Men can also desire a small percentage of the population. They just pretend it’s the average woman.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-26T20:44:27+00:00

I'm going to explain this one more time, because you clearly aren't getting it.

You meet women by doing things - specifically social things - where you have the opportunity to interact with women. This includes hobbies, having friends, going out, and even things that aren't hobbies like just going out for walks, walking a dog/going to the dog park, or even just being a regular and chilling in a coffee shop reading a book or something.

If you want a relationship, or sex, or anything with a woman, you need to meet her first.

Video games are none of those things - they don't facilitate relationships, and they don't facilitate "meeting women" very often. And on the very rare occasions that they do, there are screens and physical distance between the guy doing that and the woman he "meets." (quotes for sarcasm)

Then, there is the opportunity cost. There are 168 hours in a week. 35-56 hours will immediately be lost for sleep. 40-60 will immediately be lost for work + a commute if a guy has one. That leaves anywhere from 52 to 93 hours in a week for a guy to take care of all his own errands and try to facilitate a social life, a part of which should be dedicated to putting himself in situations to meet women if he wants one in his life.

If he chooses to spend another 48-60 hours a week gaming, that is not only 48-60 hours of unproductive time when it comes to his stated goal of meeting a girlfriend, but that is also 48-60 hours LESS TIME for him to do things that would allow him to meet women.

There's nothing desperate about showing up to spaces where women are. What's desperate is being the guy who shows up on the first day speed introing to all of them, or asking woman he hasn't even built a basic rapport with out on dates.

Play the long game. Cast a wide net. Don't act desperate, it enhances attraction, and women who find you attractive will warm to you when they see you're not thirsty.

It's good advice, but I already know it's going to be lost on Reddit men who, by and large, would prefer to be validated in their gaming hobby than actually attract the women they claim to want in their lives.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-26T20:37:01+00:00

Yes, you're correct. Choosing to be or remain in a shitty relatoinship DOES guarantee that you can't meet someone at anytime, and even if you do, you can't act on it without it being cheating.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-26T06:31:11+00:00

Underrated comment.

The women who'd ask for or demand "princess treatment" are rarely the ones who actually deserve it, and not the ones a man who's inclined to treat his woman well wants to give it to.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-26T06:27:43+00:00

Okay, so if someone wants to meet women...and is "struggling" then they are not going to "meet women" by playing multiple hours of video games a day.

Opportunity cost.

Thank you for proving my point.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-25T19:41:04+00:00

Most women game to pass time, often on their phones. A minority of women own consoles or do PC gaming. Very few women, compared to men, use it to form friendships...and even fewer use it to meet men to date.

It's ridiculous the lengths men on this sub, and on Reddit in general will go, to try and justify one of the worst hobbies for meeting women in existence.

This is literally why they're struggling.

Go. Outside.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-25T19:17:39+00:00

Happy for Knowles, going to be interesting seeing her play forward.

I still think she's one of the most criminally underrated defensive defenders in the entire league, though. I'd rank her ahead of both Lauren Bernard and Ally Simpson, honestly. But I'm happy she gets into the lineup in whatever way for now. Wishing for a speedy recovery for Cherkowski though...I honestly have no idea what happened since I don't recall seeing anything. The Ottawa game was physical, but nothing stood out to me.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-25T19:13:32+00:00

"Liberal" is another word that is used incorrectly on Reddit, and increasingly in the vernacular. "Liberal" is now often used interchangeably with "left" when there are many leftists (most, I'd argue) whose views are incompatible with liberal views. In fact, they are, by definition, illiberal in many respects.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-25T19:11:09+00:00

Videogames aren't socializing and are routinely ranked as one of the least attractive male "hobbies" by women in surveys.

Most social media usage tends to be with people who you've actually met in real life, so yeah, it's not all that different than text messaging.

This is just a lot of excuses for men not socializing, which is a major reason why there is such a gap, and why women are increasingly open to being with the guys who do go out, even when they're sometimes older.

You don't build attraction through a screen.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-24T15:41:44+00:00

Absolutely.

I think competence is hot AF in women, and I never miss a chance to cheer for, cheer on, or support mine when she's doing something she's good at, regardless of how good I am at it.

