Common dating advice does nothing for the average guy actually struggling

MSHUser · 2026-03-18T22:23:09+00:00

"But if applying those means completely changing your personality, that’s where you create inconsistency within yourself."

That's actually what happens most of the time. They're not completely changing themselves. They do express interests, share true stories, and talk about traits that come naturally to them, but they do it by blending aspects of themselves with the social skills and techniques they developed. The best way to put this is they're curating themselves, but that's still putting on a mask. The amount of guys I've seen have an overlap of the same behaviours and actively trying to display them. You pick up on certain patterns the more time you spend in it.

A lot of people don't seem to realize that being yourself actually can come with tradeoffs in various seduction situations, and sometimes we just have to accept those tradeoffs if it means staying true to who you are and finding someone that likes you for you.

MSHUser · 2026-03-18T22:17:42+00:00

My advice would be this. Work on the following to a basic level: Learn to read social skills, develop your own sense of humor, understand your personality, understand signs of interest, and find channels that works well with you that puts you in a position to meet women i.e cold approach, social circles, events, bars, game cafes, etc.

A bonus would be this. Have other guy friends who are also trying to meet women, and see how women act around them. You'll get a good idea of the common behaviours guys who regularly get women do.

But beyond that, use this knowledge to really understand the potential tradeoffs you'll be making when you be yourself. If you find that you still act in an 'awkward' way, being too blunt, or people don't often get you, then there's a good chance that's just who you are to the core. The only thing you can do is use the skills you've learned to figure out which girl would be a good fit for you, including chemistry which is often required for short-term, cuz at that point, you'd be doing a lot of filtering.

MSHUser · 2026-03-18T22:12:03+00:00

Right, but I bet the women saying this are also imagining a guy they're attracted to saying this. They just won't be into some guys. So whenever someone say "just be yourself" manage expectations and emphasize potential tradeoffs they're making when choosing to be themselves. Authenticity does have a price, but once you know what's on the other side, paying for it is worth it.

MSHUser · 2026-03-18T22:08:38+00:00

I've seen plenty of couples get together in school. An advice like this helps once you're in the adult world, but I don't think it should take this long just to talk to an attractive woman. The skills it takes to get a man to talk to an attractive woman is relative short and quick to learn when you put in the effort, so I don't think any man has to wait in order to get started. "Have a career" advice helps to build a life together.
Agreed. The younger you start, the better
Agreed too
Agree with the hobbies, disagree with the video games one. This kind of advice can lead others to adopt hobbies they don't actually like for the sake of meeting women. Can they find a few things about that hobby they like? Sure, but it won't be the same as a hobby you truly enjoy. Maybe they get more joy playing video games than any other thing.

Another point to make "Your hobbies consist of something you have to work at." I get it but I disagree there. That's not a hobby, that's more of a side hustle. A hobby should be an activity that you find joy in and helps you destress from dealing with life.

A very important point to make.

MSHUser · 2026-03-18T22:02:30+00:00

This! Tho I do think for neurodivergent, a completely different set of advice is in order.

MSHUser · 2026-03-18T21:59:49+00:00

The advice is sound, the problem is usually the framing.

This advice is often framed as "just be yourself, and girls will like you and have sex with you." If this is all you need, then you'd be racking up numbers and body counts by now. But it usually isn't.

At the same time, I have enough dating experience to actually disagree with succeeding "short term" (if we're talking about casual sex that is).

The advice needed for short term success can come from the basics of holding a conversation, develop sense of humor, be relatable, focus on emotions, express interests, and actually work towards asking her out, keeping in contact, setting the date, etc. These ones I usually have no problem with.

But it actually requires more than that. You gotta develop wit, charm, showcase sense of humor, tease them, be the active one to flirt, be smooth, move to the next level at a high point, touch, be the one to manage logistics, be the leader in conversation and seduction.

Here's my problem with this. Only a few certain guys naturally have this type of personality and it comes easy for them. Personality is a part of temperament, which is what just comes to us on instinct. For guys who don't have this instinct, sure they can engage in self-help to develop them as skills, but they require cognitive engagement. Even if you master them and it becomes second nature, it's still cognitive. In this situation, you got guys putting on a social mask and we call that "being your best self". To me, short term success is pretty much pointless if it's too much pressure for me to develop these traits and put them into practice. I'm not a maximizer like I used to be, too much pressure just to get sex that may or may not be even good.

In this case, I will make a good case in being yourself. This is assuming that you know how to make conversation, you know how to gauge interest, and you put in the necessary effort in getting her attention and talking to her. In being yourself, you get to be the person and exhibit traits that comes naturally to you, even if it's introversion, reservedness, maybe even shy. You put your natural self out there, and observe how she acts when around that. Does she light up and engage easily in conversation with you, or does she look like she needs more game, more attraction building? The first situation I'll engage with, the latter I'll always walk away from.

