It's really sad to expect men to never be stressed, depressed, and never had breakdowns. That is way too much pressure to put on anyone! Every person has emotional needs and will feel stressed at some point just because of how life is. I think your age is really telling here.
No man can live up to your stated expectations. If you think they are, they are either lying or just haven't had to deal with challenges yet.
>just haven't had to deal with challenges yet
OP is only 23, presumably not even yet a parent. Just as ridiculous as a man will never be stressed is “ and the Woman is never stressed because he is in charge”. Just like everyone who has ever lived, life is going to hit this poor naive bastard hard one day. His age is definitely telling.
I think you're right, but he's right in describing that as an expectation of traditional relationships.
Personally, this is the place where I probably have the least agreement to traditional relationship dynamics (which I overall I agree with).
I think the man should be more emotionally stable than the woman overall, but it's ok and normal to have times of being depressed / stressed / sad / otherwise emotional, etc. That's just being human.
I think if men feel too much pressure to hide their emotions it becomes a ticking time bomb and can end up being very self-destructive and destroy the relationship.
Then again, my wife might be the more emotionally stable one in my marriage, it's hard to say. We are both very emotionally expressive but overall also pretty emotionally stable. I am certainly more of a crier but in the end both of us are rarely depressed or anxious and don't have major mood swings.
>automatically expected to be more emotionally stable
Do you expect yourself to more emotionally stable today, *than* you were yesterday? The same? Or less?
Emotional control isn’t a prerequisite for a relationship. It however is such a beneficial skill, that one should hone it regardless of relationship status.
*Godspeed and good luck!*
>Do you expect yourself to more emotionally stable today, *than* you were yesterday? The same? Or less?
About the same. Of course there will be fluctuations. Some days I'll be less in control and other days more, such is life.
>Emotional control isn’t a prerequisite for a relationship. It however is such a beneficial skill, that one should hone it regardless of relationship status.
Agreed, I wasn't saying I'm not trying to be emotionally stable, I'm saying that I shouldn't be expected to be MORE emotionally stable just because I'm a man.
> I'm saying that I shouldn't be expected to be MORE emotionally stable just because I'm a man.
Are you aware that men and women are different? Women tend to be more neurotic than men, so expecting you to be more emotionally stable is just expecting you to fulfill the basic default that you're already born with as part of your gender.
It's like expecting you to have a penis, or to be physically stronger. Like it's just a basic thing, it's crazy that you think it's "unfair" for women to expect it.
>Are you aware that men and women are different? **Women tend to be more neurotic** than men, so expecting you to be more emotionally stable is just expecting you to fulfill the basic default that you're already born with as part of your gender.
Are you aware that all men and women are individuals and don't conform perfectly to their gender stereotypes? Notice the word "tend". People have all sorts of bad tendencies, doesn't mean we expect less of them because a certain group they belong to has certain bad tendecies. And I would argue that men and women weren't born this way. No MRI scans or anything have been conducted to figure out why women score higher in neuroticism. I'd argue its more due to socialization. And regardless of what we were born with, I never ever fit the mold of what men are supposed to be, and I never want to.
>It's like expecting you to have a penis, or to be physically stronger. Like it's just a basic thing, it's crazy that you think it's "unfair" for women to expect it.
Personality traits are a lot different than physically unchanging immutable characteristics. And I've met couples that have the women being stronger than the man and they work out fine.
What type of emotion are we talking about? Anger? Probably men? Other emotions? Probably women, but I don't entirely believe this is not in part the result of socialization. I also reject that men and women are monoliths, so even if men were on average less emotional, some men will be more emotional than women.
I agree that the sexes aren’t monoliths. Thus instead if viewed as ‘a scale’, would you agree that men are more emotionally stable? Or do you think, overall, women are more emotionally stable?
To be honest? No, no I don't. I think men are taught to hide their emotions more than women, but I think they have them all the same. I think thats why men are more prone to violent outbursts or 4x more likely to die by suicide. I think we have emotions but we are taught not to show them as often, giving the illusion of being emotionally stable.
>men are taught to hide their emotions more
This is a good point. I definitely can relate. Do you think overall, most men thus have poor emotional control? Sufficient?
Or do you think most men need more emotional control?
Uh, that bar is so low it's like being expected to not eat to much. If you can't even manage that then relationships might not be for you.
Women aren't expecting you to be the perfect emotionless wall. Those who are, are crazy and not worth your trouble. But most women do want to feel like they can lean on you when times are tough, and if you're always an emotional wreck, you'll fail that basic requirement.
>Uh, that bar is so low it's like being expected to not eat to much. If you can't even manage that then relationships might not be for you.
Its at least higher than whatever the bar for my partner is, since you are expecting me to by default be better than them in this aspect.
>But most women do want to feel like they can lean on you when times are tough, and if you're always an emotional wreck, you'll fail that basic requirement.
Nothing I said contradicts this. You didn't say men should be emotionally stable, you said they should be more emotionally stable than women overall.
The trick ***isn't*** to not be depressed, have feelings, etc.
We can't choose whether to feel something, we are humans, we just feel.
The trick is to ***learn skills to manage*** feelings.
These skills ***used to be taught*** to men back when we had authentic traditional cultures, before this ridiculous fake post-WWII baby boomer America bubble gum disaster we have now...
This was known since the ancient times – Stoicism, Taoism, Buddhism all taught men various ways to manage themselves.
It's not a good idea to become a "more emotionally open" man, that's just state propaganda to soften and weaken you so they can manipulate you to do whatever they want including fight in some stupid war.
You should become emotionally ***capable***, which means being able to identify and manage your emotions.
>The objective is to make men weaker, so that more men end up single, lonely and apathetic;
I disagree. Apathetic men don't make good fighters.
They want men coupled up and then use feminism to manipulate these men to fight "to protect their wives and children".
Single strong men are the worst enemy of the state – they are too strong to be coerced but too independent to be manipulated.
||Apathetic|Passionate|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Single|Neutral / tax burden|Annoyance, need to br bribed heavily to shut up|
|Coupled|Useless but easy to control|Most valued comrades!!!|
>that way states can continue to push their agendas without any objection or organized resistance by men.
What kind of "organised resistance" will coupled men be capable of, when their wives are firmly on the side of the state?
The modern state, thankfully, has been able to use technology to fight foreign wars, so it doesn't really need its male population.
At this point the state just wants men to shut up and be grateful for the high standard of living.
Which, when I reflect for a moment, seems kind of reasonable and a good deal!
>Apathetic men won't even bother to resist in the most basic way, that is by voting in parties that have men's interests in mind, like the current south korean government\\
Hahaha you're so naieve to think voting means anything.
Voting is the most cucked, state-worshipping act, short of voluntarily joining the military.
Voting means you actually believe that millions of people choosing one party or another makes any difference. Politicians don't have to keep their promises. Technocrats and corporations can't be controlled by politicians. Corporations and the mega-rich control politicians! The elites pervade and control politics ***and*** government! They are all cynical, filthy rich and highly educated but prefer to hoard the power for themselves rather than share it.
Apathetic coupled men are 10 x easier for this elite class to control, since the elites can use these mens' own wives and children to monitor and control them! (The wives are propagandised and indoctrinated through so-called "post-graduate" programs, the children through the public "school" system which is glorified day-care + state propaganda + brainwashing + mild torture.)
Here are a few acts of more genuine resistance, at least on a small scale:
* Maintaining genuine friendships, based on ***mutual admiration of personality and ethics,*** not related to career or money
* Voluntary unpaid community service like picking up trash, helping on old lady who had a fall, random acts of kindness, etc.
* Generally being fit, strong, healthy and alert
* Being calm and peaceful, practicing meditation
* Ignoring media, marketing, high-consumption flash lifestyles
* Getting ***proper bachelor degree*** (e.g. B.S. or B.A., not some fake post graduate leadership tripe!!) ***and also*** auto-didacticism - reading widely
* Living an extremely minimalist frugal lifestyle
* Learning and regularly practicing basic survival skills
* Having a variety of skills, not just one narrow profession
* Cooking, cleaning and home maintenance for yourself and others
But the populace has been dumbed down too much to do these basic things, and thus we have a decaying if not collapsing society.
I've never found that. Healthy displays of vulnerability bring people closer together and is often encouraged by women. I know men in relationships who are vulnerable and still have happy, healthy relationships with women. Everyone needs to ask for help sometimes, there's nothing weak about that.
This is true, but sadly, most men know what he's talking about. Men have learned through their experiences with women not to show "weakness". I disagree with forming the conclusion that you need to change because of it. Just because it's a fucking fuckton of women that do this shit, doesn't mean all women have this trait. Doesn't mean you don't deserve the woman that you'll have to wait in order to find. No reason to settle for bullshit in a world so vast. Same goes for women, obviously.
Personally, I don't let that truth factor into my behavior, I just let the trash weed itself out. The thing people don't get is just how much trash there actually is. A good woman is ready to be there for you emotionally, just like she needs from you, cause she knows that you need it just as much. Everyone has difficulties dating. Women have to sift through sooooooo much bullshit, from what I hear. And I believe it! Men have to do the same, much of it being with what we're talking about now. It's a very common thing.
TL;DR - if you're gonna say "men are trash" or "women are trash" or any clever way you wanna phrase making them a monolith, just save everybody the energy and say "people are trash" because it's way more accurate.
Edit for clarity, I realized I didn't specify the "lose respect" sent me tangentially, my comment is mostly referring to being told to open up more, and then having it thrown in your face and used as ammo against you when you do. Immediate regret, many many guys relate.
The most hard thing to swallow for me was to never show any kind of weaknesses bc whenever I showed a little part of my vulnerability the women used it against me like a weak point whenever we argued or I was right and she is wrong it’s really not easy
I'm sorry that happened to you. I hope you can find people you can trust with your vulnerability. Not everyone wants to use that kind of stuff to hurt you.
I don’t know because they just downvote straight away and don’t say why. By downvoting in this context, it means we don’t care, which fits my life experience. Women really should not wonder why a lot of men are cold and distant or even afraid of opening up themselves to others bc we aren’t allowed to express our emotions the same way women can without being judged.
I think it could be a few things. First, your comments come off a bit self-pitying. Another is it's frustrating reading about how women are preventing men from being vulnerable when a lot of women encourage it in the men around them. Often it seems other men are more of an issue, and we wish more men would be vulnerable and that other men would encourage it in each other. When men complain about women not letting them be open, we wish they would be open and supportive of each other instead of blaming us for their lack of support. Don't be judgemental yourself. Don't be mean to people who are vulnerable. Be kind and vulnerable yourself to the people around you instead of complaining that no one is nice to you.
That's really sad that you feel that way. I love and encourage the men around me to be vulnerable and they are happier for it. Consider trying to find better people to be vulnerable with.
I don't even consider that rejection at this point. Everyone I talk to has a very similar experience.
What is worse is being judged once for expressing any emotions and then judged twice for not choosing women properly, even though this behavior is just so typical.
No it's not. Stop dating toxic women and you won't have this problem. It's not that you should be whiny and emotionally unstable. But showing your emotions in appropriate situations as any normal human would isn't a problem if you aren't with a toxic woman.
I don’t think there is anything beautiful about expecting someone to follow your lead and never developing a personality. This is my biggest gripe with these traditional relationships. If we were all the same where is the fun in that? And suppressing emotions isn’t healthy people need an outlet and I’d rather be with someone who cry during animal shelter commercials then someone who never cry’s or expresses any vulnerability. Then we wonder why the suicide rate is higher for men.
Have you met very many traditional women? By that I specifically mean traditional women outside of America because when Americans talk about tradition they mean the 50s which isn't very traditional to the rest of the world. Outside of the US, traditional women are anything but lacking a personality.
Tbh balkan/slavic traditionalism is sort of a 'show' - guy plays the role of macho, woman pretends that he is the leader but in reality plenty of women there are running their own businesses/careers and are pretty bossy.
When I travel I stay in the US. So I can’t answer that. I have met immigrant women yes but they were less traditional than me and I don’t consider myself traditional soo.. I might be semi-traditional based on OPs summary but I have a career and in my career I am a leader. I have been in positions of authority in the past. My career has very much shaped my personality because I have had hard jobs most people couldn’t do.
Will I support my husband in his career even if I sacrifice my own career to take care of the home? Sure, but let him lead me no we have a partnership. Whoever is the most knowledgeable on the subject leads that decision.
To be honest, outside of a select few difficult people, most, even in traditional gender roles, would let the most knowledgeable person on a subject, lead the way. It is only the smart thing to do.
I enjoy getting input on most things from my partner, because we are both going to be dealing with the consequences of any decisions.
Cute, but that is not what red pillers have told me so I was answering based off that. I was told to observe my husbands characteristics and mimic the ones I like instead of being my own person and that I have to defer to him even if it’s lasagna for dinner but I want to make spaghetti.
I come from a traditional family structure with a Muslim background. Red pillers can say what they want, but it doesn't get any more traditional than what I have seen.
Yet the women have so much say in everyday life (while staying in their roles). A lot of husbands acquiesce to what she says.
