That's why so much dating advice on Reddit falls on deaf ears. If you're reasonably health-ish, haven't had your expectations completely warped by social media, have a decent personality, and are willing to look past superficial things, dating really isn't as difficult as people make it out to be.

Most men and women are hypergamous to some extent, and social media has only made that worse by giving people unrealistic expectations of what they should be able to attract.

The whole 6-6-6 thing is a perfect example. A lot of these guys know they could realistically get into a relationship with an ordinary woman who has an average job and isn't in perfect shape, but that's not who they want. They want THE girl.

A lot of it is just LARPing, and I'm guilty of it too. At the end of the day, who doesn't want to date someone attractive? But the simplest way to improve your chances of attracting someone attractive is to become more attractive yourself.

If you cant become more attractive and you've reached your ceiling then its kinda just tough luck, right.

Either you need to adjust your standards and date within your range or stay single

Here's the kicker, thats very difficult to do. Theres a reason psychologist dont claim to heal people.

Im not talking about just straight up ignoring someone you see on a day to day basis thats shady but if you ask someone out and get turned down i really don't think its that odd to lessen/end the friendship especially if the friendship wasn't that long. Women find most men physically unattractive(atleast initially) so its definitely common for men to encounter if their friends with women. If you can handle suppressing your crush its probably the best for your psyche but i can empathize with people who don't really want to.

Since becoming Captain America this character has not had a single appearance where he was a 6/10 or higher character. He’s consistently been outshined or just sucked.

His comics sell like piss and it’s why they keep getting canned. Quick reminder he doesn’t have a single ongoing rn while Steve has a whole event.

He was outshined by both Bucky and John Walker in the FTWS show.

And his movie was awful.

This character has quite literally NEVER and I repeat, NEVER succeeded as Captain America EVER. Yet when you (rightfully) call him ass you’re met with an armada of his stans (who don’t buy his books or watch his movies btw) calling you racist. Shit, even I as a black person and a bunch of my friends took shots at this loser and we got called racist. Like no, nobody is racist HE IS JUST ASS! Stop using racism as a shield against that fact.

(I should probably clarify I’m being slightly hyperbolic and a few racists do exist that hate him but it’s mostly just him being dog shit).

Basically title, putting all the money in one pot shows a level of trust and companionship that is needed for a successful marriage. If you can't get there, it means there are still trust issues.

(Yours/mine discretionary cash buckets are logistics, as long as most assets are common this is fine)

Possible exceptions for second marriages/kids outside of this marriage etc

Edit: I don't mind a prenup to have insurance for pre marital assets but if you're thinking about marital assets in that way pre-marriage you're ngmi

A couple of weeks ago, I was browsing the unpopular opinions sub, a intriguing sub where one has to walk the tightrope of posting opinions that are not popular enough to be removed by the mods, but not unpopular enough to be downvoted into oblivion.

One fine debater posted that they believed all public transport should be free. I responded by saying that while I agreed with the sentiment, the funding would have to compete with other public services such as education, healthcare and infrastructure. A perfectly reasonable reply, one would think, and on grounds where everyone can discuss the matter civilly - there is no question of taking rights away from anyone or harming them, unlike the red button issues of gay / trans / abortion rights.

If you think the ensuing discussion was civil, you would unfortunately be completely wrong, and dumbfounded like I was. I was immediately accused of being a right-wing shill for the military-industrial complex by not condemning the money spent on useless wars in the same way, and also accused of being a anti-environmental, morally bankrupt person for not considering the costs of private transport (by multiple different people).

The ironic thing is that many people on Reddit say "Oh we can discuss things civilly and calmly when it comes to things such as municipal zoning laws or city spending choices, but not when it comes to stripping people of their rights and killing them". No, other Redditors have unfortunately proved that you in fact cannot discuss even the most innocuous of things on Reddit without flinging around accusations of bad faith and personal attacks. It was never, never about good or evil in the first place, but about venting at people while feeling morally upright, even on mundane things akin to municipal zoning laws.

motivational videos telling everyone to quit their jobs and "turn your passion into a business." Most people shouldn't.

The second you monetize a hobby, it stops being a hobby. Now it's deadlines, demanding customers, and complaints.

I watched a friend go through this. She loved baking and she was really good at it, so everyone told her to start selling. She did, and business was booming. She still shut it down because it made her miserable, and now she doesn't even enjoy baking anymore. She lost the thing she loved.