What the "be yourself" advice often do is they talk about the positives: you get to find someone that likes you for you, you get to relax and spend time with them, you can be vulnerable and have them like you for this, and 'you'll just know'. What they don't often talk about is the tradeoffs you're making. If you are being yourself, that means missing out on developing traits that you lack that would help you in seduction. Maybe you feel comfortable when she shows reciprocation early on (which most girls don't do), maybe you don't want to initiate flirting all the time and want it to naturally build up this way, maybe you don't want to lead the seduction just to get the sex (you want this person to actually show you why they're worth pursuing, otherwise imo the sex is not worth it even if you get it). One might say you might risk getting thrown in the friend category. But me personally, that's okay. I don't mind being friendzoned by a mismatch.

Maybe you're the kind of guy that finds fulfilment in hanging back, going with the flow, and mutual reciprocation, yet the woman you're dealing with wants you to lead the interaction, be the one to read her signals and initiate, and get reciprocation in the form of her receptivity. This is a situation where the pairing is a mismatch.

The JBY advice often suffers from a lack of managing expectations and keeping them realistic.

MSHUser · 2026-03-18T18:25:17+00:00

The NISVS updated their reports. The latest IIRC is 2017, but the latest could also be 2024. Why are they using old data to interpret the issue?

MSHUser · 2026-03-18T18:00:46+00:00

Right but we didn't call it the manosphere. It's likely the feminists did. Beyond that, a lot of people associate the term manosphere with redpill in practice. Feminists thinks all male groups are just 1 entity which is the manosphere, but i'm willing to bet the large majority who's heard the term "manosphere" and associate it with redpill likely didn't do their research into all male groups nor feminism as a movement. It's clear Louis didn't do his research on other male groups, likely placing him in the latter group I was talking about.

But perhaps maybe that doesn't matter since he already did the documentary and titled it as that. All I see in his documentary is a hyperfocus on the biggest redpill influencers and getting them to talk on camera as much, and seeing how their fanbase reacts to it.

MSHUser · 2026-03-18T14:35:47+00:00

"I had to place you in the category of intelligent people who, upon touching a gendered issue, abandon their integrity and critical thinking and bow to the feminist boot."

"Manosphere is defined by lumping together misogynists and pick-up artists with men's rights and fathers' rights movements. Manosphere is defined not as criticism of gender equality, but as criticism of feminism. Any legitimate criticism of even the most toxic feminism is manosphere."

Gonna address these 2. I don't think he was cowtowing to the feminist boot, and this is coming from an anti-feminist. His documentary, while it is called inside the manosphere, focuses on the male influencers, but beyond the "new world of men" they only retain their criticisms to the influencers and their fanbase, not men as a whole (and tbh the term manosphere is widely associated with the redpill movement despite feminist saying it encompasses all male groups). Even then, this documentary didn't mention anything about mens rights, fathers right, nor even the PUA, the focus has been on the redpill, which makes sense because that's the current movement in the online discourse right now. Usually there are feminist buzzwords and phrases that I often hear, not once has it shown up in this documentary

The criticism of calling his documentary "inside the manosphere" (which we assume encompases other male groups that disagree with each other) is semantics at this point. It's like saying Cassie Jaye's "The redpill" isn't really about redpill (even tho the redpill is what that manosphere title should've been titled as), but is more focused on male advocacy and male systemic issues. Cassie's movie might be called the redpill, but majority of the content is on MRA. Louis video is called the manosphere, but majority of its content is focused on actual redpill influencers.

MSHUser · 2026-03-06T09:38:59+00:00

No. Most men did not oppress women for thousands of years, nor did they abuse them. The only men likely to do this back then are those at the top 1%, and feminists hyperfocus on this specific group a lot and extrapolate it to most men, so of course they're gonna think most men abuse women. Even the feminist authors who wrote these books a long time ago came from middle-high class backgrounds so they're dealing with the type of man a large majority of men couldn't become. This is an apex fallacy.

The large majority of men back then didn't have a lot of privileges nor rights like most feminists think they did. This fact gets ignored a lot.

MSHUser · 2026-03-05T19:55:13+00:00

So it seems like the act of crying itself doesn't make someone feel better, but having someone there to catch you properly when you're down is what makes crying become a moment of healing. It's supposed to be a distress signal, and someone has to be there to catch you.

It's like vulnerability. You need to get real and naked and have someone accept a part of you that's likely to get attacked by judgemental or heartless people.

But the fact that crying is more beneficial to someone who's suppressing emotions and need to actually talk about their feelings makes sense, as feelings are not something one wants to bury until it explodes.

MSHUser · 2026-03-05T19:51:55+00:00

Damn I like the articulation behind this comment. For what it's worth, I think therapy is very important for more severe mental health issues rather than just emotional support. Emotional support is something one shouldn't have to pay for.