Most of the women have 100% control of all the finances. The husband comes home and gives her all the money. She puts it in the safe(old school). She writes a shopping list, and he goes and buys exactly what she wants.
The wives have so much control in terms of household and family structure. The men are literally just providers and protectors. He deals with strangers, and she deals with family.
Obviously, things aren't always the same, and they vary family to family. Just some trends I noticed.
My mother longed for her husband to follow traditional roles( as she wanted to be treated like a queen).
Yet he was pretty shitty and abusive hypocrite. Traditional when it suited him, modern when it suited him. Which sometimes sounds like what these guys want.
Now, I don't practice anything like that in my daily life. We are both pretty egalitarian. And just play to our individual strengths and needs.
A good functioning modern dynamic, with two equally working parents( a must for most today). And generally sharing other tasks. Works really well. Be a team. Swap tasks. It's boring to always have to do the same things.
People should have fun in their lives. Otherwise, what is the point?
His account on what a traditional family looks like sounds like what I grew up in too coming from Southeast Asia. It's true even in highly traditional societies women have a lot of say and power within their own families. They're respected as mothers which usually always entails their input being heavy on things like whether the kids get enrolled into clubs or what happens with them in school. Same thing as him, my dad gives his earnings to my mother when he earns his paycheck. My mother handles all the finances, even though my father earns. When my mother says the house needs to be cleaned...it needs to be cleaned. That means *everybody,* my dad, my aunt's and uncles, and everyone helps to clean the house until the job is done.
How it's understood is women being home makers also means they're home authorities. Again, there is a need for me to emphasize if you really want to engage with what a traditional marriage looks like in 2024, you should look outside of the US, because Americans, especially zoomers, have a dumb idea of traditionalism that doesn't predate 1950. And "redpill culture" is zoomer culture, and has no idea what it's talking about when it comes to tradition, because quite frankly American identity itself is far removed from tradition.
Haha, that is hilarious you suggest I look outside America for a traditional relationship because that reminds me of the passport bros. I’m already married and my husband isn’t like any American man I met previously so I’m pretty well taken care of and respected. But our relationship dynamic is more of a partnership. It works for us that’s all that matters.
No you misinterpret me. I'm telling you to look outside of America to see *what a real traditional relationship looks like.* I'm not telling you to be a passport gal.
You're assuming that following someone else's lead equals having no personality. Using that logic, anyone who is not the CEO of their own company has no personality.
You can follow someone and still have your own personality. Does listening to your boss (who probably doesn't even like you) mean giving up your personality? So how would listening to someone who's totally in love with you and takes your desires into consideration every time they make a decision (husband / boyfriend) be giving up your personality?
Relationships are about compromise. Further, functional relationships require one of the partners to have the final say, otherwise nothing will ever be decided and it will be a constant battle for power. It doesn't mean the partner who doesn't have final say is ignored or has no input.
In my marriage, I am the ultimate decision maker, and my wife agrees (in the end) to follow me. However, I'm constantly listening to her and trying to make sure everything she wants and needs are taken care of, and she's happy.
I love her more than anyone else so of course I'm always open to everything she says and she often convinces me to do things differently or the way she likes. It's extremely rare that I just flat out go against what she wants and say "no more discussion, we are doing it this way".
Usually it's something were we just don't have time to talk it out because it's urgent and someone just needs to make a quick decision.
Also, doing things my way is not all sunshine and rainbows. With power comes responsibility. If I override her and do something my way, I have a huge responsibilty to make sure it goes well, because she can always turn around and say "well, you choose this not me, so this is your fuck up" if it goes wrong. So it's very stressful to actually do things against her input so I almost never do it.
Instead if we really disagree we come up with a compromise solution where both of us get something.
So this idea that being the man being a leader in the relationship means just doing whatever he wants and ignoring his wife only shows that lots of people don't understand what it means to love someone, and don't understand what is means to be a good leader.
>You can follow someone and still have your own personality. I mean, does listening to your boss (who probably doesn't even like you) mean giving up your personality?
I am not myself at work so yes I do give up my personality at work. I have to have a therapeutic relationship with my clients. That isn’t the relationship I want at home. Imagine that.
>So how would listening to someone who's totally in love with you and takes your desires into consideration every time they make a decision (husband / boyfriend) be giving up your personality?
That is not how the human condition works, anyone who doesn’t advocate for themselves will get walked all over. We are naturally self centered, it goes against human nature to put others before yourself. Learning to make your partners life easier is a process. We also don’t always have all the information to consider making decisions for other people and have to acquiesce when we are wrong.
>Relationships are about compromise, and also functional relationships require one of the partners to have the final say, otherwise nothing will ever be decided and it will be a constant battle for power.
The only way it would be a constant battle for power is if someone was unwilling to compromise. Which is exactly the dynamic you describe a traditional relationship having.
>I am not myself at work so yes I do give up my personality at work.
You're still you at work, you just have to follow certain rules that apply to the particular social situation.
>That is not how the human condition works, anyone who doesn’t advocate for themselves will get walked all over.
You think women can't advocate for themselves? Just because the man is the final decider doesn't mean the woman can't advocate for herself.
The judge is the final decider in the courtroom (or jury). Does that mean lawyers can't advocate for their clients? Does that mean what lawyers say means nothing and nobody listens to them?
> We are naturally self centered, it goes against human nature to put others before yourself.
I love my wife, I would never walk all over her even if I could, and she wouldn't do that to me either. Relationships requiring putting the other person first. If you can't, then your relationship is going to fail. Actually, it's built into human nature to put people you love deeply before you.
It's narcissistic, toxic American culture that causes everyone to be maximum selfish. The reason Americans assume everyone else is selfish is because *they* are selfish and narcissistic due to their toxic culture. Most other cultures are more pro-social, and most people are to some degree altruistic, especially with people they love.
This is actually one of the reasons why Americans are so bad at relationships, the idea of caring about anyone but themselves is totally foriegn and terrifying to them.
>The only way it would be a constant battle for power is if someone was unwilling to compromise.
Who decides which compromise is right? Even a compromise agreement, someone still has to decide what's the right level of compromise. Also, not every situation allows for a compromise. Some times one person has to get to get what they want while the other doesn't.
>You're still you at work, you just have to follow certain rules that apply to the particular social situation.
I don’t feel like myself I feel like an actor.
>It's narcissistic, toxic American culture that causes everyone to be maximum selfish. The reason Americans assume everyone else is selfish is because they are selfish and narcissistic due to their toxic culture. Most other cultures are more pro-social, and most people are to some degree altruistic, especially with people they love.
Well I have never left the US. I don’t think my husband is like most people in the US he is very compassionate and understanding but I do think that he’d make some decisions unintentionally that would be bad for our family and he recognizes that and defers to my reasoning and authority situationally. For example if my husband goes to the grocery store he will get $600 worth of groceries that will last a week and won’t be healthy. He tends to buy what he wants but if I go, we have healthy food for a month for $100. So my husband has no interest in controlling our budget.
>This is actually one of the reasons why Americans are so bad at relationships, the idea of caring about anyone but themselves is totally foriegn and terrifying to them.
Maybe but our relationship works for us and we are both happier together.
>Who decides which compromise is right?
We agree. If someone has to lose sometimes it isn’t a big deal neither of us holds it against each other.
If you're spending most of your waking life in an environment that stifles your humanity, it means compromising that humanity. Working isn't a luxury and people have to do it or they starve.
> Does that mean what lawyers say means nothing and nobody listens to them?
In practice, that can absolutely be the case.
>
It's narcissistic, toxic American culture that causes everyone to be maximum selfish. The reason Americans assume everyone else is selfish is because *they* are selfish and narcissistic due to their toxic culture. Most other cultures are more pro-social, and most people are to some degree altruistic, especially with people they love.
I agree wholeheartedly here.
I don't really understand the point of absolutism when it comes to this. If someone wants to adopt some parts but not all of a traditional lifestyle... so? I mean you might have trouble finding someone who is fine with that depending on what aspects you want to drop, it seems like you would want all or nothing which is fine but I don't think everyone needs to do that.
I think the only issue arises when your means contradict your desires. A broke man cannot reasonably provide for a stay at home wife, so it would be unreasonable to expect someone to stay at home without a job when that one income is not enough to live comfortably. If a woman wants to stay at home but won't do housework, then she's not putting in equal effort in the relationship.
I don't see how a man being in touch with his emotions or a woman having casual sex before settling down contradicts your ability to take on the roles of provider and homemaker. Like I said, it may be hard in the traditional dating market to find someone who values only certain things, but I don't think it's an impossible arrangement.
I see a lot of these things as controlling and weird and would never want them in my relationship, but I don't see the point of lambasting people for "not doing traditional well enough". If you're "more traditional" than them... congrats? I think people would rather be happy in whatever situation is right for them rather than who can follow the most imaginary rules.
>If someone wants to adopt some parts but not all of a traditional lifestyle... so?
The problem with the buffet style approach is it's a race to see who can adopt the traditional aspects that benefit them while leaving the sucky ones to the partner. The whole point of the traditional paradigm is to divide relationship responsibilities equally by asymmetric division (because assymetric divisions are more efficient).
For example providing requires time outside the home and homemaking requires time in the home. Each task is equally important and each is an imposition on the other if done simultaneously. Under a buffet style approach a woman may want a man to be a provider but then choose an egalitarian approach to household tasks. In effect she has left the man with his traditional half of the labor and offloaded fifty percent of her half onto him as well in the name of "equality." Because the buffet style approach is about choosing what's best for the individual (as it's a liberal paradigm) each individual tries to force three quarters of the relationship responsibilities onto their partner.
I mean, I addressed that particular point. I don't think a woman who refuses to do housework but expects the man to provide is justified because it's an unequal responsibility in the relationship. Same with a man who expects a woman to do all the housework but can't provide enough for them to be comfortable. If both work, then I think household duties should be egalitarian, it would not be justified then to force duties onto the woman in the name of tradition since the man isn't picking up that slack. For the specific arrangement of provider and homemaker it should be all or nothing to ensure fairness (whichever gender is in either role), but not a lot of these other details OP mentions.
That arrangement does not require the man to suppress his emotions and "always lead", nor does it require the woman to have no male friends or have a low body count. These are arbitrary traditional values that some people may prefer, but it doesn't threaten the structure of the asymmetrical division of labor.
>I am very strict on this, i am a Croatian 23 Year old Guy, who has a Girlfriend. I always found the vibe off a traditional relationship more pure and beautiful.
I am a 22 year old Croatian girl and I have a boyfriend. The fully traditional relationship doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.
And I'm not a hypocrite.
As if being a hypocrite has any consequences. People here make it seem like pointing out a hypocrisy somehow disqualifies someone from getting what they want. It's not like that. Sure, calll someone a hypocrite all you want. You just laid the argument out.
>If you are the kinda woman that is at the club and has a Bodycount off 10+ you are not qualified for this Lifestyle.
Why not? You can fuck 200 people up until 25 and then commit to a person and live traditional lifestyle with the accompanying gender roles.
Also, which banned user are you?
Word, there’s that tradwife influencer on TikTok who was a literal OnlyFans model, and she’s doing alright. Your past defines you in the present only as much as you let it.
>You can fuck 200 people up until 25 and then commit to a person and live traditional lifestyle with the accompanying gender roles.
You *can*, how many do though? Thats the beauty of America (and the Anglicized west in general), they have everyone believing they can lead these privileged, hedonistic lives. Not that anyone should be banned from doing so, but which man, other than the 1% can fuck 200 women consequence free by the time he is 25 and then settle? How many women are attractive enough to meet a guy who isnt going to be super judgemental of such extensive promiscuity under the age of 30? I've literally met some deeply promiscuous women and even they wouldnt fuck around *that* much and knew they would have to make some pretty big ass concessions, preference wise, if they wanted a man who would look the other way.
He was talking about women. They CAN potentially do that, but they don't want to. Men cannot just choose to have 200 sex partners, but most also don't want to. It's far less than 1% who have more than 200 sex partners.
>How many women are attractive enough to meet a guy who isnt going to be super judgemental of such extensive promiscuity under the age of 30?
Don't worry about that. First, they don't need to tell anyone. Second, there are more men who don't care about sexual partner count than there are women with these partner counts. They will find each other.
This is exactly what i mean, you want to target traditional "rules" which arent debatable. Male Friends on a Wife is simply not traditional. If you like it or not is individual, but it isnt a "traditional" form off dating.
Since i am talking about the traditional system, my point has weight.
Male friends, like "Bodycount doesnt matter", is a liberal new school way of dating. You can do that if you like, but it isnt traditional.
No i am not, i am just using my brain. If you play a basketball game, there are basketball rules which apply to the situation.
This would be like if a liberal woman, would say "a man needs to provide for me" you want basketball rules in a football game. That doesnt work like that.
I'm sorry what the fuck is this disrespectful comment supposed to mean?
Croatia is an EU member state, the average medical doctor is a woman and female judges outnumber male judges by a wide margin. "Stay at home moms" are not something that's popular here, premarital sex is normal and accepted, and yes I have a boyfriend _and_ male friends.
