top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 106 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 81 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    I blame romance movies and novels and such. It's such utter bullshit, how the stereotypical storyline is that she rejects him at first and then he's just really desperate persistent and then she eventually softens up and they're married ever after.

    Some women like that little dance of rejecting and the guy not giving up, but even then only if they think you're cute beforehand.
    But most women will just find that creepy and off-putting. They want to have a partner they actually find attractive themselves, not just any partner who finds them attractive enough to persist through humiliation.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 9 months ago

    The guys in these romance movies also tend to be fairly handsome and charming. The rejections are more often because the woman has had bad experiences with men and is careful. Or something else like that. Or maybe she's got an abusive boyfriend she hasn't left yet. Whereas in real life it's entirely possible to just not be that person's type.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 9 months ago

    I blame them too.

    The stereotype need to die.

    Some men take rejections seriously. If you blow them off then they move on. In some cases men find it really hurts because they know they'll be good together.

    Can we go back to when no Tinder, no social media to carry out these "modern" romance practice please? No more stupid romance movies. And please every country pass a law to put a disclaimer on Jane Austen's books, saying "This romance story never happened."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    Some women like that little dance of rejecting and the guy not giving up, but even then only if they think you’re cute beforehand. But most women will just find that creepy and off-putting.

    The big frustration comes with the fact that the "most" women above are still happily consuming the romance movies/novels with the toxic paradigm you describe, along with the "some". And then they'll turn around and get indignant about it existing in real life, while promoting/encouraging it culturally simultaneously.

    Look at the colossal sales figures for 50 Shades of Grey, what percentage of that do you think came from men?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 69 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Instructions unclear. Fucked a vending machine.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 60 points 9 months ago (7 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 49 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    I will fuck the vending machine πŸ™ thx

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 35 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    I don't think it's dumbed down enough. Where do I put the money, again?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    In your urethra, and then you shoot it out during sex. Sex work is generally outlawed because this practice is so dangerous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 9 months ago

    Why no sex if sex doll shape ? /s

  • source
  • [–] 49 points 9 months ago

    Don't be nice to women, got it!

    • alpha bros
  • source
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago

    The Oblivion persuasion wheel did not adequately prepare me for actual relationships.

  • source
  • [+] 44 points 9 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    What if I just want a small bag of pretzels that are overly priced, and likely stale? Can I still have sex with the vending machine to get those?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    you can program anybody to like you, just because we're complex beings doesn't mean we don't have consistent behavioural traits

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    Wow you did it, you solved incels /s

  • source
  • [–] 40 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    It's not "be nice goes here" it's "fruit flavored alcohol goes here."

    Virgins.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    First I thought it was a manual for how to have sex with vending machines or some new kind of vending machine that sells sexual services or something.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago*

    From top hats and painted nails, to microphones and mewing. There, unfortunately, always seems to be a market to exploit desperate, emotionally unintelligent men seeking female affection.

  • source
  • [–] 39 points 9 months ago (18 children)

    It's a bit of an overgeneralization to act like men are sex-obsessed and view relationships as a transaction where they can purchase sex by being nice.

    It's human to want love and care, but so many people view men as only wanting sex, so if a man complains about being lonely, isolated, or being unloved, it seems like everyone jumps to the conclusion that he's only talking about sex. Then they scorn him, reinforcing the pattern of loneliness and building the sense of frustration and being a victim of ostracization.

    Likewise, if a man is kind to a woman he'll generally be regarded with suspicion, like "what are you trying to get out of this?" Some people just value kindness and try to be nice for the sake of being nice; but if it lands them with accusations and scorn then it'll only go on so long before they stop. And then people will scorn them either for being rude to women or snubbing them. It seems it's impossible to be a man in the vicinity of women without opening oneself to being labeled as a misogynist, no matter what you do.

    The reality is that men are also conscious and complex human beings, and depicting them as these simple and one-dimensional sex pests isn't really moving the dialogue forward. All it does is give women a temporary feeling of moral superiority which they then chase like any other addiction.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    so many people view men as only wanting sex, so if a man complains about being lonely, isolated, or being unloved, it seems like everyone jumps to the conclusion that he’s only talking about sex. Then they scorn him, reinforcing the pattern of loneliness and building the sense of frustration and being a victim of ostracization.

    Precisely.

    Some people just value kindness and try to be nice for the sake of being nice; but if it lands them with accusations and scorn then it’ll only go on so long before they stop. And then people will scorn them either for being rude to women or snubbing them.

    Not only that, but that will mean that the only men remaining, who haven't stopped, are that minority that are being transactional, which further distorts women's perception of men as a whole.