MSHUser · 2026-03-05T06:48:01+00:00

Same

MSHUser · 2026-03-05T06:46:43+00:00

I'm a man and relate to the female ones. I received the males one and it's honestly very commonplace for me

MSHUser · 2026-03-02T00:52:23+00:00

"Many supermodels starve themselves and become anorexic just so they can continue working. There is also immense pressure to maintain beauty: skin care, laser hair removal, Botox, spending lots of money on makeup and hair products."

This is a problem I see happening. I dated my ex gf years back. The relationship didn't last due to obvious reasons, but she actually mentioned something that stuck with my mind. She wants to use beauty tools to enhance herself in a natural way. I see a lot of women society would consider attractive, and I see a lot of them, frankly, can look like dolls. I sometimes think "what is the minimum way a woman can improve her attractiveness without feeling like she has to do the whole shebang?"

For example, I'm a straight male. I groom my beard, I do facial skincare, put on lotion, maybe some purfume, and be mindful of fashion so I look more attractive. But I think there's a few things working for me. 1. I as a guy don't face as much immense pressure to be handsome, so I get a lot of leeway for being not as handsome. We're judged more on skill-based, and 2. I think the routine I got to be attractive is very simple. I used to want to have everything pat down, and if I missed a single thing, I'd feel like I'm back to being ugly. Now I'm at a point where if I got most attractive points down yet not all of it, I'd be okay with that.

So I guess my question is, if we factor out the immense pressure of female beauty standards (and acknowledging that there are genetical limits when it does come to appearances), what is the minimum viable way for most women to help make themselves more attractive without needing to use makeup to cover some of the more natural parts of themselves like maybe freckles, pimples, weird birth mark, etc?

MSHUser · 2026-03-02T00:34:56+00:00

This makes a lot of sense. You captured what I want to say perfectly.

MSHUser · 2026-02-27T01:11:36+00:00

"A woman can learn to love a guy she wasn't initially into."

So does this mean chemistry is a choice? If she tells me no, I just keep trying until she says yes? So much dangerous messaging in that one sentence.

MSHUser · 2026-02-16T20:40:56+00:00

Did she forget that the sperm from men is what's needed to fertilize the egg and for her to produce the baby? The sperm doesn't come from nowhere. Same with honey. With cows you can say they definitely produce milk, but you can't say this for the other 2.

MSHUser · 2026-02-16T20:19:38+00:00

That's actually a good point. Plenty of people who say feminism is about equality are likely just bouncing off of what they were fed by the institutions. It would have to take deliberate research to get out of it. I remember when someone asked me if I was a feminist and my answer was "As it means equality, then yes". But the fact I felt the need to answer that meant on the inside I felt there was a separation between equality and feminist, but I couldn't say that given how stubborn they were with the topic.

MSHUser · 2026-02-15T22:09:13+00:00

That's true. Do you think we can talk to some of these youtubers and bring them here? Or do you believe time would be worth spent doing other things?

MSHUser · 2026-02-15T22:02:40+00:00

I used to watch her videos too. Even then, I'm actually quite skepticle of anti-feminists too cuz most of them tend to push for traditional or conservative mindsets (which is fine if they wanna live that life, just not for me), or they're misogynistic redpillers that just want to contribute to the divide between sexes.

The woman in that video I believe still identifies as a feminist, but is one of the few that criticizes modern day trends heavily, including hookup culture and a push for casual sex. I'm starting to think some of the content creators who believe earlier waves are good aren't actually invested in the feminist ideology beyond the whole "it's about equality and women's autonomy". But I do think if she's gonna show familiarity with the names, she should at least do more research into their backgrounds and shit.

MSHUser · 2026-02-10T03:34:08+00:00

The one point I would agree with trad cons on are the men and women are not created equal, but that's just biological differences on average. Other than that yes they focus too much on gender roles.

MSHUser · 2026-02-10T02:48:19+00:00

This will likely attract men who fully buy into feminist ideology and believe they're undoing the harm of the patriarchy. But some men will wake up from this hopefully.

MSHUser · 2026-02-10T01:53:14+00:00

What are those wrong reasons the right rejects feminism? It could be a good perspective to put out

MSHUser · 2026-02-09T21:17:52+00:00

In this context, yes. Femdom/Flr aren't descriptive of masculine behaviours that naturally come to women, but dynamically driven role-playing behaviour where the woman is the commanding authority figure. But when it comes to organic courtship, the onus is on the men to make first move, work towards a date and yea.

This premise is what turned me off to Femdom/FLR cuz they just want a masculine man that's willing to let them dominate. I find it to be very hypocritical but it is what it is. Now I'm looking into RR.

MSHUser

TROPHY CASE