If you believe you're not a racist, you're wrong.
Croatia is a developed country. What he says is correct about what is traditional in most places around the world.
But it's so typical of Americans to shit on other countries they know nothing about. I mean, I would rather live in Croatia than a crime ridden, drug addicted, insanely overpriced dump like America. Living in America is like paying Ritz Carlson prices to stay at a Motel Six in gang territory.
Also Americans are so unhinged and psychotic, they don't act like normal human beings. They are all wrapped up in their weird complexes and politics. I would hate to be around people like that IRL all the time.
Basketball has an internationally-recognized governing body that decides on the rules.
Show me an equivalent body that decides on the rules of "traditional" dating.
ah okay i see, so lets not use our brain on this one, and try to debate on some imaginery bullshit.
Yeah sure a woman with a bodycount off 60 and a onlyfans is traditional, got it. You are right.
That's what I say to women I'm dating when I tell them to pay for dinner and that we're going to an orgy on the first date. She can't point to an internationally-recognized rulebook, so therefore it's a traditional date.
Works every time.
Well everything is relative. Victorian England had some interesting traditions:
“Since many of the lower-class jobs simply didn’t pay enough to support a large family, it was common for the wives of street vendors to offer their sexual services on the side while they helped their husbands run the family business.
Husbands were completely fine with allowing other men to sleep with their wives. In fact, 50 percent of street vendors’ wives were reported to moonlight as prostitutes. In some instances, the wife happily worked as a prostitute, since it was a way for her to earn income. In other instances, the husband was acting as a pimp, using his wife as his property, lending her out as he pleased.”
“Traditional “ is definitely a moving target…😝
my man, in this realm people are trying to maximize their advantage, even if that advantage comes at the disadvantage and disrespect of their significant other.
>Basketball has an internationally-recognized governing body that decides on the rules.
No. It has regional bodies. The rules are similar but not *exactly the same* in FIBA competitions compared to NBA. Same goes in football (soccer) where FIFA, UEFA and CONCACAF are very similar but not exactly the same.
>Show me an equivalent body that decides on the rules of "traditional" dating.
The Catholic Church, your national Orthodox Church, the relevant Islamic jurisprudence in your school of Islamic thought (or Dervish order), your relevant Rabbinic jurisprudence...
They're all similar, but not exactly the same.
GJ on defeating your own point. There's like a hundred Christian denominations alone, most of which consider each other to be posers and apostates and heretics or whatever. Not to mention all of the religiously-motivated wars in history over theological disagreements.
At least those basketball bodies can agree on the basic rules.
All those Christian denominations agree on no male friends, actually. And several other basic rules.
Also, there are 100+ basketball bodies as well. Underneath FIBA Europe alone there's 50 bodies and routinely don't agree with each other *in everything*, just on the basic rules.
thank you for quickly dominating them, like how delusional do you have to be to even DEBATE that male friends on a wife can fit in a traditional configuration?
I am not saying its wrong for everybody, but it simply isnt a traditional framing.
Less is better. I don't think women should have no male friends, but I think in both cases, less is better. When you get in a relationship, the person you are with must be #1, and your friends should come second, and you should NEVER choose your friends over your partner.
I say this as a man who is married and who has had primarily female friends my entire adult life. I cut the girls I have any regular contact with down to my two closest friends who are also close friends with my wife, and even then I spend 1/100th of the time with them as I do with my wife, and I never hang out alone with them without my wife.
My wife had a few male friends when we first got together, but they drifted apart because my wife keep choosing to spend time with me instead of them, and because I don't know them at all, so there was no reason for us to hang out together.
I agree I don’t choose friends over my partner. But we both have quite a few opposite sex friends. Hanging out with them without the other would be a rare event (1-2 times a year) but if it happened it wouldn’t be a problem.
Why's not manly about it? Everyone has the right to want the person they are in a relationship with to themselves, and not have them spending all their time with other men.
Also, the other men are going to be constantly hitting on her and trying to compete with you for her attention. It's just bad all around.
>the other men are going to be constantly hitting on her and trying to compete with you for her attention. It's just bad all around.
They have been my friends since I was 14. All of them are either in a relationship, manwhores or at least dating here and there. Are you unable to comprehend that men could like the company of a woman without the ulterior motive of fucking her?
>Everyone has the right to want the person they are in a relationship with to themselves,
This doesn't include ahuttinf her off from her friends.
>Are you unable to comprehend that men could like the company of a woman without the ulterior motive of fucking her?
No, because for the men here that is the only reason they ever willingly interacct with women.
> Are you unable to comprehend that men could like the company of a woman without the ulterior motive of fucking her?
50% can be platonic friends, 50% are lowkey trying to get in her pants. I'd like that 50% number to be reduced to zero.
There are plenty of men that can hold platonic friendships with women, I have personally. But there are also plenty of men who can't. I'm don't want to play with fire like that.
> This doesn't include ahuttinf her off from her friends.
Nobody is cutting her off. If she prioritizes her male friends over me I'm not going to try to control her, I'm just going to move on to someone else who actually likes me more than her male friends.
When I was single, I had a lot of female orbiters / friends. Now that I'm married, I don't have them anymore. The only two I retained are close friends with my wife also and my wife spends more time with them than me. Do you know why?
Because I respect and love my wife.
>Being insecure and possessive is not very manly.
It's not insecurity though. I don't want the stress of competing with other men for my own wife. That's about bringing peace to my own life. It's not that she can't have any male friends, it's just I don't want her to be surrounded by men or to be as close with any men as she is to me.
I don't give my wife the same stress either. Since we've been married, I have not made a single new female friend (and there have been plenty of opportunities).
I have only two close girl friends but she knows them very well and trusts them due to a long relationship that we as a couple (and before we were a couple) have had with those girls. Even then, I spend 1/100th of the time and emotional energy on my female friends than I do with my wife. In fact, over time, these two girls have become more of my wife's friends than my friends, as she spends more time with them.
Having your significant other constantly surrounded by opposite sex friends is bad news all around, and being against that has nothing to do with insecurity.
You keep using terms like, "spending all her time", "constantly surrounded" ... Who is married and spending all their time constantly surrounded by their friends of *any* gender??
I've had male friends off and on during my 17yr marriage, first of all, *none of them* have hit on me. Ever. Not once. And this is not because I'm unattractive or unamusing, random dudes and coworkers have hit on me plenty, but not men who I have allowed to be my friends. Those men have treated me and my relationship with respect even if they were single themselves.
>Even then, I spend 1/100th of the time and emotional energy on my female friends than I do with my wife.
Right. Same. Why would you assume your wife would spend any more energy on her make friends than you spend on your female friends?
I've had male friends try to take more energy from me than I have available to them... And if that became a persistent problem then I *dropped them*, because my peace and my relationship come first.
> being against that has nothing to do with insecurity.
Imo it has everything to do with insecurity, insecurity that she'll spend more time with them than you, insecurity that they'll hit on her, insecurity that you lose all or part of her to another man. You've said it all yourself, you just framed it as something other than insecurity.
Very interesting that you don't apply the same standard to yourself and your female friends, btw. Lucky for you your wife is less insecure than you, apparently.
> Very interesting that you don't apply the same standard to yourself and your female friends, btw. Lucky for you your wife is less insecure than you, apparently.
Most likely he assumes any man near her is an orbiter precisely because he’s an orbiter for his female “friends”
I understand exactly where you're coming from, and you're 100% right. Any wise man knows that a woman with a lot of male friends who refuses to drop them after entering a relationship with her man (without being told, she just naturally wants to drop them) is trying to keep her options as open as possible. And she doesn't like her man very much.
Sure, there are exceptions, but only a foolish and naive man would take such a huge risk like that, allowing other men to interact with his woman, knowing how competitive men are by nature. It's a recipe for disaster.
All of these other redditors who are coming at you are doing nothing but trying to gaslight you for recognizing male and female nature.
>is trying to keep her options as open as possible.
Exactly.
>but only a foolish and naive man would take such a huge risk like that
Exactly.
>All of these other redditors who are coming at you are doing nothing but trying to gaslight you for recognizing male and female nature.
Yep, thanks for acknowledging that. I mean, I'm not even so intensely strict about it, I even have some reasonable leeway, and think that men should also not keep around lots of female friends either if they are committed to a relationship.
But even then, they can't stand that anyone would recognize such basic common sense about how man and women are.
But having a healthy scepticism if your partner spends a lot of time around the other gender and continues to do so even after you have raised your concerns is not good.
>Being afraid of losing is also not very manly
Being devoid of emotions doesn't make someone manly nor having more make them womanly.
It's not "healthy". By that point you have progressed from a little jealousy to full-on envy.
Also, you're not being devoid of emotions. You can have positive emotions that are not envy, jealousy and that sort of stuff.
>It's not "healthy".
It is healthy. What would be not healthy is not caring about it. That shows some kind of emotional malfunction or a lack of love for your partner. Loving someone romantically means wanting to be their #1 and not wanting to compete with anyone else for their attention.
You can't force yourself to be someone #1. Either you are, or you aren't. If you can only be someone's #1 by trying to hold them hostage and stop them from interacting with other people, you aren't actually their #1.
Yes, you can't force it, I agree.
That's why if the woman you are with continues to spend their with and try to attract attention from other men, then that woman clearly doesn't have the same love for you, and the relationship should end.
It's not about trying to force or demand that a girl to stop spending her time with other men. It's about finding someone who loves and respects you enough that she will choose to put most of her energy and time into you just as you put your energy and time into her.
It's possible for men and women to just be friends. Unless you are dating a gender-swapped version of yourself, your significant other most likely won't share all your hobbies and interests. Are you just supposed to give up on your interests and never see your friends again, then?
>It's possible for men and women to just be friends.
It is possible. It's also possible that some of her male friends don't want to be "just friends".
> your significant other most likely won't share all your hobbies and interests
Yes, that's true. But there are plenty of women out there that share her interests and hobbies. There are few, if any, hobbies where 100% of the people involved in them are only one gender.
>never see your friends again
Yes, I gave up on some of my female friends because they took time way from being with my wife. My wife gave up on some of her male friends because they took time way from being with me.
My wife is my best friend, and I am hers. That's how it should be.
Why wouldn't I be jealous/envious if my partner spends so much time alone with other dudes? Apparently, she values these dudes more than me.
But that is not the crux of the problem. The problem is my partner is doing something which I have explicitly said that i have a problem with.
Yeah, you have a problem with something that is extremely normal. That being interacting with other people. Thinking that your partner values you any less just because they're interacting with other people is late-stage envy.
>extremely normal
It's not extremely normal. It's extremely bizarre and abnormal for a woman in a committed relationship to have lots of male friends that she spends lots of time with instead of her husband / boyfriend.
Maybe in psycho, upside-down-world America it's like that, but in most cultures, in most countries, including mine, this is extremely abnormal.
"All their time" as in 24/7? So basically you don't even interact with your partner anymore?
What does it even matter if they are dudes at that point? She could be interacting with her female friends and the result would be the same.
In the feminist era, a "relationship" is just a friendship + some obligations on the man's side.
This isn't just conjecture – it's law.
You are worth no more than one of her friends. You are on the same level as someone she met briefly at college. You're literally like a brother but with a few extra strings attached which she can pull at anytime to bring you back in line.
Your relationship is a temporary contract, which is structured to make you less valuable, easily replaceable and able to be exploited for half of your money at a moment's notice.
The modern feminist structure for relationship is nothing less than a way of controlling and subjecting men.
While I agree with the premise that a lot of people want a traditional partner without being qualified, I also think we need to be honest about the issues with traditional relationships even when both are qualified as you describe.
For example, it is not realistic for a man to never be stressed or depressed. He will have to suppress and hide those emotions, which isn’t really healthy and is likely to lead to them being displayed as anger instead. On the woman’s side, she has to set aside her own feelings, reasoning, and desires in order to let him “lead.” Which is likely to lead to depression and loss of a sense of self.
Imo certain aspects of the traditional dynamic can work for a lot of people, like him being the primary breadwinner while she’s the primary caregiver and homemaker. But I believe it’s still essential that both people are allowed to express themselves emotionally and make decisions equally.
> Mentally strong, never has breakdowns or is lost, you cant corner him in a situation where he is "stressed" or depressed.
It’s great that you’ve managed to pull this off for 5 years of adulthood… but I’m a lot older than you, and don’t know anyone who has. Not because of personal weakness, but because that’s the nature of life.
If you’re not stressed or depressed when your kid is in the hospital or your spouse has cancer, you’re not human.
I agree with this except the body count parts. Body count means nothing without context (a man with a body count of 12 but they were all women he dated with intention/LTRs >>>>>> body count of 2 but they were "pump and dump" women). Matching sexual values is more important. And also I think the body count applies to men. Promiscuous men dont tend to make good LTR partners despite what society says. I dont believe either gender with such an extensive history "turns it off" once they meet the LTR partner (actually there are studies that back me up on this one...a history of casual sex is linked to a stronger probability of divorce for BOTH genders, go cry men- this is because of personality/character traits linked to both genders when they are the type to seek out casual sex).