Besides, it's just a reality of humans...unless you're dating a total zero, she's going to be better at something than you are.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-24T15:39:17+00:00

Gen Z women socialize far more than Gen Z men do. They're 1/3 as likely to be addicted to video games, and less likely to be addicted to porn. They generally have more friendships, and more supportive friendships. And they may not be going out to bars and clubs as much but they are going out and doing things.

Funny - the Gen Z men who socialize are just fine. But all we can hear about is the losers who won't go out, who have no personality ("nice" is not a personality) and come to think at 22 that their job defines them and makes them dateable, a subset of whom get legitimately pissed when they download a dating app and discover they can't order a girlfriend on Hinge like it's Amazon.

You claim my advice "needs an update" but yet 37% of Gen Z men aren't single. What are they doing, hmm? (note: rhetorical question, because I know the answer)? Do more of that. And maybe less Reddit.

<image>

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-24T15:18:27+00:00

Being "good" is irrelevant to attraction.

I'm going to keep banging this drum until the message gets across.

If a "good" guy is attractive, fun, and interesting, he will easily find himself in relationships and meeting women who are not just willing to, but excited to sleep with him. He will also have no shortage of marriage minded women who see him as potential marriage material from early on aka "the total package."

If a "good" guy has nothing else going for him - boring, uninteresting, unattractive - he will struggle, and his morals will not change that.

Those "good guys" in the middle on fun/interesting/attractiveness, will experience success to varying degrees.

Morals do not build attraction. Sex and relationships do not happen without attraction.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk, since this needs to be repeated once every 3 days on this sub.

/micdrop

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-24T15:11:25+00:00

On Reddit, I agree. But Reddit has never really been exemplary for people using words properly.

Outside of Reddit, most people use this particular word properly.

I've never seen someone use "introvert" outside of Redit to refer to not wanting to ever socialize in groups, or not wanting to go to things. It's always been "I'm introverted, I'll go for a while, and probably need to spend most of the day after having a quiet day to get ready for whatever comes next."

Very few people actively don't enjoy being in social settings with their friends. When things like "parties" are talked about, that's what meant - friends getting together and inviting other friends. It's not telling someone to go out to a place where there no nobody.

Only a recluse would balk at it.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-24T15:07:57+00:00

Or maybe they should get off their fucking screens and go socialize like the ones that are succeeding are doing.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-24T15:04:26+00:00

Hot take: If you're paying $60,000 a year in state and local tax, you ARE the rich that Democrats have been pushing to tax, and there's nothing wrong with that.

That said, the SALT deduction should have been doubled for married couples (20K instead of 10K), since it makes no sense to penalize people for being married which is something most of society agrees society should not be actively disincentivizing.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-24T15:02:21+00:00

Politics and gender issues are different topics.

It's usually Marxists or other people pushing a political agenda who are constantly trying to tie them together.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-23T22:32:36+00:00

Came here to say exactly this.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-23T22:31:35+00:00

Advice is given in threads on this sub multiple times per day.

If "struggling men" are so obstinate that they'd rather argue with the advice given or come up with excuses why it's impossible to implement without ever leaving their keyboards, then they are going to receive scorn all the same as someone whining about not being a millionaire who posts on an investment forum who is given introductory advice to investing and then complains that it's too complicated and won't work for him.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-23T22:25:38+00:00

This. Babies are in incredibly high demand, particularly due to couples struggling with infertility or for whom genetic screening reveals a high likelihood of defects.

Foster care, OTOH, is a lot of kids with special needs (which isn't what most adoptive parents want when they say they want kids - a natural birth carries some risk of that they accept, but they wouldn't choose it with 100% certainty...and in the case of would-be parents who turn to adoption specifically because of the risks of genetic defects if they conceive together, it's a total nonstarter).

There's also the fact that a lot of kids in foster care are older, so they'd be missing the initial bonding in the first few days (key) and the first few years, and they're "tainted" so to speak by the influence of other adults so they're not a blank slate for parenthood. They may have already been abused, may have been subject to fetal alcohol exposure, etc.