If your job covers your bills and lets you keep your passions for yourself, you're doing fine. Not everything has to be a side hustle.

The friend zone is simply a situation where one person has romantic or sexual feelings for another person who only sees them as a friend.

That’s it. That’s the friend zone.

It doesn’t mean the other person owes you sex. It doesn’t mean they’re doing anything wrong by rejecting you. It doesn’t even mean you resent them for rejecting you.

I often see people argue that the friend zone doesn’t exist because nobody is entitled to a romantic relationship. But that’s not actually an argument against the existence of the friend zone. It’s an argument against entitlement.

You can acknowledge that someone has been friend-zoned without suggesting that anyone involved has done anything morally wrong.

The friend zone is a description of a social situation, not a moral accusation.

Thats it. Thats should be the end of the discussion.

Wanting to have sex with someone because they are a teenager, whether thats an actual 18 year old or someone dressing up as a school girl/girl scout/etc, you are still a weirdo for seeking out the fantasy of a teenager, and frankly if it was legal I wouldnt be surprised if half of the people who seek out this content would go even lower than 18.

its one thing to enjoy sexual power play, its another to fantasize about victimizing someone.

Gender wars gender waring the genders. GENDER WAR

GENDER IT so it wars the genderears WHAAAAAAAA

Pretty much title. There is zero point to those ads or commercials outside of “people can see if you vote or not”. And why does that matter? In a normal person’s brain, it doesn’t matter. But it seems as though they think it’s a good slogan?

Pretty casual take, but it’s still wild to see basically threats to vote online and on tv.

There really is no first amendment left. Yes, you can say things in private, but you‘ll never get the masses to hear you without a lot of money and some leverage over a broken system.

People always talk about how having money means being able to afford nice houses, holidays, expensive things, etc. But honestly, I think one of the biggest benefits of having money is not having to put up with people you can't stand.

When you're financially dependent on a job, family or other people, you often have to tolerate individuals you genuinely dislike because you can't afford the consequences of walking away.

You have to smile, make small talk, be polite, manage other people's egos and pretend to be pleasant towards people you'd otherwise have absolutely nothing to do with.

And I find that exhausting.

It's not necessarily that these people have done anything particularly terrible. Sometimes you just don't like someone, don't enjoy their company and would rather not interact with them. But when they have influence over your income, career or opportunities, you can't simply ignore them.

To me, financial freedom isn't primarily about luxury. It's about having the ability to say, "I don't want to deal with this person anymore," and actually being able to walk away without jeopardising your livelihood.

Obviously, you still need basic civility to function in society. But there's a massive difference between choosing to tolerate someone and having no realistic alternative.

Does anyone else think one of the greatest luxuries money can buy is freedom from having to interact with people you dislike?

I don’t know if it’s just my side of tiktok, but people are overhyping each other, leading to some taking it too far and actually attempting to become models. They drain their life savings to move to New York, California or other extremely expensive places. They quit their jobs, education, just because people told them that they’re the most beautiful, unique person they’ve ever seen and that they should be walking beside Bella Hadid. I think it’s perfectly fine to be average, or tell someone average that they are beautiful, look pretty that day, have pretty eyes etc, but doing too much for a stranger could put them in a delusional state. Just like being overly negative, being overly positive can be just as damaging

around 79% of English speaking users on subreddits are American. When someone is roasting the boomers for instance, it's safe to assume 4/5 times it'll be an American talking. I think assumptions in low stake conversations are not a big deal. It would be like assuming someone went to public school until they say they were homeschooled.. unless the context was about homeschooling or something that would give context to go away from that default.

But when a post is talking about "boomers vs genZ" I'm gonna assume most people are American.

Some people do not want to hear about their friends’ babies once they become parents and while I agree that EXCESSIVE talking about any topic (including babies) is mehhh, it’s flabbergasting that babies seem to be the only topic excluded from conversation. If you don’t want to hear about your friends’ children, why do you expect them to care about anything in your life that they can’t relate to? Like a stressful job, relationship drama, hobby, or even unfortunate illness or mental health? If you only view friendship as casual, that’s fair, but if you value friendships for better and for worse than babies should not be taboo for childfree people.
(I know not all people are like that, just basing my observation on some sentiments expressed both on reddit and by childfree people in other communities).

I frequently see women tell men who struggle with dating to “just be confident,” and I think there’s a lack of perspective here.

Confidence is attractive in both men and women, but I think it’s substantially more important for men to have. Men are generally expected to initiate romantic interactions, make the first move, flirt, escalate, and risk rejection. All of these things require a certain degree of confidence and assertiveness.

