

too stagnant, edgy, and divorced from reality to lead to realistically good results

extremely based & accurate understanding of men & sEx PoSiTiVitY compared to mainstream culture

they should embrace evo psych and actually develop their models of relationships, sex differences, game theory, and psychology. They have a viable starting point for this, i.e. many correct ideas that less controversial mainstream liberal communities are wrong about and afraid of, but they aren't making any new progress and are stuck endlessly repeating suboptimal tactics, basic bitch self help quotes, and unfunny memes.

Just a bunch of losers. They think sleeping around with low value men is bad, but sleeping around with high value men is fine.

They need to learn about something called pair bonding.

Also, you should go back to reddit.

Based and pinkpilled

I think they're right about some things. If you take any advice from them, you shouldn't take everything at face value, and should instead think critically about which pieces of advice you should take from them, and which you should take with a grain of salt, depending on your personal situation with dating (just like with any community, really).

I do agree with the general notion that you should improve yourself (i.e. be a high value woman in their words) and not having sex with men until there's commitment.

What do you all think about their idea that women should never make the first move?

>>51710

Men will say yes regardless of whether they take you seriously as a long term partner and think you're special, because they figure they might at least get some sex and have fun for a while even if you're not that interesting.

So to find out who thinks you're at least special enough to be worth the minimum effort of asking you out, and who at least thinks about you in a romantic way before you bring it up, avoid making moves.

However, once you understand the reasons for this rule, you can make exceptions. If you're dead sure some guy is interested in long-term commitment specifically with you but too shy to ask you out, and if shy is your type, then sure, ask him. FDS would insist you shouldn't go for this guy ever because [haphazard justifications], but that's not how you find the ideal partner for you.

Still, don't chase after him or carry his weight in relationship milestones, and let him prove with other actions that he prioritizes you appropriately. I would strongly advice against women proposing, that's something you should basically never do unless you have really low standards for how much agency and appreciation you want your husband to show.

>>51707
>They think sleeping around with low value men is bad, but sleeping around with high value men is fine.
you are who you surround yourself with so this makes sense? even if you choose to not sleep around it's important to know you are able to get validation from high value people.

>>51707
>>51713

They don't really advocate sleeping around though. They tell you to not have sex with a man before commitment, and to keep dating multiple men without sex so you get a better idea of who is invested. Some people talk about FWBs but mostly that's not recommended since it benefits men more and you can't fully control whether you catch feelings.

And they frequently talk about pair bonding, it's honestly not always a good thing even if it makes marriages last longer. It's also going to make you stay in a bad relationship even when you should leave. It's better to have less pair bonding and a partner who is so good you want to stay with him even with weaker biological pressure to stay.

>>51686
None of them seem to be in a relationship…

>>51716
>It's better to have less pair bonding and a partner who is so good you want to stay with him even with weaker biological pressure to stay
This would make a relationship a chore, or similar to a business deal? There would be a huge amount of pressure to do everything right (obv the rule applies to both partners) that you can risk losing a years long relationship over a small mistake.
I get that it's the point of FDS but it just doesn't feel "human" to me.

>>51718
No it's not necessarily like that, though FDS probably errs too much in this direction. But for example, you like some of your friends a lot, even without having a calculated transactional quality in the relationship, just because they have similar interests, a caring personality, hanging out with them is always fun, etc. You forgive small mistakes and grow together.

So if you have a "high-value partner", supposedly the relationship will also last voluntarily like this, just because you get along together on many levels (and of course you also want to retain the romantic and sexual component, unlike in the friendship analogy). You just don't have the pair bonding induced need to stay with him no matter what and forgive literally everything, like those women do who are too strongly bonded. So of course there's some pressure to keep your shit together, but that sounds healthy.

>>51686
Completely insufferable. I hate people who think relationships are a business transaction. It's like they looked at all the retarded moids on /fit/ and thought "Yes, these are good people to emulate."

>>51713
>important to know you are able to get validation from high value people.
Are you?

They're dumb. Literally equivalent of "tha red peel" for women.

>>51722
Why would you hate on /fit/, it's one of the few boards that isn't filled with incel women haters.