    The reality is that men are also conscious and complex human beings, and depicting them as these simple and one-dimensional sex pests isn’t really moving the dialogue forward. All it does is give women a temporary feeling of moral superiority which they then chase like any other addiction.

    Couldn't have said it any better myself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    Back around 2010, my girlfriend of the time ended up on someone's page detailing how to pick up girls, and shortly prompting readers to buy their pheromone based product (obvious scam, but that's not the point now). She got super upset. Outraged, even. She went on a rant about how she's not a fucking moth that can just be lured by silly simple stuff like that.

    About a year later we took part in a competition where two attendees (2 girls, maybe a year or two younger) were desperately looking for accommodation. One of our rooms was empty that day, so we offered that to them with another flatmate (my GF wasn't around that day).

    When she had heard about the whole thing, she got rather jealous. Didn't matter how much I explained it to her that I am boringly faithful, that I only love her and I didn't care about the girls romantically, or that I have always been like this: in her mind, if a guy is "alone" with 2 girls for the night (daytime is fine, but mystically, horny zombification happens at full moon), he will be as easy to seduce as it gets, not matter what (like any of those two girls wanted anything, anyway).

    Am I a fucking moth, then? It goes both ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Whoa, when I posted this I didn't expect anyone to actually agree with me. Thanks for renewing my hope in the world!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    Try to remember the 80/20 rule (may not be accurate with those exact numbers) 80 % of people on here are invisible and rarely make themselves noticed.

    The vocal minority skews perceptions but are often rather noisy about their opinions...which is just like my opinion, man

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago

    Unfortunately, the vocal 20% on the internet tend to create an echo chamber effect, which then bleeds into real-world social interactions.

    That's why it's not unheard of for a man to say hi to a woman at a bar, only for her friends to immediately butt in and go "Stop trying to rape her!" as if simply saying hello is synonymous with attempted rape nowadays...

    And it doesn't help actual victims of rape either, because it desensitizes people to the word. How is anyone supposed to "believe victims" by default if it's become normal to cry "rape" at the slightest misstep?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Likewise, if a man is kind to a woman he'll generally be regarded with suspicion, like "what are you trying to get out of this?"

    Maybe it is just me, but I don't think I've been viewed with suspicion because of simply being nice. If you're sincere and nice, then this typically doesn't happen. If you're known as kind of a dick and you switch to being nice, people will take notice. If you're being seen as love-bombing, you will be seen as suspect. While I agree men should not be typecast as only sex driven, I'm curious how this part of your argument came into it...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Ah, then you must also have the privilege of being either conventionally attractive, endowed with good social skills, well-integrated into an accepted social group, or some combination of the above.

    But go ahead and say anyone who has none of the above is probably a dick if he faces ostracization cause he probably deserves it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    men [...] view relationships as a transaction

    Meanwhile all the studies showing numbers (and reason behind them) of women who view relationship and sex as a transaction and trade sex for something, including a man being nice to them: Am I a joke to you?

    (And more studies on "sugar daddy", e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33433242/ )

    Tldr: it's not even overgeneralization, it's diminishing the female agency in the trade. Which I think is worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    But... but... some feminists on reddit told me golddiggers aren't real and only men are culpable in transactional relationships!!!1!

    You know, any critique of a woman's behavior is a harmful generalization. But generalizations about men are totally fine and anyone who says "not all men are like that" is a redpilled incel, apparently...

    ...at least according to reddit feminists (not real feminists)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    The comic doesn't talk about 'all men' or even 'men' at all. There are all sorts of people acting like this and if you don't, you don't have to defend yourself or attack your imagined adversary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Not sure why you are getting downvoted. What wonderingwanderer says is true as well, but honestly not relevant to this comic. Comics with this type of messaging often very explicitly call out men (even those that don't treat women as such), which leads to a hostile counter response. This one just says "you're a dummy if you treat women like this", which yeah. You probably are, if not worse. But unlike many other examples it could literally also apply to other women, (eg. lesbians), non-binary, or other folks who objectify women. They are exceedingly rare I would bet, but things like TERFs exist too sadly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago

    Within context, it was very clearly directed towards men. If it were implicitly directed at any other demographic, it would be called a dogwhistle. So how is it not a dogwhistle?

    You're right, men who act like that are pigs. Or perhaps more charitably, sheltered and clueless how social interaction work with anyone, especially social interactions with women.

    But there's a lot of ground between "male with poor social skills tries to be nice and struggles with constant rejection" and "male demands sex as payment for basic pleasantries," the former of which seems more like a caricature than anything based in reality, and anyone who actually behaves like that would be shunned into oblivion.

    In any case, the implication that anyone lacking social skills is a chauvinist pig is worn-out and unwelcome.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago

    So if someone makes a comic titled "Men: a guide for dummies" and the two slides are "Not this way: (picture of a vending machine where "sex" is the input and "money/free dinner/free drinks" is the output)" and "this way: (picture with a man that says "complex, conscious human being that you can't program to buy you things")," would that be any different?