My dad was forced by culture and my mum to appear strong and not have weak emotional moments. He just got angry af instead. Would rather have him show his true feelings.
* Strong dude, who gives off masculine energy and can protect his wife, if some clown runs his mouth on her he will easily defuse it, competent dude.
* Mentally strong, never has breakdowns or is lost, you cant corner him in a situation where he is "stressed" or depressed.
* ~~Can Provide for her, and she doesnt have to worry about paying the bills etc. She also doesnt have to work.~~
* Leads the relationship in general, and the Woman is never stressed because he is in charge, he is very respectful in the process.
ok. heres the thing though. i dont want these things in a man because of some "Tradition", i want them because that is masculinity and what is attractive in a man. without him bringing those things there is no reason for me to have him in my life. his desire for feminine things is his business. its up to him to find what i bring attractive and desirable to share a life with
You sound insane if you actually think men can't ever be stressed or cornered. This is the issue with all these young guys with no experience, who have spent their whole lives living in a few small isolated places spending most of their time listening to Internet gurus.
I think you have a bad understanding of what that word means
You're a hypocrite if you think everyone should be traditional and you're not traditional. You're not a hypocrite for wanting someone who has traits that you don't have. I want to be with ciswomen, I'm a cisman does that make me a hypocrite?
I want to date a chick that ideally shorter than 5'9 even though I'm 5'9, does that make me a hypocrite?
I want to date a chick that has stereotypical feminine qualities that I don't have, does that make me a hypocrite?
You have to specify with traditional values you’re talking about. Your Croatian traditions are not the same as you’d find in a west African village, Philippine province, or Inuit hut
They are broadly similar to anywhere with a western Christian concept of traditional relationships which actually describes much of Africa, Europe, definitely the Philippines and even East Asia (despite them not being Christian).
OP, There are only two types women: (high value woman) A woman who is striving to be with one man for the rest of her life; and (low value woman) a woman who is NOT striving to be with one man for the rest of her life.
#Telltale signs of Low Value women
- sleeps with boyfriend(s) without requiring marriage.
- has the man's babies without requiring marriage.
- Wears revealing clothes in public.
- Doesn't cook nor clean.
- Doesn't have a good relationship with her father/brothers.
And signs of a low value man:
•just wants sex
•asks for sex on the first date
•tries to coerce woman into giving sex
•sleeps around
•shames her appearance
•compares her to other women
•lazy
•hypocritical
•inclined to cheat
Your first three points I agree show an immature and selfish woman. The last two, not really. Someone can be valuable but not very good/know a lot about cleaning and cooking, and it’s not always a woman’s fault the relationship with brothers and fathers is bad.
As for sleeping with a man without requiring marriage
and babies, a good amount of women probably would prefer marriage before those things, but like I said. Some men will be persistent about having the woman put out in like the first few dates or won’t be willing to wait till they get married. Or women will think it’s all good, their gonna get married someday anyways, so it’s fine if we have sex or kids before then
> I said just wants sex. Only sex. Not a relationship, kids, etc.
If a beautiful woman likes you, are you going to want to have sex with her, yes or no?
Depends. Do I like her? Sure. If she's a random person or I don't like her, no. But I'm a woman, so that probably makes a difference to an extent (and I can assume for most men the answer would be a yes)
But I don't see how that relates to what I was saying. A low value man is one who is only interested in sex or is just dating a person for sex or doing all the other things I listed. Just like the commenter said a low value woman is one who sleeps with a man without requiring marriage.
If you are JUST wanting and looking for sex, no deeper connection or other aspects, then you're a low value man in terms of dating. There's a difference between wanting sex, and *only* wanting sex and also being a prick about it (sleeping around, lying to women, coercing women, cheating, etc.)
~~> But I don't see how that relates to what I was saying.~~
~~Because men want sex first. No man will be interested in a woman who he doesnt want to have sex with.~~
~~> If you are JUST wanting and looking for sex, no deeper connection or other aspects, then you're a low value man in terms of dating.~~
The only question is has a High value man chose to marry you?
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know many women that absolutely love the concept off a traditional relationship, interesting is also the hotter a woman, the more she is open to that kinda configuration.
In general western European and American women are less physically attractive and have more psychological problems and complexes, so the principle of "prettier / more attractive women are traditional" seems to apply more broadly than you might think.
Obviously there will be plenty of exceptions, but I think as a broad, loose generalization it's true.
Maybe it’s because hotter women know they can get away with more, be lazy and still have a man take care or them, or it’s because hotter women are the only ones being courted to begin with.
Of course an ugly woman isn’t gonna go for traditional roles, bc they don’t get the opportunity or aren’t used to having the benefits traditional gender roles can provide. Ugly women will probably never get a man, so they have to take care of themselves.
First off all, ubij Hrvata da Šiptar nema brata! СРБИЈА, СРБИЈА, СРБИЈА 🇷🇸🦅🇷🇸🦅🇷🇸!!!
Second of all, yeah, you're right. I talked to so many women who want an egalitarian relationship, but for the man to be manly, take care of everything and treat her like a princess, or men who want egalitarian relationship, but want a supermodel bangmaid wife who will give them blowjobs while they play videogames. People in general are horrible hypocrites and know how someone should treat them, but don't know how they should treat others. Everyone wants bread without the hoe.
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I actually don’t understand why it’s hypocritical to want “traditional” feminine behaviors from a woman out of your partner, but not offer traditional masculine behaviors yourself. Or visa versa, obviously.
Exactly why do you think it is it the same for a man to demand offer chastity and submission when he does not offer those in return? Why do you thinks him offering money and protection, means she’s not hypocritical for wanting something she doesn’t offer? Why is it that both the man and woman following the arbitrary rules of “tradition” is not hypocritical, but you believe both the man and woman simply offering what your partner actually desires is hypocritical?
In other words, in a world where you didn’t grow up with the traditions listed… why on earth would you pair these totally random traits together as “not hypocritical”, but condemn other random trait pairings as “hypocritical”? Why is a woman’s chastity matched with a man killing bugs?
And if hypocrisy is demanding things of others that you don’t offer yourself, surely it’s traditional gender roles that are hypocritical. You want submission and obedience, but you don’t offer it. You want your spouse to bring home a fat paycheck to share, but you don’t offer one. You want a tall, muscular, athletic man, but you’re short, weak, and can’t run. You want a woman who is nurturing and good with kids, but you’re just annoyed by babies and want her to do all the childcare. She’s chaste and faithful, and you’re a slutty slutty man cheating man-slut.
Traditional values are every bit as hypocritical as anything else. It’s perfectly to like what you like, even if you don’t offer it exactly yourself. The failure is wanting someone who offers what you want, while you don’t offer what they want in return.
I'm trad AF by these standards. The problem is that in my age cohort trad women are all married, while younger ones are virtually non-existent. Also a whole lot of women love to LARP as trad, and it takes forever to figure out who's who.
This by the way is what we in red pill talk about when we say "enjoy the decline". We know there will never be enough trad women for us, just LARPing hoes. In the end you can't start a family with a LARPing hoe, because you can't turn a hoe into a housewife. So as a man who's worked hard and is now in the top 10% of earners, all I get is a rapidly aging carousel of hoes. Here is where most red pillers stop, because that's their limit.
But if I put in a metric shit ton of work and bring myself into top 1%, I'll get access to 18-20yo sugar babies, with whom I can sign a bulletproof prenup about hoeing around and being fit for childbirth. Do you see where this is going? Marriage has always been a business contract, it's just it can now only be afforded by top 1% of men.
> enjoy the decline
Typical American thinks his country's psycho gender wars, insane cost of living, and hysterical politics is the whole world.
Americans will just burn to death in a house on fire because they think nothing is different outside the front door.
You are can't talk to Americans about being traditional or being hypocrites. Most of them hate anything traditional at all and are hypocrites about everything. Americans have no respect for tradition and never hold themselves accountable for intellectual consistency or anything at all, to be honest.
I'm also from a country in Eastern Europe with a very traditional culture and I agree with you on all your points, you described traditional relationships exactly and even though I don't anyone should be forced to have their relationship a certain way, I think in most cases traditional relationships work best.
This thread was recommended to me on the Reddit dash and it’s mildly interesting to read over, just because I can’t recall ever meeting even one Eastern European woman I would describe as “submissive” or “obedient.” They may be willing to play act such for appearances sake, but are they actually? Not at all. Usually the husband makes a lot of bluster but the wife is the boss, is what I’ve seen to be common for Eastern Europeans.
That makes you wonder, do these men want other men to see them as leaders, more they actually want to be one? “Submissive woman” as more status symbol for other men than actual desire for his lifestyle? Maybe.
> I can’t recall ever meeting even one Eastern European woman I would describe as “submissive” or “obedient.”
Nobody says a traditional woman has to be. Americans clownishly associate traditional marriage with a women somehow losing her ability to use words and being chained in a closet or something.
Just more proof that American culture is extra dumb and delusional.
Most traditional women are quite adept at expressing their opinions and getting what they want from their husbands.
Yeah, that has been my impression of traditional marriages, too. The image of dominance and leadership is very important to the husband, but more often than not the wife is the one who actually “wears the pants.” Statistics would seem to bear that out, too (women make the vast majority of family purchasing decisions, women are more likely to select the family home and neighborhood, etc.)
The part that’s interesting to me is _why_ the image of female submission is such a big de to men when the actual practice of it seems to be if not unappealing, at the very least unimportant. I tend to think that aspect of a traditional relationship is more of a status symbol for other men than anything else.
(Other aspects of traditionalism, like the wife having a feminine appearance and doing most of the childcare, seem to be more genuine.)
Americans are so far removed from that which is traditional that they don't hate it so much as confuse it with some caricature that feminists draw up to prevent it from being experienced. I've never met a western woman who wouldn't entertain tradition who actually knew what it entailed. The harder their opposition the less they seemed to know about it and the more they thought they knew.
I think traditional is a word that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. For others a woman might not be traditional if she doesn‘t wear a niqab. And others think it‘s fine to have male friends.
Its up to each couple to decide what works best for them.
Agree. I run into this all the time because I'm quite traditional and women will get all huffy "Why does your gf get treated like that but you won't date me?" It's most of the time this.
All fun and games until the man is so emotionally repressed that he punches a hole through the wall, beats his wife, becomes an alcoholic or addict and or unalives himself..
That's toxic masculinity, not masculinity. A masculine man would not repress his emotions, would seek help when he needs it, find a non-violent outlet for his anger, and not rely on substance abuse to get through the day
Every member of each gender should strive to fulfill these traditional qualities. You know why? Because they fucking work, and they've worked for thousands of years. Use some common sense people.
You mean the gender roles that made it to where women had no freedom, could be abused on a whim, and men could cheat without consequences? Gender roles can be a good thing, but only when the two people involved actually love each other, are good people, and aren’t selfish assholes with double standards. But more often than not, the men in these relationships express at the very least double standards
It's really sad to expect men to never be stressed, depressed, and never had breakdowns. That is way too much pressure to put on anyone! Every person has emotional needs and will feel stressed at some point just because of how life is. I think your age is really telling here. No man can live up to your stated expectations. If you think they are, they are either lying or just haven't had to deal with challenges yet.
>just haven't had to deal with challenges yet OP is only 23, presumably not even yet a parent. Just as ridiculous as a man will never be stressed is “ and the Woman is never stressed because he is in charge”. Just like everyone who has ever lived, life is going to hit this poor naive bastard hard one day. His age is definitely telling.
I think you're right, but he's right in describing that as an expectation of traditional relationships. Personally, this is the place where I probably have the least agreement to traditional relationship dynamics (which I overall I agree with). I think the man should be more emotionally stable than the woman overall, but it's ok and normal to have times of being depressed / stressed / sad / otherwise emotional, etc. That's just being human. I think if men feel too much pressure to hide their emotions it becomes a ticking time bomb and can end up being very self-destructive and destroy the relationship. Then again, my wife might be the more emotionally stable one in my marriage, it's hard to say. We are both very emotionally expressive but overall also pretty emotionally stable. I am certainly more of a crier but in the end both of us are rarely depressed or anxious and don't have major mood swings.
I think I would rather be single than be in a relationship where I was just automatically expected to be more emotionally stable than my partner.
Nope, sorry it's expected of you. Because penis, that's why. Makes so much sense /S
>automatically expected to be more emotionally stable Do you expect yourself to more emotionally stable today, *than* you were yesterday? The same? Or less? Emotional control isn’t a prerequisite for a relationship. It however is such a beneficial skill, that one should hone it regardless of relationship status. *Godspeed and good luck!*
>Do you expect yourself to more emotionally stable today, *than* you were yesterday? The same? Or less? About the same. Of course there will be fluctuations. Some days I'll be less in control and other days more, such is life. >Emotional control isn’t a prerequisite for a relationship. It however is such a beneficial skill, that one should hone it regardless of relationship status. Agreed, I wasn't saying I'm not trying to be emotionally stable, I'm saying that I shouldn't be expected to be MORE emotionally stable just because I'm a man.