>>51721
It's not healthy because there's no infatuation. You "compartmentalize" what the person does and you don't see them as their own character your love/admire. Not my thing tbf.

>>51732
This can totally be healthy even if I also understand why it isn't your thing.

For instance, voluntary arranged marriages are at least as happy and stable as normal ones (that are more based on falling in love), even more so IIRC. So I would wager the same thing applies with a sane/moderate FDS approach, when you just look for a partner with similar values, life goals, a good personality, high conscientiousness, etc., and choose your partner on these grounds rather than infatuation.

You'll still grow a bond with time, most people doing this probably end up falling in love. This approach seems healthier for people whose infatuation-based pair bonding develops too quickly or makes them tolerate bad treatment, which is fairly common in women. You shouldn't forgive everything or stay with an incompatible partner even if you have strong feelings.

>>51728
>/fit/ isn’t full of incels
That really gave me a laugh. You’re funny anon.

>>51728
I don't think there is a board on 4chan that doesn't have a prominent population of incels

>>51742
I dunno, /d/ generally seems pretty nice. Which is ironic because it's a dedicated coomer board.

I really don't think treating relationships as transactional will make anyone happy in the end. Do they really make friends that way too? As in all they think of is how much they can get out of someone. I guarantee that people who think like this have never had a good friend or a partner they had any chemistry with. Honestly it seems like these women are extremely cynical and bitter, and they've already given up on finding anything resembling love.

>>51741
Compared to other boards? Yeah, it's not nearly as full. When women post there they don't get bombarded with hate. They get actual replies related to their posts. And /fit/ has mostly lonely autists who are just trying to fit in society and get a gf, rather than incels who hate and resent the world. Do you actually browse the board?

>>51686
It's relationship advice from people who aren't in a relationship

Are there actually women out there who need a dating strategy? And they’re straight and need help with dating men specifically? Seriously?

Unless you’re hopelessly ugly and don’t act like a retard, it’s really easy to get a normal guy to at least agree to go out on a date with you. The problem arises when you want a specific person.

>>51801
I meant to say “unless you’re hopeless ugly or act like a retard” lol

Maybe I am the retard one?

>>51801
it's not a strategy for getting a guy anon, it's about vetting them harshly, not chasing them or going libfem pickme, and not getting too attached until you're sure he's not just bluffing good traits.

It's fair because tbh most men who are actively "dating" nowadays turn out to be bottom of the barrel dumbasses. They sure aren't going for normal guys, and even if they're too autistic about it I think it's honestly cool that they encourage women to have high standards and not bend over backwards for guys.

>>51801
>>51686
It's just a man hating subreddit that goes by a different name to pretend like they aren't the kind of people who are sad and bitter enough to participate in a hate based subreddit.

90% of posts are just complaining about and insulting men. There's no "strategy" of any kind bring discussed.

>>51814
i mean, women dont need dating strategies anyway

>>51738
>>51722
They quite literally do call dates transactions for services, just so everyone knows.

Seems like a lot of trouble to go to for finding a "HVM". I don't know why they act so shocked when men from dating apps turn out to be low-value. The very nature of dating apps is instant gratification.

Still interesting to read sometimes, though.

>>51815
some women might need "dating advice" (I think), but not "dating strategies"

the word strategy sound just weird in this context.

I think there's no "strategy" involved in the first place, a HVM can easily stop putting effort in a relationship the moment he gets a crumb of sex, in fact I believe that a HVM (a rich and handsome male) as way more opportunities to dump or cheat on you since he his a very desirable person.

>>51795
This. It baffles me how much people of both sex take dating advice from people who don't have a relationship or only shitty ones. It's like taking career advice from a homeless person.

It’s a pretty dumb concept for a subreddit but I love anything that pisses men off or makes them feel unworthy and it certainly does that lol

It's a guaranteed road to unhappiness.

It will dehumanize your outlook on finding a relationship. You will overly obsess on looking for 'LMV' red flags and you'll end up sabotaging something that's great for you because a guy makes a minor infraction that you've built up in your head, before you ever met him, that it's TERRIBLE MISTREATMENT AND EMOTIONAL ABUSE. The polarizing nature of this kills me.