Women, on the other hand, can often afford to be shy, passive, or socially awkward without those traits being nearly as detrimental to their dating prospects. A shy woman can still attract men who approach her. A shy man who never approaches women might never get anywhere.

I’m not saying women don’t struggle with dating, or that confidence isn’t attractive in women. I’m saying the consequences of lacking confidence are very different depending on your gender.

And I think that’s something worth acknowledging before telling a man who’s struggling with dating to “just be confident,” as though it’s some simple adjustment he can make.

​

Men don't even understand what attractiveness means. They've convinced themselves that women want a dominant gym bro with a sharp jawline who treats them like shit. They mistake their own beauty standards and manosphere fantasies for women's actual preferences.

The infamous 80/10 rule, claiming that 80% of women only want the top 10% of men, has no credible scientific evidence supporting it as a universal rule. Attraction is subjective. Women don't all want the same men.

Research: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/02/06/the-virtues-and-downsides-of-online-dating/

A majority of adults in the EU and US are overweight (51.7% and 72.4%, respectively), yet men talk about overweight women with absolute contempt, as though they're worth no more than the dirt beneath their shoes. If these men categorically refuse to date overweight women, they're restricting themselves to a minority of the population while accusing women of being excessively selective.

Sources:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20260904-1

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm

The most blatant form of hypergamous thinking in these circles comes from men themselves: demanding women significantly younger than them, with physical characteristics associated with youth, such as thin bodies, no wrinkles, and being clean-shaven.

Many don't even understand what being well-groomed means. Showering daily and wearing clean clothes are basic hygiene, and plenty don't even manage that. Being well-groomed means taking pride in your appearance: your clothes, haircut, skincare (yes, moisturiser!), personal style, and perhaps a necklace or a subtle ring. Not everyone needs the same routine, but cleanliness alone isn't the same as making an effort.

Even the belief that women only date men for a free meal is another convenient excuse to avoid self-reflection. Women would rather pay for their own dinner than spend an entire evening sitting across from an unpleasant man. #We earn our own money.

We don't need to tolerate bad company for a plate of food.

And what has all this resentment, entitlement, and refusal to improve produced? A male loneliness epidemic. Yet instead of questioning their attitudes, these men continue blaming women for their romantic failures.

The manosphere replaces self-improvement with resentment, emotional maturity with manipulation, and genuine connection with imaginary sexual market values.

#If women are always the problem, you never have to become a better person.

Okay so I know this is gonna ruffle some feathers but singers and the main artists usually get all the glory and credit for especially music, while they are just singing songs with autotune and being the face of a brand.

Atleast in my home country this is a huge thing, i live in northern europe but for examples I am using mainstream artists that I think fit to this category.

Tate mcrae. She co-writes her songs yea. But there are like 10 writers and producers behind her songs, and without them her music probably wouldn’t be even mainstream.Same thing with Sabrina Carpenter. Many producers and writers. And Finneas mostly writes all of Billie Eilish songs.

You are not a fan of the artist but the producers and other writers who barely get mentioned. Only producer I have seen get credits for his song writing is Jack antonoff, and many of those comments are how they hate him. He has co written and produced many hit songs for Sabrina, Taylor swift etc. So you are a fan of him and his music if you like these artists.

And it is not a bad thing that the artist get credit they are the face of the project. But I think people should acknowledge the fact that these singers barely make their own songs when talking about these artists and who is the best.

I know that I'm going to get comments about "your just a fan who can't take criticism" or "you like Taylor swift so your opinion is automatically invalid" so please just save yourself the effort and dont bother.

Yes i am a fan of Taylor Swift, but I also agree the Showgirl is her worst album by far. But I hate people saying "she refuses to grow up." I could see that if this was maybe her 3rd or 4th album but this is her 12th. To say she refuses to grow up requires you to ignore everything else post Lover. Yes Showgirl is juvenile, but you know what isnt? Folklore, evermore, and TTPD. Are they perfect? No. But juvenile is not the way to describe those flaws.

Is it bad, clunky, full of cringe, and out of touch? Absolutely. But stop saying that because its bad suddebly everything else is bad too. No one said Metallica was always bad when St. Anger came out.