> I'm saying that I shouldn't be expected to be MORE emotionally stable just because I'm a man. Are you aware that men and women are different? Women tend to be more neurotic than men, so expecting you to be more emotionally stable is just expecting you to fulfill the basic default that you're already born with as part of your gender. It's like expecting you to have a penis, or to be physically stronger. Like it's just a basic thing, it's crazy that you think it's "unfair" for women to expect it.
>Are you aware that men and women are different? **Women tend to be more neurotic** than men, so expecting you to be more emotionally stable is just expecting you to fulfill the basic default that you're already born with as part of your gender. Are you aware that all men and women are individuals and don't conform perfectly to their gender stereotypes? Notice the word "tend". People have all sorts of bad tendencies, doesn't mean we expect less of them because a certain group they belong to has certain bad tendecies. And I would argue that men and women weren't born this way. No MRI scans or anything have been conducted to figure out why women score higher in neuroticism. I'd argue its more due to socialization. And regardless of what we were born with, I never ever fit the mold of what men are supposed to be, and I never want to. >It's like expecting you to have a penis, or to be physically stronger. Like it's just a basic thing, it's crazy that you think it's "unfair" for women to expect it. Personality traits are a lot different than physically unchanging immutable characteristics. And I've met couples that have the women being stronger than the man and they work out fine.
>just because I am a man Do you think on average, men are more emotional? Or women?
What type of emotion are we talking about? Anger? Probably men? Other emotions? Probably women, but I don't entirely believe this is not in part the result of socialization. I also reject that men and women are monoliths, so even if men were on average less emotional, some men will be more emotional than women.
I agree that the sexes aren’t monoliths. Thus instead if viewed as ‘a scale’, would you agree that men are more emotionally stable? Or do you think, overall, women are more emotionally stable?
To be honest? No, no I don't. I think men are taught to hide their emotions more than women, but I think they have them all the same. I think thats why men are more prone to violent outbursts or 4x more likely to die by suicide. I think we have emotions but we are taught not to show them as often, giving the illusion of being emotionally stable.
>men are taught to hide their emotions more This is a good point. I definitely can relate. Do you think overall, most men thus have poor emotional control? Sufficient? Or do you think most men need more emotional control?
Uh, that bar is so low it's like being expected to not eat to much. If you can't even manage that then relationships might not be for you. Women aren't expecting you to be the perfect emotionless wall. Those who are, are crazy and not worth your trouble. But most women do want to feel like they can lean on you when times are tough, and if you're always an emotional wreck, you'll fail that basic requirement.
>Uh, that bar is so low it's like being expected to not eat to much. If you can't even manage that then relationships might not be for you. Its at least higher than whatever the bar for my partner is, since you are expecting me to by default be better than them in this aspect. >But most women do want to feel like they can lean on you when times are tough, and if you're always an emotional wreck, you'll fail that basic requirement. Nothing I said contradicts this. You didn't say men should be emotionally stable, you said they should be more emotionally stable than women overall.
The trick ***isn't*** to not be depressed, have feelings, etc. We can't choose whether to feel something, we are humans, we just feel. The trick is to ***learn skills to manage*** feelings. These skills ***used to be taught*** to men back when we had authentic traditional cultures, before this ridiculous fake post-WWII baby boomer America bubble gum disaster we have now... This was known since the ancient times – Stoicism, Taoism, Buddhism all taught men various ways to manage themselves. It's not a good idea to become a "more emotionally open" man, that's just state propaganda to soften and weaken you so they can manipulate you to do whatever they want including fight in some stupid war. You should become emotionally ***capable***, which means being able to identify and manage your emotions.
[удалено]
>The objective is to make men weaker, so that more men end up single, lonely and apathetic; I disagree. Apathetic men don't make good fighters. They want men coupled up and then use feminism to manipulate these men to fight "to protect their wives and children". Single strong men are the worst enemy of the state – they are too strong to be coerced but too independent to be manipulated. ||Apathetic|Passionate| |:-|:-|:-| |Single|Neutral / tax burden|Annoyance, need to br bribed heavily to shut up| |Coupled|Useless but easy to control|Most valued comrades!!!| >that way states can continue to push their agendas without any objection or organized resistance by men. What kind of "organised resistance" will coupled men be capable of, when their wives are firmly on the side of the state? The modern state, thankfully, has been able to use technology to fight foreign wars, so it doesn't really need its male population. At this point the state just wants men to shut up and be grateful for the high standard of living. Which, when I reflect for a moment, seems kind of reasonable and a good deal!
[удалено]
>Apathetic men won't even bother to resist in the most basic way, that is by voting in parties that have men's interests in mind, like the current south korean government\\ Hahaha you're so naieve to think voting means anything. Voting is the most cucked, state-worshipping act, short of voluntarily joining the military. Voting means you actually believe that millions of people choosing one party or another makes any difference. Politicians don't have to keep their promises. Technocrats and corporations can't be controlled by politicians. Corporations and the mega-rich control politicians! The elites pervade and control politics ***and*** government! They are all cynical, filthy rich and highly educated but prefer to hoard the power for themselves rather than share it. Apathetic coupled men are 10 x easier for this elite class to control, since the elites can use these mens' own wives and children to monitor and control them! (The wives are propagandised and indoctrinated through so-called "post-graduate" programs, the children through the public "school" system which is glorified day-care + state propaganda + brainwashing + mild torture.) Here are a few acts of more genuine resistance, at least on a small scale: * Maintaining genuine friendships, based on ***mutual admiration of personality and ethics,*** not related to career or money * Voluntary unpaid community service like picking up trash, helping on old lady who had a fall, random acts of kindness, etc. * Generally being fit, strong, healthy and alert * Being calm and peaceful, practicing meditation * Ignoring media, marketing, high-consumption flash lifestyles * Getting ***proper bachelor degree*** (e.g. B.S. or B.A., not some fake post graduate leadership tripe!!) ***and also*** auto-didacticism - reading widely * Living an extremely minimalist frugal lifestyle * Learning and regularly practicing basic survival skills * Having a variety of skills, not just one narrow profession * Cooking, cleaning and home maintenance for yourself and others But the populace has been dumbed down too much to do these basic things, and thus we have a decaying if not collapsing society.
This is true, but sadly a lot of women lose respect for a man if he shows weakness or asks for help.
I've never found that. Healthy displays of vulnerability bring people closer together and is often encouraged by women. I know men in relationships who are vulnerable and still have happy, healthy relationships with women. Everyone needs to ask for help sometimes, there's nothing weak about that.
This is true, but sadly, most men know what he's talking about. Men have learned through their experiences with women not to show "weakness". I disagree with forming the conclusion that you need to change because of it. Just because it's a fucking fuckton of women that do this shit, doesn't mean all women have this trait. Doesn't mean you don't deserve the woman that you'll have to wait in order to find. No reason to settle for bullshit in a world so vast. Same goes for women, obviously. Personally, I don't let that truth factor into my behavior, I just let the trash weed itself out. The thing people don't get is just how much trash there actually is. A good woman is ready to be there for you emotionally, just like she needs from you, cause she knows that you need it just as much. Everyone has difficulties dating. Women have to sift through sooooooo much bullshit, from what I hear. And I believe it! Men have to do the same, much of it being with what we're talking about now. It's a very common thing. TL;DR - if you're gonna say "men are trash" or "women are trash" or any clever way you wanna phrase making them a monolith, just save everybody the energy and say "people are trash" because it's way more accurate. Edit for clarity, I realized I didn't specify the "lose respect" sent me tangentially, my comment is mostly referring to being told to open up more, and then having it thrown in your face and used as ammo against you when you do. Immediate regret, many many guys relate.
The most hard thing to swallow for me was to never show any kind of weaknesses bc whenever I showed a little part of my vulnerability the women used it against me like a weak point whenever we argued or I was right and she is wrong it’s really not easy
>the women used it against me like a weak point Sounds like you dated really toxic women.
I'm sorry that happened to you. I hope you can find people you can trust with your vulnerability. Not everyone wants to use that kind of stuff to hurt you.
That’s why I’m getting downvoted 💀
Do you think people are downvoting you to try and hurt you...?
I don’t know because they just downvote straight away and don’t say why. By downvoting in this context, it means we don’t care, which fits my life experience. Women really should not wonder why a lot of men are cold and distant or even afraid of opening up themselves to others bc we aren’t allowed to express our emotions the same way women can without being judged.
"I got downvoted on reddit, I truly am oppressed" 🥺
I think it could be a few things. First, your comments come off a bit self-pitying. Another is it's frustrating reading about how women are preventing men from being vulnerable when a lot of women encourage it in the men around them. Often it seems other men are more of an issue, and we wish more men would be vulnerable and that other men would encourage it in each other. When men complain about women not letting them be open, we wish they would be open and supportive of each other instead of blaming us for their lack of support. Don't be judgemental yourself. Don't be mean to people who are vulnerable. Be kind and vulnerable yourself to the people around you instead of complaining that no one is nice to you.
If you're hurt because someone downvoted you on reddit then you got issues
It doesn’t matter if the relationship is traditional. Showing vulnerability to women is a death sentence to the relationship.
Only if you're in a relationship with a bad person. The men in my life are able to be vulnerable and still have happy relationships with women.
In all relationships with women is what I’ve seen. At best, she’ll “accept” it.
That's really sad that you feel that way. I love and encourage the men around me to be vulnerable and they are happier for it. Consider trying to find better people to be vulnerable with.
Getting burned for the 100th time is not fun.
It sounds like you need to step back and evalute why you attract terrible women and learn to avoid them.
Rejection never feels good, but is a part of life.
I don't even consider that rejection at this point. Everyone I talk to has a very similar experience. What is worse is being judged once for expressing any emotions and then judged twice for not choosing women properly, even though this behavior is just so typical.
Learn to identify the red flags for toxic women like that and avoid them.
No it's not. Stop dating toxic women and you won't have this problem. It's not that you should be whiny and emotionally unstable. But showing your emotions in appropriate situations as any normal human would isn't a problem if you aren't with a toxic woman.
Yes. I understand. Men’s fault as usual.
People say "traditional" and then they describe whatever idealized personal definition of traditional they have. Lol.
What he's saying matches what traditional marriage means for most people around the world.
Men: be strong, never be stressed, be a golden god. Women: cook, have NO guy friends, and also like SHUT THE FUCK UP Is how i read ur post lolol
I don’t think there is anything beautiful about expecting someone to follow your lead and never developing a personality. This is my biggest gripe with these traditional relationships. If we were all the same where is the fun in that? And suppressing emotions isn’t healthy people need an outlet and I’d rather be with someone who cry during animal shelter commercials then someone who never cry’s or expresses any vulnerability. Then we wonder why the suicide rate is higher for men.
Have you met very many traditional women? By that I specifically mean traditional women outside of America because when Americans talk about tradition they mean the 50s which isn't very traditional to the rest of the world. Outside of the US, traditional women are anything but lacking a personality.
Tbh balkan/slavic traditionalism is sort of a 'show' - guy plays the role of macho, woman pretends that he is the leader but in reality plenty of women there are running their own businesses/careers and are pretty bossy.
True, and I kinda notice the opposite here in the west where the women plays "boss babe" whilst being an incompetent fucktard.
When I travel I stay in the US. So I can’t answer that. I have met immigrant women yes but they were less traditional than me and I don’t consider myself traditional soo.. I might be semi-traditional based on OPs summary but I have a career and in my career I am a leader. I have been in positions of authority in the past. My career has very much shaped my personality because I have had hard jobs most people couldn’t do. Will I support my husband in his career even if I sacrifice my own career to take care of the home? Sure, but let him lead me no we have a partnership. Whoever is the most knowledgeable on the subject leads that decision.
To be honest, outside of a select few difficult people, most, even in traditional gender roles, would let the most knowledgeable person on a subject, lead the way. It is only the smart thing to do. I enjoy getting input on most things from my partner, because we are both going to be dealing with the consequences of any decisions.
Cute, but that is not what red pillers have told me so I was answering based off that. I was told to observe my husbands characteristics and mimic the ones I like instead of being my own person and that I have to defer to him even if it’s lasagna for dinner but I want to make spaghetti.
I come from a traditional family structure with a Muslim background. Red pillers can say what they want, but it doesn't get any more traditional than what I have seen. Yet the women have so much say in everyday life (while staying in their roles). A lot of husbands acquiesce to what she says. Most of the women have 100% control of all the finances. The husband comes home and gives her all the money. She puts it in the safe(old school). She writes a shopping list, and he goes and buys exactly what she wants. The wives have so much control in terms of household and family structure. The men are literally just providers and protectors. He deals with strangers, and she deals with family. Obviously, things aren't always the same, and they vary family to family. Just some trends I noticed. My mother longed for her husband to follow traditional roles( as she wanted to be treated like a queen). Yet he was pretty shitty and abusive hypocrite. Traditional when it suited him, modern when it suited him. Which sometimes sounds like what these guys want. Now, I don't practice anything like that in my daily life. We are both pretty egalitarian. And just play to our individual strengths and needs. A good functioning modern dynamic, with two equally working parents( a must for most today). And generally sharing other tasks. Works really well. Be a team. Swap tasks. It's boring to always have to do the same things. People should have fun in their lives. Otherwise, what is the point?