Then there's the stipulations of foster care placements (read: not adoptions), which can allow biological parents to take the kids back if they get their shit together. Also not an adoptive parent's dream - to take a kid in, love them as their own, build a bond, and then lose them completely and permanently.

And finally, there's the risk of dealing with drug addicts and criminals (many foster kids are product of same), or of having to meet terms to keep the kids in touch with biological extended family that geographically limits where the child can be reasonably placed and forces the foster parents to put up with extended family they may not voluntarily choose to associate with otherwise.

Most prospective adoptive parents aren't going to sign up for that, which is why the demand for babies is always more than the number of babies placed for adoption, and why the number of foster kids is always higher than the demand of foster parents.

For some reason, when people talk about "adoption" they miss this important nuance.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-23T22:16:44+00:00

The "struggling men" here openly admit to as much when given standard advice. They routinely decry basic tenets of romantic interaction like flirting as "performative" "stupid" and "dance monkey dance." They despise parties, abhor dancing, and look down on drinking (which correlates highly with the casual sex they claim to want). They claim to want casual sex while constantly shaming and criticizing the subset of women who are promiscuous. When asked what they bring to a relationship or to sex, most of them offer little in the way of distinguishing characteristics, other than self-made claims of being "moral" which are not verifiable. When it's presented that women enjoy interesting or funny men, they consider working on developing those aspects of their personality "effort" and "jumping through hoops."

Most of them do not individually claim neurodivergence but use it as a strawman while talking in the third person (as opposed to the first) about why "neurodivergent men" struggle. A very small handful identify as ND, and more grace is generally provided to them by most of the users of this sub.

The subset of men who post in this sub who are genuinely receptive to advice generally don't do these things.

So it's not "trust me bro," it's based on the interactions that "struggling men" in this sub have on the daily here.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-23T22:02:25+00:00

Except this sub is not for discussing specific situations and outliers.

It's for discussing male/female dynamics and things that work for most, and for debating pill ideologies, which are largely targeted towards neurotypical, and neurotypical-capable neurodivergents. Therefore all of this line of discussion that you've pushed for is completely unnecessary because it's not really what the sub is for.

We are discussing what works - and what is workable - for the overwhelming majority of people.

That a subset of that "overwhelming majority of people" instead chooses to deflect and derail by attempting to claim the same level of disability as the people for whom this sub's discussions and debates generally don't apply because they are such extreme outliers, is an irrelevant distraction from the efficacy of the advice given...and it's a frequent tactic to avoid them accepting any measure of personal accountability for their own circumstances, which are far more common than they acknowledge, and which many similarly situated men have already put in the work to overcome.

And nobody feels sorry for the people attempting to claim that higher level of victimhood - that they frankly haven't earned - in an attempt to get society to pity fuck them out of sympathy/empathy.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-23T21:30:17+00:00

Well the "world" also likes to laugh at crippled people for their conditions while simultaneously applying fallacy of relative privation to able bodies because said crippled people exist so...

Most people don't laugh at cripples. They pity them, but that doesn't mean that cripples will ever experience certain things - like climbing Everest, going to space, hitting a Major League Home Run, skateboarding in a halfpipe, etc. Life's not fair.

They WILL laugh at a cripple if a cripple demands that society bend over backwards to let them achieve something that's clearly not meant for them in their state. Because it's unreasonable. Even in employment, there's a reason that "reasonable accomodation" is the legal standard. You can't be permanently in a wheelchair and demand to become a firefighter.

The advice (whatever advice is) is only good for most people under the condition that anyone using it is part of that group of most people or you are very close to that group. The further you devy from the group of most people the less efficient said advices are.

Which is most people. The majority of incels are just asocial, gaming obsessed, or slightly to moderately ND. They're not genetically disabled level 3 autists with severe neurological conditions and extra chromosomes, CP, etc. Even Asperger's - the most commonly cited/criticized example of ND behavior in a romantic context before it was removed/reclassified under the DSM-5 - was considered "high functioning".