It's one of those places that can teach you a lot in an afternoon but if you regularly browse it, you will reach ruin at your own hand.

I watched my own friend who introduced me to this sub throw away a great guy. He was literally everything she was looking for but he was just a little shy and gun-shy about quick commitment because he got out of a long-term relationship. Despite all the positive interactions she told me about where he clearly showed commitment to her, she didn't believe it, and she ended up sleeping with another guy who is not as valuable but was going to show commitment early. She broke the original guy's heart. Turns out he just showed commitment through actions instead of empty words and she misread the situation. God, it was hard to listen to her rationalize and go through mental gymnastics about everything she did and that she was in the right and that's when I realized this sub had given her a toxic mindset and she was dragging me down with her.

Super fascinated by the concept of a feminine cultural reply to the redpill, been lurking there ever since I found it a few days ago. I’m also interested in the notion of better structuring the world of online dating and saving it from a race to the bottom, because the competition to be the lowest maintenance and most convenient fuck outlet was really starting to crush peoples souls. This isn’t the best manifestation of that future, but it’s a sign that culture might be starting to correct course.

It kind of heartens me to see a group in favor of teaching women better boundaries, because some of their examples of ‘before’ behavior make me freaked the fuck out. Heavy grain of salt as always, though.

It does feel like they’re making a very extreme shift from vulnerable to committing to a kind of hyper-guarded, stressful LARP that would put a barrier between yourself and your significant other at the best of times. To constantly adhere to this kind of severe ‘queen’ etiquette with someone that you want to spend the rest of your life with seems exhausting. I would rather just be me and see what sticks, but some people really do need to completely restructure the way they see themselves and what’s appropriate.

It's kind of like making a deal with the devil, you'll never get a free and easy connection again but you'll hurt way less (because you'll be the one doing the hurting.) It also kind of advocates trading away decent communication skills with how to disarm the worst and most toxic people, when the real answer is to just use your judgement to sift out what's most appropriate in the moment.

If your relationship is built on mind games and strategy instead of love and honesty, then don't expect it to last long.

>>51816
That post said it ISN'T a transaction you mouthbreather.

>>51686
they're alright, i like vindicta more

>>52375
>Person did not share item as part of a transaction (a date).
That post confirmed they view human bonding as merely a transaction for services, products, and money.
They even rub it in, because the guy was too stupid to be operating at her enlightened level.
>He just gave you item. Let men waste their money on you if they want to.
The dude failed the transaction and just gave her something for free.

The tone reads exactly like the moid redpillers/PUAs.
>Women aren't actually conscious. They only respond to certain stimuli. In this dating experiment, I'll be teaching you about negging. Genuine compliments and kindness show desperation and weakness. By making a woman insecure, suspicious, uncomfortable, and disturbed, she will actually view you as a stable and confident protector, which is the proper role of an alpha male.

If you're going to be a biobot programmed by the social rejects of Reddit, fine. But at least be a self-aware alpha pinkpilled Stacy queen when embracing dehumanization.

Mouthbreather.

>>52358
Based. All my relationships started out as friendships first and foremost.

They have the same problem that happens with other self help stuff like how autistic men that read how to make friends and influence people end up accidentally worse at social interaction afterwards because they memorized a script but don't understand the mechanics of social interaction so they can't actually function outside the fairly narrow set of restraints that the advice actually makes sense in. All the advice that's worth listening to from them imo is just stuff you'd understand if you have enough people reading skills and emotional maturity to not allow yourself to compromise for men that don't respect you

Can't say I agree with some of what they say. A lot of it is common sense but their attitude of "HVM can do nothing wrong" is naive. Men are men, and a good chunk are willing to play the long game and give you everything you want until you're in too deep.

>>51686
Entertaining to read but not much different from male dating strategies on Reddit.

My lack of experiences and non-existent desire for children make me incapable of understanding why people pursue dating and marriage when they treat it like a neverending strategy game on hard mode with a long list of rules.

I thought romantic relationships were about love. Love, understanding and mutual trust. Love shouldn't be this complicated and insincere.

Love shouldn't be looking at the opposite gender like they were all useless dirt beneath your feet but with hidden gems scattered here and there. This applies to both men and women, by the way.