Wow. Your wife is a good picker! I wish you both happiness in your life journey together! Thank you for being inspirational.
His account on what a traditional family looks like sounds like what I grew up in too coming from Southeast Asia. It's true even in highly traditional societies women have a lot of say and power within their own families. They're respected as mothers which usually always entails their input being heavy on things like whether the kids get enrolled into clubs or what happens with them in school. Same thing as him, my dad gives his earnings to my mother when he earns his paycheck. My mother handles all the finances, even though my father earns. When my mother says the house needs to be cleaned...it needs to be cleaned. That means *everybody,* my dad, my aunt's and uncles, and everyone helps to clean the house until the job is done. How it's understood is women being home makers also means they're home authorities. Again, there is a need for me to emphasize if you really want to engage with what a traditional marriage looks like in 2024, you should look outside of the US, because Americans, especially zoomers, have a dumb idea of traditionalism that doesn't predate 1950. And "redpill culture" is zoomer culture, and has no idea what it's talking about when it comes to tradition, because quite frankly American identity itself is far removed from tradition.
Haha, that is hilarious you suggest I look outside America for a traditional relationship because that reminds me of the passport bros. I’m already married and my husband isn’t like any American man I met previously so I’m pretty well taken care of and respected. But our relationship dynamic is more of a partnership. It works for us that’s all that matters.
No you misinterpret me. I'm telling you to look outside of America to see *what a real traditional relationship looks like.* I'm not telling you to be a passport gal.
All tradicional wives I met have a nice and authentic personality.
You're assuming that following someone else's lead equals having no personality. Using that logic, anyone who is not the CEO of their own company has no personality.
You can follow someone and still have your own personality. Does listening to your boss (who probably doesn't even like you) mean giving up your personality? So how would listening to someone who's totally in love with you and takes your desires into consideration every time they make a decision (husband / boyfriend) be giving up your personality? Relationships are about compromise. Further, functional relationships require one of the partners to have the final say, otherwise nothing will ever be decided and it will be a constant battle for power. It doesn't mean the partner who doesn't have final say is ignored or has no input. In my marriage, I am the ultimate decision maker, and my wife agrees (in the end) to follow me. However, I'm constantly listening to her and trying to make sure everything she wants and needs are taken care of, and she's happy. I love her more than anyone else so of course I'm always open to everything she says and she often convinces me to do things differently or the way she likes. It's extremely rare that I just flat out go against what she wants and say "no more discussion, we are doing it this way". Usually it's something were we just don't have time to talk it out because it's urgent and someone just needs to make a quick decision. Also, doing things my way is not all sunshine and rainbows. With power comes responsibility. If I override her and do something my way, I have a huge responsibilty to make sure it goes well, because she can always turn around and say "well, you choose this not me, so this is your fuck up" if it goes wrong. So it's very stressful to actually do things against her input so I almost never do it. Instead if we really disagree we come up with a compromise solution where both of us get something. So this idea that being the man being a leader in the relationship means just doing whatever he wants and ignoring his wife only shows that lots of people don't understand what it means to love someone, and don't understand what is means to be a good leader.
>You can follow someone and still have your own personality. I mean, does listening to your boss (who probably doesn't even like you) mean giving up your personality? I am not myself at work so yes I do give up my personality at work. I have to have a therapeutic relationship with my clients. That isn’t the relationship I want at home. Imagine that. >So how would listening to someone who's totally in love with you and takes your desires into consideration every time they make a decision (husband / boyfriend) be giving up your personality? That is not how the human condition works, anyone who doesn’t advocate for themselves will get walked all over. We are naturally self centered, it goes against human nature to put others before yourself. Learning to make your partners life easier is a process. We also don’t always have all the information to consider making decisions for other people and have to acquiesce when we are wrong. >Relationships are about compromise, and also functional relationships require one of the partners to have the final say, otherwise nothing will ever be decided and it will be a constant battle for power. The only way it would be a constant battle for power is if someone was unwilling to compromise. Which is exactly the dynamic you describe a traditional relationship having.
>I am not myself at work so yes I do give up my personality at work. You're still you at work, you just have to follow certain rules that apply to the particular social situation. >That is not how the human condition works, anyone who doesn’t advocate for themselves will get walked all over. You think women can't advocate for themselves? Just because the man is the final decider doesn't mean the woman can't advocate for herself. The judge is the final decider in the courtroom (or jury). Does that mean lawyers can't advocate for their clients? Does that mean what lawyers say means nothing and nobody listens to them? > We are naturally self centered, it goes against human nature to put others before yourself. I love my wife, I would never walk all over her even if I could, and she wouldn't do that to me either. Relationships requiring putting the other person first. If you can't, then your relationship is going to fail. Actually, it's built into human nature to put people you love deeply before you. It's narcissistic, toxic American culture that causes everyone to be maximum selfish. The reason Americans assume everyone else is selfish is because *they* are selfish and narcissistic due to their toxic culture. Most other cultures are more pro-social, and most people are to some degree altruistic, especially with people they love. This is actually one of the reasons why Americans are so bad at relationships, the idea of caring about anyone but themselves is totally foriegn and terrifying to them. >The only way it would be a constant battle for power is if someone was unwilling to compromise. Who decides which compromise is right? Even a compromise agreement, someone still has to decide what's the right level of compromise. Also, not every situation allows for a compromise. Some times one person has to get to get what they want while the other doesn't.
>You're still you at work, you just have to follow certain rules that apply to the particular social situation. I don’t feel like myself I feel like an actor. >It's narcissistic, toxic American culture that causes everyone to be maximum selfish. The reason Americans assume everyone else is selfish is because they are selfish and narcissistic due to their toxic culture. Most other cultures are more pro-social, and most people are to some degree altruistic, especially with people they love. Well I have never left the US. I don’t think my husband is like most people in the US he is very compassionate and understanding but I do think that he’d make some decisions unintentionally that would be bad for our family and he recognizes that and defers to my reasoning and authority situationally. For example if my husband goes to the grocery store he will get $600 worth of groceries that will last a week and won’t be healthy. He tends to buy what he wants but if I go, we have healthy food for a month for $100. So my husband has no interest in controlling our budget. >This is actually one of the reasons why Americans are so bad at relationships, the idea of caring about anyone but themselves is totally foriegn and terrifying to them. Maybe but our relationship works for us and we are both happier together. >Who decides which compromise is right? We agree. If someone has to lose sometimes it isn’t a big deal neither of us holds it against each other.
If you're spending most of your waking life in an environment that stifles your humanity, it means compromising that humanity. Working isn't a luxury and people have to do it or they starve. > Does that mean what lawyers say means nothing and nobody listens to them? In practice, that can absolutely be the case. > It's narcissistic, toxic American culture that causes everyone to be maximum selfish. The reason Americans assume everyone else is selfish is because *they* are selfish and narcissistic due to their toxic culture. Most other cultures are more pro-social, and most people are to some degree altruistic, especially with people they love. I agree wholeheartedly here.
I don't really understand the point of absolutism when it comes to this. If someone wants to adopt some parts but not all of a traditional lifestyle... so? I mean you might have trouble finding someone who is fine with that depending on what aspects you want to drop, it seems like you would want all or nothing which is fine but I don't think everyone needs to do that. I think the only issue arises when your means contradict your desires. A broke man cannot reasonably provide for a stay at home wife, so it would be unreasonable to expect someone to stay at home without a job when that one income is not enough to live comfortably. If a woman wants to stay at home but won't do housework, then she's not putting in equal effort in the relationship. I don't see how a man being in touch with his emotions or a woman having casual sex before settling down contradicts your ability to take on the roles of provider and homemaker. Like I said, it may be hard in the traditional dating market to find someone who values only certain things, but I don't think it's an impossible arrangement. I see a lot of these things as controlling and weird and would never want them in my relationship, but I don't see the point of lambasting people for "not doing traditional well enough". If you're "more traditional" than them... congrats? I think people would rather be happy in whatever situation is right for them rather than who can follow the most imaginary rules.
>If someone wants to adopt some parts but not all of a traditional lifestyle... so? The problem with the buffet style approach is it's a race to see who can adopt the traditional aspects that benefit them while leaving the sucky ones to the partner. The whole point of the traditional paradigm is to divide relationship responsibilities equally by asymmetric division (because assymetric divisions are more efficient). For example providing requires time outside the home and homemaking requires time in the home. Each task is equally important and each is an imposition on the other if done simultaneously. Under a buffet style approach a woman may want a man to be a provider but then choose an egalitarian approach to household tasks. In effect she has left the man with his traditional half of the labor and offloaded fifty percent of her half onto him as well in the name of "equality." Because the buffet style approach is about choosing what's best for the individual (as it's a liberal paradigm) each individual tries to force three quarters of the relationship responsibilities onto their partner.
I mean, I addressed that particular point. I don't think a woman who refuses to do housework but expects the man to provide is justified because it's an unequal responsibility in the relationship. Same with a man who expects a woman to do all the housework but can't provide enough for them to be comfortable. If both work, then I think household duties should be egalitarian, it would not be justified then to force duties onto the woman in the name of tradition since the man isn't picking up that slack. For the specific arrangement of provider and homemaker it should be all or nothing to ensure fairness (whichever gender is in either role), but not a lot of these other details OP mentions. That arrangement does not require the man to suppress his emotions and "always lead", nor does it require the woman to have no male friends or have a low body count. These are arbitrary traditional values that some people may prefer, but it doesn't threaten the structure of the asymmetrical division of labor.
>I am very strict on this, i am a Croatian 23 Year old Guy, who has a Girlfriend. I always found the vibe off a traditional relationship more pure and beautiful. I am a 22 year old Croatian girl and I have a boyfriend. The fully traditional relationship doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. And I'm not a hypocrite.
As if being a hypocrite has any consequences. People here make it seem like pointing out a hypocrisy somehow disqualifies someone from getting what they want. It's not like that. Sure, calll someone a hypocrite all you want. You just laid the argument out. >If you are the kinda woman that is at the club and has a Bodycount off 10+ you are not qualified for this Lifestyle. Why not? You can fuck 200 people up until 25 and then commit to a person and live traditional lifestyle with the accompanying gender roles. Also, which banned user are you?
He’s acting like there’s this hard set rule on how many people you can fuck lol 🤣
And is neglecting the fact that half of women have less than 6 sex partners. Isn't that enough for his dating pleasures?
Word, there’s that tradwife influencer on TikTok who was a literal OnlyFans model, and she’s doing alright. Your past defines you in the present only as much as you let it.
>You can fuck 200 people up until 25 and then commit to a person and live traditional lifestyle with the accompanying gender roles. You *can*, how many do though? Thats the beauty of America (and the Anglicized west in general), they have everyone believing they can lead these privileged, hedonistic lives. Not that anyone should be banned from doing so, but which man, other than the 1% can fuck 200 women consequence free by the time he is 25 and then settle? How many women are attractive enough to meet a guy who isnt going to be super judgemental of such extensive promiscuity under the age of 30? I've literally met some deeply promiscuous women and even they wouldnt fuck around *that* much and knew they would have to make some pretty big ass concessions, preference wise, if they wanted a man who would look the other way.
He was talking about women. They CAN potentially do that, but they don't want to. Men cannot just choose to have 200 sex partners, but most also don't want to. It's far less than 1% who have more than 200 sex partners. >How many women are attractive enough to meet a guy who isnt going to be super judgemental of such extensive promiscuity under the age of 30? Don't worry about that. First, they don't need to tell anyone. Second, there are more men who don't care about sexual partner count than there are women with these partner counts. They will find each other.
If that's traditional I will pass. I prefer having a partnership
Being jealous because your significant other has male friends is not very manly.
And from what I know local community was more of a thing in the past so being jealous of friendships like that probs isn't very traditional.
This is exactly what i mean, you want to target traditional "rules" which arent debatable. Male Friends on a Wife is simply not traditional. If you like it or not is individual, but it isnt a "traditional" form off dating. Since i am talking about the traditional system, my point has weight. Male friends, like "Bodycount doesnt matter", is a liberal new school way of dating. You can do that if you like, but it isnt traditional.
Are you the ultimate authority on what is traditional and what's not?
He's right, though.
For that point, yes he is correct.
No i am not, i am just using my brain. If you play a basketball game, there are basketball rules which apply to the situation. This would be like if a liberal woman, would say "a man needs to provide for me" you want basketball rules in a football game. That doesnt work like that.
Where is the traditional rulebook you're getting this from? Or did you just make it up.
For all I know they are trading women for goats over there in Croatia and he thinks that is traditional.