    Because in my view, both are exploiting harmful stereotypes by making an overgeneralization about the implied opposite gender. You're defending OP's example, but somehow I expect you wouldn't be too happy about the one described above...

    And by the way, if I had simply replied "not all men" to OP's comic, then I would have been mocked and ridiculed by people claiming that's just a manosphere dog whistle. But now it's okay for you to say it doesn't apply to all men when you're backtracking and attempting to diminish the concern that this plays on a harmful stereotype that's not-so-subtly directed towards men as a general category?

    "Don't worry, not all women are golddiggers. If you're not one then you don't need to defend yourself or attack your imagined adversary when you see a post titled 'Dilbert Creator's insta thot wife disappears with prenup pension.'"

    Same shit, different direction.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    It’s a bit of an overgeneralization to act like men are sex-obsessed and view relationships as a transaction where they can purchase sex by being nice.

    I sincerely hope you are a woman overreacting in defense of the other gender. Because if you're a man, you need to learn to appreciate some self-depreciating humor without getting butthurt. I could chuckle at the comic, because as usual, there is a (big) grain of truth in it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    So you're saying my argument is only valid if I'm a woman? And if I'm a man, I just need to learn to be more self-deprecating? What kind of double-standard is that?

    Good luck trying to tell women to "appreciate some self-deprecating humor without getting butthurt." I'm sure that will turn out well for you.

    Or is it only men who need to be self-deprecating? Cause again, that would be a double standard.

    And if you find it self-deprecating to laugh at "men think sex is transactional," then you're telling on yourself. This comic is about you, so don't act morally superior to men who don't identify with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Nah I think it's a pretty simple algorithm still: don't be weirder than you are attractive. It's just that there's really wildly varying ideas on what's weird or attractive.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Who'd want to be with someone they don't think is weird? Sounds boring.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    There's weird, and then there's weird. You need to be the right kind of weird.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • There's weird and then there's things like mildly (or sometimes majorly) creepy, offputting, or awkward to converse with, which might also be called weird (but I think would be better served with more accurate language, although some of those might be considered negative enough that you might want a euphemism if you aren't certain). But even if you are just normal weird, your weird might just not jive with someone else's interests. Like, if you're just really really into professional Cricket and from the US, I'd think that's weird, but like not interesting.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Human beings can have tastes in their partners that go beyond a one-dimensional weird vs. attractive...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    To be clear, I'm not using attractive here to mean "physically beautiful" but instead "possessing qualities the other person wants in a partner." Weird was a word choice for humor but I was essentially saying, "have more attractive qualities than unattractive qualities." While recognizing that what one person finds unattractive, another might find attractive, and vice versa. By definition, simplifying a complex interaction of human wants and desires into one dimension, rendering it intentionally useless as advice, for the sake of trying to be funny.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Ah, in that case, I got poe's-lawed. There's just teenagers out there, who have not yet formed such a taste and assume others have not either, so may genuinely assume they're just supposed to be the most physically beautiful and non-weird to rake in a boy-/girl-/enbyfriend. Well, and some of those teenagers even make it into adulthood without taste...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    If you're just after sex and can't get any via casual hook ups from bars / dating apps / fetish groups then just pay a consenting adult for sex.

    If you're after genuine human connection and a relationship then you should work on yourself to be someone you'd like to be in a relationship with.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 19 points 9 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Because sex workere get exploited! If they loved it, they'd do it free!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Do you believe that anytime anyone agrees to do something, but only if they get paid, that they're being exploited?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    The comic lands because it’s really about basic respect and communication, not β€œrules.” Simple ideas, but easy to forget.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Even then she looks a bit Manic Pixie Dream Girl, so now they think she’s quirky in a safe way and will dedicate her life to fixing a broken boy.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    Alright, but what exactly are those packages in the vending machine? What do packages of sex look like? Will rocking the machine back and forth shake out free packages? Can we use the coin on a string trick or get our hand stuck in the door?

    I feel there's so much we're missing here.

    Post needs text alternative.Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative:

    • usability
      • we can't quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
      • text search is unavailable
      • the system can't
        • reflow text to varied screen sizes
        • vary presentation (size, contrast)
        • vary modality (audio, braille)
    • accessibility
      • lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
      • some users can't read the image due to lack of alt text (markdown image description)
      • users can't adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
      • systems can't read the text to them or send it to braille devices
    • searchability: the "text" isn't indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
    • fault tolerance: no text fallback if
      • image breaks
      • image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.

    Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    So you're saying I should buy them flowers?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next β€Ί