Im not against Criticism but I am against it when its unfair. You cant look at issues with a single project and retrofit them onto an entire career.

to preface - i am not a well done steak person. medium rare w a little extra char ALL the way. but i digress.
the smoky, carbon-y flavor of something being just a little burnt is SO GOOD. i would go so far as to say this applies to confections, too. when caramel or cookies or something are barely overdone it’s just so out of this world delicious

I was reading an article on Yahoo Finance regarding the unemployment situation with recent college graduates there were a few key take aways, for one 42% of recent college graduates work at job that does not require a college degree. Furthermore, unemployment rates for recent college graduates hover around 5.6% to 5.7% compared to 4.1% to 4.2% of the average working adult.

This got me to thinking... Are there too many college graduates? The increase in college graduates is multi factorial but it is becoming increasingly necessary to have a college degree for a shot at a stable life, where as going to college was largely a choice during the boomers and Gen X generation rather than a necessity. What if the increase in recent college graduates due to necessity having the opposite effect and devaluing college degrees by basic law of supply and demand, and thus depressing salaries. Wouldn't it then follow that the pyramid of cards that is higher education is ultimately built on exclusivity which would mean it only works if everyone can't have a college degree? Maybe higher tuition prices is an attempt to restore this exclusivity.

I find therapy has been so commercialized now a days. I am very self aware of my own state of mind and can process emotions very well. Ever since going through a major separation and an ongoing divorce, every person left right and center is hounding me to go to therapy. I just don't think that I need it.

Their reasons are typically, "Sometimes, it's nice just to get it off your chest." Or "They can help you see or realize something that you're not."

To that I say, I already communicate well with my friends and family about my life. I get catharsis by getting things off my chest with people I trust. And to the second point, I honestly don't think any therapist would be giving me a perspective that I haven't already considered. I'm aware of the depression I went through, I knew what I needed to do to stay in a healthier head space, I know what baggage I shouldn't bring into a new relationship. And shit, therapy costs money. I just don't want to waste more on something that I don't believe will truly be a net positive for me.

Lastly, I have a friend who is moving forward with some life decisions that I truly believe is a mistake and is borderline dangerous. She said that her therapist agrees with her. Are we just giving the ok on situations that could prove to be dangerous or a scam in the name of mental health?

I think some bitter women use feminism and the patriarchy to justify their resentment toward attractive women.

There’s this weird thing where if a woman is conventionally attractive, feminine, gets a lot of male attention, likes makeup, dresses sexy, whatever, suddenly everything she does is “for the male gaze.” She’s shallow, she’s desperate for validation, she only gets opportunities because she’s pretty, and any negative experience she has with men gets dismissed because “pretty privilege.”

And I’m sorry, but sometimes it’s very obvious that this isn’t actually about dismantling the patriarchy. You just resent women you think are prettier than you, and feminism gives you a socially acceptable way to look down on them while still feeling morally superior.

Pretty privilege obviously exists. So does the patriarchy. But attractive women are still women living under it, and being attractive can actually make certain forms of misogyny and objectification worse.

Some women don’t hate patriarchal beauty standards nearly as much as they hate the women who meet them. And I think we should be able to admit that without pretending every shitty attitude a woman has toward another woman becomes feminist just because she learned the phrase “male gaze.”

Quotations for subjectivity, as good & bad both only go so far as labels. The reason bad behaviors continue is because when they are not properly punished and reprimanded, they leave the door open for that behavior to become more mainstream - and "good" people are typically too passive to care or feel the need to address said behavior, unless of course it's physically affecting them. Some may not see it as a hot take which is fine, but I'd disagree. If it wasn't a hot take, "good" people would relentlessly bully racists, pedophiles, violent criminals, fraudsters, etc. into hiding and make them too ashamed to part their lips or show their faces. We sure as hell wouldn't platform them for their rhetoric under the guise of entertainment. I could go on with examples of crimes, social media trends, and just everyday things I observe where objectively bad behaviors are not reprimanded and thus continue because "good" people don't think it's their job to put others in their place - and that's fair, because that could mean putting one's life at risk. In closing, I believe a lot of people's bad behaviors happen because good people refuse to send stern messaging and take corrective actions by making examples out of bad behavior, not inherently because "if people want to do bad things, they'll do bad things."

MOST feminists don't hate men. If you legitimately think that most feminists hate men and want to reverse society into some kinda matriarchal system, you've successfully been rage baited either by some bot or outdated literature. If you talk to the vast majority of feminists irl, most of them do not hate men. Most of the ones here don't hate men. There are more people in this subreddit complaining about feminists hating men than actual feminists saying anything about men.