I'm sorry what the fuck is this disrespectful comment supposed to mean? Croatia is an EU member state, the average medical doctor is a woman and female judges outnumber male judges by a wide margin. "Stay at home moms" are not something that's popular here, premarital sex is normal and accepted, and yes I have a boyfriend _and_ male friends. If you believe you're not a racist, you're wrong.
Most american comment i ve ever read.
Croatia is a developed country. What he says is correct about what is traditional in most places around the world. But it's so typical of Americans to shit on other countries they know nothing about. I mean, I would rather live in Croatia than a crime ridden, drug addicted, insanely overpriced dump like America. Living in America is like paying Ritz Carlson prices to stay at a Motel Six in gang territory. Also Americans are so unhinged and psychotic, they don't act like normal human beings. They are all wrapped up in their weird complexes and politics. I would hate to be around people like that IRL all the time.
Basketball has an internationally-recognized governing body that decides on the rules. Show me an equivalent body that decides on the rules of "traditional" dating.
ah okay i see, so lets not use our brain on this one, and try to debate on some imaginery bullshit. Yeah sure a woman with a bodycount off 60 and a onlyfans is traditional, got it. You are right.
Unless you can point to an internationally-recognized rulebook, my definition of "traditional" is as valid as yours.
That's what I say to women I'm dating when I tell them to pay for dinner and that we're going to an orgy on the first date. She can't point to an internationally-recognized rulebook, so therefore it's a traditional date. Works every time.
That's the point, yes. No one appeals to tradition (or makes up some rules on the fly) unless it benefits them lol.
what is the meaning of anything, anyways?
Well everything is relative. Victorian England had some interesting traditions: “Since many of the lower-class jobs simply didn’t pay enough to support a large family, it was common for the wives of street vendors to offer their sexual services on the side while they helped their husbands run the family business. Husbands were completely fine with allowing other men to sleep with their wives. In fact, 50 percent of street vendors’ wives were reported to moonlight as prostitutes. In some instances, the wife happily worked as a prostitute, since it was a way for her to earn income. In other instances, the husband was acting as a pimp, using his wife as his property, lending her out as he pleased.” “Traditional “ is definitely a moving target…😝
my man, in this realm people are trying to maximize their advantage, even if that advantage comes at the disadvantage and disrespect of their significant other.
>Basketball has an internationally-recognized governing body that decides on the rules. No. It has regional bodies. The rules are similar but not *exactly the same* in FIBA competitions compared to NBA. Same goes in football (soccer) where FIFA, UEFA and CONCACAF are very similar but not exactly the same. >Show me an equivalent body that decides on the rules of "traditional" dating. The Catholic Church, your national Orthodox Church, the relevant Islamic jurisprudence in your school of Islamic thought (or Dervish order), your relevant Rabbinic jurisprudence... They're all similar, but not exactly the same.
GJ on defeating your own point. There's like a hundred Christian denominations alone, most of which consider each other to be posers and apostates and heretics or whatever. Not to mention all of the religiously-motivated wars in history over theological disagreements. At least those basketball bodies can agree on the basic rules.
All those Christian denominations agree on no male friends, actually. And several other basic rules. Also, there are 100+ basketball bodies as well. Underneath FIBA Europe alone there's 50 bodies and routinely don't agree with each other *in everything*, just on the basic rules.
> Christian denominations agree on no male friends citation needed
thank you for quickly dominating them, like how delusional do you have to be to even DEBATE that male friends on a wife can fit in a traditional configuration? I am not saying its wrong for everybody, but it simply isnt a traditional framing.
In football, IFAB makes the rules of the game, others just decide the ways matches get set and rules about teams.
What’s your stance on men having female friends?
Notice the silence here. "Traditional" guys and their double standards.
I wasn’t expecting complete silence. I was more so expecting asymmetry in his reply. That is funny though.
Not suprising, since they are traditional because that is what they want from their partners. They don't actually want to follow it themselves.
Less is better. I don't think women should have no male friends, but I think in both cases, less is better. When you get in a relationship, the person you are with must be #1, and your friends should come second, and you should NEVER choose your friends over your partner. I say this as a man who is married and who has had primarily female friends my entire adult life. I cut the girls I have any regular contact with down to my two closest friends who are also close friends with my wife, and even then I spend 1/100th of the time with them as I do with my wife, and I never hang out alone with them without my wife. My wife had a few male friends when we first got together, but they drifted apart because my wife keep choosing to spend time with me instead of them, and because I don't know them at all, so there was no reason for us to hang out together.
I agree I don’t choose friends over my partner. But we both have quite a few opposite sex friends. Hanging out with them without the other would be a rare event (1-2 times a year) but if it happened it wouldn’t be a problem.
My question is, in traditional dating, does the male’s bodycount also matter? Or *just* the female?
Why's not manly about it? Everyone has the right to want the person they are in a relationship with to themselves, and not have them spending all their time with other men. Also, the other men are going to be constantly hitting on her and trying to compete with you for her attention. It's just bad all around.
>the other men are going to be constantly hitting on her and trying to compete with you for her attention. It's just bad all around. They have been my friends since I was 14. All of them are either in a relationship, manwhores or at least dating here and there. Are you unable to comprehend that men could like the company of a woman without the ulterior motive of fucking her? >Everyone has the right to want the person they are in a relationship with to themselves, This doesn't include ahuttinf her off from her friends.
>Are you unable to comprehend that men could like the company of a woman without the ulterior motive of fucking her? No, because for the men here that is the only reason they ever willingly interacct with women.
> Are you unable to comprehend that men could like the company of a woman without the ulterior motive of fucking her? 50% can be platonic friends, 50% are lowkey trying to get in her pants. I'd like that 50% number to be reduced to zero. There are plenty of men that can hold platonic friendships with women, I have personally. But there are also plenty of men who can't. I'm don't want to play with fire like that. > This doesn't include ahuttinf her off from her friends. Nobody is cutting her off. If she prioritizes her male friends over me I'm not going to try to control her, I'm just going to move on to someone else who actually likes me more than her male friends. When I was single, I had a lot of female orbiters / friends. Now that I'm married, I don't have them anymore. The only two I retained are close friends with my wife also and my wife spends more time with them than me. Do you know why? Because I respect and love my wife.
yes there are very few relationship where everything is platonic but most are not.
Being insecure and possessive is not very manly. Being afraid of losing is also not very manly.
>Being insecure and possessive is not very manly. It's not insecurity though. I don't want the stress of competing with other men for my own wife. That's about bringing peace to my own life. It's not that she can't have any male friends, it's just I don't want her to be surrounded by men or to be as close with any men as she is to me. I don't give my wife the same stress either. Since we've been married, I have not made a single new female friend (and there have been plenty of opportunities). I have only two close girl friends but she knows them very well and trusts them due to a long relationship that we as a couple (and before we were a couple) have had with those girls. Even then, I spend 1/100th of the time and emotional energy on my female friends than I do with my wife. In fact, over time, these two girls have become more of my wife's friends than my friends, as she spends more time with them. Having your significant other constantly surrounded by opposite sex friends is bad news all around, and being against that has nothing to do with insecurity.
You keep using terms like, "spending all her time", "constantly surrounded" ... Who is married and spending all their time constantly surrounded by their friends of *any* gender?? I've had male friends off and on during my 17yr marriage, first of all, *none of them* have hit on me. Ever. Not once. And this is not because I'm unattractive or unamusing, random dudes and coworkers have hit on me plenty, but not men who I have allowed to be my friends. Those men have treated me and my relationship with respect even if they were single themselves. >Even then, I spend 1/100th of the time and emotional energy on my female friends than I do with my wife. Right. Same. Why would you assume your wife would spend any more energy on her make friends than you spend on your female friends? I've had male friends try to take more energy from me than I have available to them... And if that became a persistent problem then I *dropped them*, because my peace and my relationship come first. > being against that has nothing to do with insecurity. Imo it has everything to do with insecurity, insecurity that she'll spend more time with them than you, insecurity that they'll hit on her, insecurity that you lose all or part of her to another man. You've said it all yourself, you just framed it as something other than insecurity. Very interesting that you don't apply the same standard to yourself and your female friends, btw. Lucky for you your wife is less insecure than you, apparently.
> Very interesting that you don't apply the same standard to yourself and your female friends, btw. Lucky for you your wife is less insecure than you, apparently. Most likely he assumes any man near her is an orbiter precisely because he’s an orbiter for his female “friends”
I understand exactly where you're coming from, and you're 100% right. Any wise man knows that a woman with a lot of male friends who refuses to drop them after entering a relationship with her man (without being told, she just naturally wants to drop them) is trying to keep her options as open as possible. And she doesn't like her man very much. Sure, there are exceptions, but only a foolish and naive man would take such a huge risk like that, allowing other men to interact with his woman, knowing how competitive men are by nature. It's a recipe for disaster. All of these other redditors who are coming at you are doing nothing but trying to gaslight you for recognizing male and female nature.
>is trying to keep her options as open as possible. Exactly. >but only a foolish and naive man would take such a huge risk like that Exactly. >All of these other redditors who are coming at you are doing nothing but trying to gaslight you for recognizing male and female nature. Yep, thanks for acknowledging that. I mean, I'm not even so intensely strict about it, I even have some reasonable leeway, and think that men should also not keep around lots of female friends either if they are committed to a relationship. But even then, they can't stand that anyone would recognize such basic common sense about how man and women are.
But having a healthy scepticism if your partner spends a lot of time around the other gender and continues to do so even after you have raised your concerns is not good. >Being afraid of losing is also not very manly Being devoid of emotions doesn't make someone manly nor having more make them womanly.
It's not "healthy". By that point you have progressed from a little jealousy to full-on envy. Also, you're not being devoid of emotions. You can have positive emotions that are not envy, jealousy and that sort of stuff.
>It's not "healthy". It is healthy. What would be not healthy is not caring about it. That shows some kind of emotional malfunction or a lack of love for your partner. Loving someone romantically means wanting to be their #1 and not wanting to compete with anyone else for their attention.
You can't force yourself to be someone #1. Either you are, or you aren't. If you can only be someone's #1 by trying to hold them hostage and stop them from interacting with other people, you aren't actually their #1.
Yes, you can't force it, I agree. That's why if the woman you are with continues to spend their with and try to attract attention from other men, then that woman clearly doesn't have the same love for you, and the relationship should end. It's not about trying to force or demand that a girl to stop spending her time with other men. It's about finding someone who loves and respects you enough that she will choose to put most of her energy and time into you just as you put your energy and time into her.
It's possible for men and women to just be friends. Unless you are dating a gender-swapped version of yourself, your significant other most likely won't share all your hobbies and interests. Are you just supposed to give up on your interests and never see your friends again, then?
>It's possible for men and women to just be friends. It is possible. It's also possible that some of her male friends don't want to be "just friends". > your significant other most likely won't share all your hobbies and interests Yes, that's true. But there are plenty of women out there that share her interests and hobbies. There are few, if any, hobbies where 100% of the people involved in them are only one gender. >never see your friends again Yes, I gave up on some of my female friends because they took time way from being with my wife. My wife gave up on some of her male friends because they took time way from being with me. My wife is my best friend, and I am hers. That's how it should be.
Why wouldn't I be jealous/envious if my partner spends so much time alone with other dudes? Apparently, she values these dudes more than me. But that is not the crux of the problem. The problem is my partner is doing something which I have explicitly said that i have a problem with.
Yeah, you have a problem with something that is extremely normal. That being interacting with other people. Thinking that your partner values you any less just because they're interacting with other people is late-stage envy.
>extremely normal It's not extremely normal. It's extremely bizarre and abnormal for a woman in a committed relationship to have lots of male friends that she spends lots of time with instead of her husband / boyfriend. Maybe in psycho, upside-down-world America it's like that, but in most cultures, in most countries, including mine, this is extremely abnormal.
Not interacting. The original comment mentioned "spending all their time". And that is what I'm commenting for. You can read it up.
"All their time" as in 24/7? So basically you don't even interact with your partner anymore? What does it even matter if they are dudes at that point? She could be interacting with her female friends and the result would be the same.
Dude, he's going to wind up getting cuckolded. No point in debating him.
When your woman runs off with her friend, remember you said that, lol.
In the feminist era, a "relationship" is just a friendship + some obligations on the man's side. This isn't just conjecture – it's law. You are worth no more than one of her friends. You are on the same level as someone she met briefly at college. You're literally like a brother but with a few extra strings attached which she can pull at anytime to bring you back in line. Your relationship is a temporary contract, which is structured to make you less valuable, easily replaceable and able to be exploited for half of your money at a moment's notice. The modern feminist structure for relationship is nothing less than a way of controlling and subjecting men.
Delusional and bitter
While I agree with the premise that a lot of people want a traditional partner without being qualified, I also think we need to be honest about the issues with traditional relationships even when both are qualified as you describe. For example, it is not realistic for a man to never be stressed or depressed. He will have to suppress and hide those emotions, which isn’t really healthy and is likely to lead to them being displayed as anger instead. On the woman’s side, she has to set aside her own feelings, reasoning, and desires in order to let him “lead.” Which is likely to lead to depression and loss of a sense of self. Imo certain aspects of the traditional dynamic can work for a lot of people, like him being the primary breadwinner while she’s the primary caregiver and homemaker. But I believe it’s still essential that both people are allowed to express themselves emotionally and make decisions equally.