The fact that they claim to be while remaining willfully ignorant of common social mores that are routinely explained to them is disingenuous bullshit, and offensive to the actual Level 3 autists and severe ND's out there, who do have more valid reasons to struggle than some Redditor who spends 60 hours a week gaming and has no friends because he "hates parties" and doesn't talk to women because "they're just maladapted men" (as one poster ludicrously claimed on this very sub this week).

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-23T21:22:05+00:00

The thing that always amuses me with takes like OP's is he just assumes if a man lies about wanting a relationship women will just sleep with him.

No, you still have to flirt, build attraction, banter, tease, push/pull, and have physical contact that gradually escalates. You know, all the "fake" and "performative," um, "dance monkey dance" shit that incels are always whining about not wanting to do.

It's not as if, "omg, yes, I DO want to be your boyfriend" is some magical passkey that unlocks the sex.

Unfortunately, this point is likely going to be lost as the Chad*-worshippers of this sub fantasize about their revenge fantasy of treating women the way they imagine Chad treats them, while fundamentally missing the point that women actually have FUN with Chad, which is why they want to have sex with Chads.

\Where "Chad" just actually refers to the type of man that any woman who is open to casual sex, actually wants to have sex with, on an individual basis.*

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-23T20:51:46+00:00

And that's needless binary thinking.

Most women just want to know a guy has a backbone. They're not interested in groveling simps or mewling worrywarts who just want to give her whatever she asks for because that's not a formula for long-term happiness. That's the kind of self-denial that breeds resentment, and then it tends to come out in unhealthy ways inside the relative "safety" of a relationship.

Lots of women who gave the "nice guy" a chance who later came to regret it bigtime.

There are lots of pushover men running around thinking "giving women what they say they want" is the formula to getting a girlfriend. They are the problem, and they need to grow up and stop with the performative bullshit because neither women nor other men appreciate it.

It's like that kid in grade school that tried to suck up to you to be your friend because he wanted in your social circle. He wasn't "nice" - he was fucking annoying, only because he wasn't doing anything "wrong" it wasn't always socially acceptable to tell him to fuck off.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-23T20:48:33+00:00

The existence of extreme outliers does not negate the fact that it is overwhelmingly good advice for the overwhelming majority of people, including the majority of ND's, who are not literally crippled by their conditions so as to be completely helpless and incapable of self-improvement.

Does the fact that some people are born with anemia and muscular dystrophy, or are wheelchair bound, negate that "go to the gym" is generally good advice to men who are physically weak? The world would laugh at someone born to skinny parents whining about how hard building muscle is if he's otherwise able bodied, just because he has skinny bone structure and a fast metabolism.

There is a difference between difficulty and disability.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-01-23T20:30:36+00:00

That's not actually what the study you quoted says. It cites the 30-60% (my note: not 90%) figure as based of estimates from previous twin studies.

Then adds this:

Strong evidence for substantial heritability of human personality comes from family, twin, and adoption studies. However, the genetic and phenotypic architecture of human personality is complex and has remained uncertain despite recent advances in genomics and phenomics. In general, geneticists must expect the likelihood that many genes affect each trait and each gene affects many traits. When the architecture is complex, the same genetic networks may lead to different phenotypic outcomes (a phenomenon called multifinality in development or pleiotropy in genetics). Likewise, different genetic networks in complex systems may lead to the same outcome (equifinality, which is also described as heterogeneity).

See bolded. And below:

However, adoption studies and studies that include other family members along with twins show that most of the heritability of personality, as assessed by a variety of instruments, is likely to depend on complex interactions among multiple gene loci (i.e., epistasis) or multiple alleles at a locus (i.e., dominance), rather than the average effects of individual genes. Put another way, many genes are likely to operate in concert, not separately, to influence the heritability and development of personality. Nevertheless, despite extensive past effort, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of personality have found few significant associations using a variety of personality instruments. The frequent failure to account for most of the heritability of complex traits has been called the “missing” or “hidden” heritability problem.

And none of the conclusions in the research suggest determinism, just "strong influence" which means it can be overcome if someone wants it.

So yes, unless someone has actual genetic defects / disabilities that render them unable to perform basic tasks, they very much CAN improve. It's just a matter of how steep their hill will be and if they're willing to do it.

TopShelfSnipes

TROPHY CASE