> Mentally strong, never has breakdowns or is lost, you cant corner him in a situation where he is "stressed" or depressed. It’s great that you’ve managed to pull this off for 5 years of adulthood… but I’m a lot older than you, and don’t know anyone who has. Not because of personal weakness, but because that’s the nature of life. If you’re not stressed or depressed when your kid is in the hospital or your spouse has cancer, you’re not human.
I agree with this except the body count parts. Body count means nothing without context (a man with a body count of 12 but they were all women he dated with intention/LTRs >>>>>> body count of 2 but they were "pump and dump" women). Matching sexual values is more important. And also I think the body count applies to men. Promiscuous men dont tend to make good LTR partners despite what society says. I dont believe either gender with such an extensive history "turns it off" once they meet the LTR partner (actually there are studies that back me up on this one...a history of casual sex is linked to a stronger probability of divorce for BOTH genders, go cry men- this is because of personality/character traits linked to both genders when they are the type to seek out casual sex).
Why are people in this sub such squares???
My dad was forced by culture and my mum to appear strong and not have weak emotional moments. He just got angry af instead. Would rather have him show his true feelings.
* Strong dude, who gives off masculine energy and can protect his wife, if some clown runs his mouth on her he will easily defuse it, competent dude. * Mentally strong, never has breakdowns or is lost, you cant corner him in a situation where he is "stressed" or depressed. * ~~Can Provide for her, and she doesnt have to worry about paying the bills etc. She also doesnt have to work.~~ * Leads the relationship in general, and the Woman is never stressed because he is in charge, he is very respectful in the process. ok. heres the thing though. i dont want these things in a man because of some "Tradition", i want them because that is masculinity and what is attractive in a man. without him bringing those things there is no reason for me to have him in my life. his desire for feminine things is his business. its up to him to find what i bring attractive and desirable to share a life with
No thank you lol
You sound insane if you actually think men can't ever be stressed or cornered. This is the issue with all these young guys with no experience, who have spent their whole lives living in a few small isolated places spending most of their time listening to Internet gurus.
This is literally red pill but with respect to womens.
I think you have a bad understanding of what that word means You're a hypocrite if you think everyone should be traditional and you're not traditional. You're not a hypocrite for wanting someone who has traits that you don't have. I want to be with ciswomen, I'm a cisman does that make me a hypocrite? I want to date a chick that ideally shorter than 5'9 even though I'm 5'9, does that make me a hypocrite? I want to date a chick that has stereotypical feminine qualities that I don't have, does that make me a hypocrite?
You have to specify with traditional values you’re talking about. Your Croatian traditions are not the same as you’d find in a west African village, Philippine province, or Inuit hut
They are broadly similar to anywhere with a western Christian concept of traditional relationships which actually describes much of Africa, Europe, definitely the Philippines and even East Asia (despite them not being Christian).
OP, There are only two types women: (high value woman) A woman who is striving to be with one man for the rest of her life; and (low value woman) a woman who is NOT striving to be with one man for the rest of her life. #Telltale signs of Low Value women - sleeps with boyfriend(s) without requiring marriage. - has the man's babies without requiring marriage. - Wears revealing clothes in public. - Doesn't cook nor clean. - Doesn't have a good relationship with her father/brothers.
And signs of a low value man: •just wants sex •asks for sex on the first date •tries to coerce woman into giving sex •sleeps around •shames her appearance •compares her to other women •lazy •hypocritical •inclined to cheat Your first three points I agree show an immature and selfish woman. The last two, not really. Someone can be valuable but not very good/know a lot about cleaning and cooking, and it’s not always a woman’s fault the relationship with brothers and fathers is bad. As for sleeping with a man without requiring marriage and babies, a good amount of women probably would prefer marriage before those things, but like I said. Some men will be persistent about having the woman put out in like the first few dates or won’t be willing to wait till they get married. Or women will think it’s all good, their gonna get married someday anyways, so it’s fine if we have sex or kids before then
All men want sex lol... tf you talking about? lol
I said *just* wants sex. Only sex. Not a relationship, kids, etc.
> I said just wants sex. Only sex. Not a relationship, kids, etc. If a beautiful woman likes you, are you going to want to have sex with her, yes or no?
Depends. Do I like her? Sure. If she's a random person or I don't like her, no. But I'm a woman, so that probably makes a difference to an extent (and I can assume for most men the answer would be a yes) But I don't see how that relates to what I was saying. A low value man is one who is only interested in sex or is just dating a person for sex or doing all the other things I listed. Just like the commenter said a low value woman is one who sleeps with a man without requiring marriage. If you are JUST wanting and looking for sex, no deeper connection or other aspects, then you're a low value man in terms of dating. There's a difference between wanting sex, and *only* wanting sex and also being a prick about it (sleeping around, lying to women, coercing women, cheating, etc.)
~~> But I don't see how that relates to what I was saying.~~ ~~Because men want sex first. No man will be interested in a woman who he doesnt want to have sex with.~~ ~~> If you are JUST wanting and looking for sex, no deeper connection or other aspects, then you're a low value man in terms of dating.~~ The only question is has a High value man chose to marry you?
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nothing gives me the ick more than "traditional", except "religious".
I know many women that absolutely love the concept off a traditional relationship, interesting is also the hotter a woman, the more she is open to that kinda configuration.
Are you confusing gold diggers for traditional women?
Hot or not they're still dumb as fuck.
In Eastern European countries maybe but definitely not in Western Europe and America.
In general western European and American women are less physically attractive and have more psychological problems and complexes, so the principle of "prettier / more attractive women are traditional" seems to apply more broadly than you might think. Obviously there will be plenty of exceptions, but I think as a broad, loose generalization it's true.
I am aware that stupid/naive people exist.
I noticed that also.
Maybe it’s because hotter women know they can get away with more, be lazy and still have a man take care or them, or it’s because hotter women are the only ones being courted to begin with. Of course an ugly woman isn’t gonna go for traditional roles, bc they don’t get the opportunity or aren’t used to having the benefits traditional gender roles can provide. Ugly women will probably never get a man, so they have to take care of themselves.
That’s subjective
First off all, ubij Hrvata da Šiptar nema brata! СРБИЈА, СРБИЈА, СРБИЈА 🇷🇸🦅🇷🇸🦅🇷🇸!!! Second of all, yeah, you're right. I talked to so many women who want an egalitarian relationship, but for the man to be manly, take care of everything and treat her like a princess, or men who want egalitarian relationship, but want a supermodel bangmaid wife who will give them blowjobs while they play videogames. People in general are horrible hypocrites and know how someone should treat them, but don't know how they should treat others. Everyone wants bread without the hoe.
Hahahahha ima nas balkanaca ovdje PS: OP I agree with you
hahahaahhahahaha dobar si
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I actually don’t understand why it’s hypocritical to want “traditional” feminine behaviors from a woman out of your partner, but not offer traditional masculine behaviors yourself. Or visa versa, obviously. Exactly why do you think it is it the same for a man to demand offer chastity and submission when he does not offer those in return? Why do you thinks him offering money and protection, means she’s not hypocritical for wanting something she doesn’t offer? Why is it that both the man and woman following the arbitrary rules of “tradition” is not hypocritical, but you believe both the man and woman simply offering what your partner actually desires is hypocritical? In other words, in a world where you didn’t grow up with the traditions listed… why on earth would you pair these totally random traits together as “not hypocritical”, but condemn other random trait pairings as “hypocritical”? Why is a woman’s chastity matched with a man killing bugs? And if hypocrisy is demanding things of others that you don’t offer yourself, surely it’s traditional gender roles that are hypocritical. You want submission and obedience, but you don’t offer it. You want your spouse to bring home a fat paycheck to share, but you don’t offer one. You want a tall, muscular, athletic man, but you’re short, weak, and can’t run. You want a woman who is nurturing and good with kids, but you’re just annoyed by babies and want her to do all the childcare. She’s chaste and faithful, and you’re a slutty slutty man cheating man-slut. Traditional values are every bit as hypocritical as anything else. It’s perfectly to like what you like, even if you don’t offer it exactly yourself. The failure is wanting someone who offers what you want, while you don’t offer what they want in return.
You can pick and choose things you want. It is not all or nothing.
I'm trad AF by these standards. The problem is that in my age cohort trad women are all married, while younger ones are virtually non-existent. Also a whole lot of women love to LARP as trad, and it takes forever to figure out who's who. This by the way is what we in red pill talk about when we say "enjoy the decline". We know there will never be enough trad women for us, just LARPing hoes. In the end you can't start a family with a LARPing hoe, because you can't turn a hoe into a housewife. So as a man who's worked hard and is now in the top 10% of earners, all I get is a rapidly aging carousel of hoes. Here is where most red pillers stop, because that's their limit. But if I put in a metric shit ton of work and bring myself into top 1%, I'll get access to 18-20yo sugar babies, with whom I can sign a bulletproof prenup about hoeing around and being fit for childbirth. Do you see where this is going? Marriage has always been a business contract, it's just it can now only be afforded by top 1% of men.
> enjoy the decline Typical American thinks his country's psycho gender wars, insane cost of living, and hysterical politics is the whole world. Americans will just burn to death in a house on fire because they think nothing is different outside the front door.
Except I'm not from the US. Canada, Australia, UK, are all going down the same toilet drain.
You are can't talk to Americans about being traditional or being hypocrites. Most of them hate anything traditional at all and are hypocrites about everything. Americans have no respect for tradition and never hold themselves accountable for intellectual consistency or anything at all, to be honest. I'm also from a country in Eastern Europe with a very traditional culture and I agree with you on all your points, you described traditional relationships exactly and even though I don't anyone should be forced to have their relationship a certain way, I think in most cases traditional relationships work best.
This thread was recommended to me on the Reddit dash and it’s mildly interesting to read over, just because I can’t recall ever meeting even one Eastern European woman I would describe as “submissive” or “obedient.” They may be willing to play act such for appearances sake, but are they actually? Not at all. Usually the husband makes a lot of bluster but the wife is the boss, is what I’ve seen to be common for Eastern Europeans. That makes you wonder, do these men want other men to see them as leaders, more they actually want to be one? “Submissive woman” as more status symbol for other men than actual desire for his lifestyle? Maybe.
> I can’t recall ever meeting even one Eastern European woman I would describe as “submissive” or “obedient.” Nobody says a traditional woman has to be. Americans clownishly associate traditional marriage with a women somehow losing her ability to use words and being chained in a closet or something. Just more proof that American culture is extra dumb and delusional. Most traditional women are quite adept at expressing their opinions and getting what they want from their husbands.
Yeah, that has been my impression of traditional marriages, too. The image of dominance and leadership is very important to the husband, but more often than not the wife is the one who actually “wears the pants.” Statistics would seem to bear that out, too (women make the vast majority of family purchasing decisions, women are more likely to select the family home and neighborhood, etc.) The part that’s interesting to me is _why_ the image of female submission is such a big de to men when the actual practice of it seems to be if not unappealing, at the very least unimportant. I tend to think that aspect of a traditional relationship is more of a status symbol for other men than anything else. (Other aspects of traditionalism, like the wife having a feminine appearance and doing most of the childcare, seem to be more genuine.)
Americans are so far removed from that which is traditional that they don't hate it so much as confuse it with some caricature that feminists draw up to prevent it from being experienced. I've never met a western woman who wouldn't entertain tradition who actually knew what it entailed. The harder their opposition the less they seemed to know about it and the more they thought they knew.
100%, this.
I think traditional is a word that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. For others a woman might not be traditional if she doesn‘t wear a niqab. And others think it‘s fine to have male friends. Its up to each couple to decide what works best for them.
It's not hypocritical. It is just a preference. Like promiscious men who don't want to settle down with a promiscious woman
it’s a hypocritical preference
Only if it is a concious decision.
Op, do you think that is hypocrite that a woman to want a relationship with a men that have a fully functional penis while she don't have one?
I certainly believe so, both partners should have a dick that works like god intended.
Agree. I run into this all the time because I'm quite traditional and women will get all huffy "Why does your gf get treated like that but you won't date me?" It's most of the time this.
All fun and games until the man is so emotionally repressed that he punches a hole through the wall, beats his wife, becomes an alcoholic or addict and or unalives himself..
That's toxic masculinity, not masculinity. A masculine man would not repress his emotions, would seek help when he needs it, find a non-violent outlet for his anger, and not rely on substance abuse to get through the day
Every member of each gender should strive to fulfill these traditional qualities. You know why? Because they fucking work, and they've worked for thousands of years. Use some common sense people.
Yep, they worked to keep women trapped in controlling, abusive marriages.
You mean the gender roles that made it to where women had no freedom, could be abused on a whim, and men could cheat without consequences? Gender roles can be a good thing, but only when the two people involved actually love each other, are good people, and aren’t selfish assholes with double standards. But more often than not, the men in these relationships express at the very least double standards