Hacker News Reader

Meeting people in public really is the answer, but I think shifting the focus from romantic to being genuine, friendly, and focusing on community in places where it’s not just guys is way more successful (for hetero men)

I met my girlfriend at a coffeeshop. I was a regular and just actively friendly to everyone. Our first date felt more like a second because we already had multiple conversations.

Men have a much greater emphasis on physical attraction than women which is why women need a much higher level of physical attraction when only using that. But building community lets us show off our other qualities which women put a much greater emphasis on.

Yes, but it is exactly that sort of interaction that has declined.

> I can confidently say that dating was not brutal before the apps. (I am pretty old.)

What? Dating been brutal and unforgiving for as long as I've been alive, but I wouldn't say I'm old (between 30 - 40). it was definitely harsh before the apps and had the exact same "everyone wants to date beautiful people, no one wants to date ugly people" "problem" that exists today, not sure what makes you say it's any different than today.

> Please don't read this post as an attack on women

I don't read your comment as an "attack" on anything, women or dating apps. But things like "women can only evaluate based on looks in bars, clubs, public spaces, etc" is wildly out of touch with reality, and makes your comment rightly seem out of touch rather than an attack on anything at all.

> can only evaluate based on looks in <

then, you are entering a place with loud music - how else apart from looks are you judging to speak some words to?

Encounter someone interesting? Chat more. Someone boring and not interesting? Don't chat so much. Speak to a whole bunch of people, a little bit, stay with less to speak more, like how its always worked.

This is a boilerplate redpill comment.

Indeed. Back in the day he would have been classified as "PUA" /s

I was into the PUA thing, and I disagree the comment above is that.

The PUA scene was about gamifying or exploiting dating - hacking how you go about it for your own gains (getting laid)

Approaching women in public with good intentions and to feel more comfortable talking to women is not PUA. It’s one of the suggested things to do, but I think intentions matter a lot.

Maybe not how the term is used now, or for the last few years, but there's been several waves of it with very different styles.

After Neil Strauss "The Game" almost destroyed several of the early exploitative PUA companies, many of them survived by refocusing on "softer", more self-improvement focused material. You'd find "old school" PUA companies like Real Social Dynamic[1] suddenly pushing exercise, meditation, and other self-improvement focused programs alongside their old routine-based pickup bullshit.

The comment above fits into that era, I think - on one hand there's language that fit right into some of that eras PUA mindset, on the other hand it's mostly arguing for the "softer" self-improvement stuff.

I agree with you that the intentions matter a lot, though. But I think the comment above would've gone down a lot better if worded differently...

[1] RSD later totally imploded after a campaign targeting one of their trainers - Julien Blanc, who pushed the exploitative angle to dizzying new heights.

Redpill is normalized/accepted by gen Z now. Trying to convince young men that the language used by 4chan /fit/ circa 2016 (-pilled, -maxxing, "mogging", etc) isn't the truth of this world will fail. Gen Z men have seen that the tactics described by these people objectively work.

Don't like redpill? Make it stop working.

Gen Z men are having less sex than ever, so not sure this is making the kind of point you think it is

Redpill is ‘working’ as it always has, as an obvious red flag

The failed men are having less sex than ever. The successful chads getting swole and using test? They're cleaning up using red pill tactics because the gender ratio on college campus's is so favorable now that white men are so statistically underrepresented that they're doing actual affirmative action for them.

https://theweek.com/culture-life/the-gender-education-gap-is...

https://www.the-independent.com/us/money/dating-struggles-wo...

https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai25-1199.pd...

https://mindingthecampus.org/2025/10/23/college-students-in-...

looks-matched, ugos, fake #MeToo women, low-mids

I think whatever website you’re getting this jargon from is hurting you

#MeToo women do exist, they used to gang up on men out in public who were alone and scream at them to not approach women.

This is reality they're talking about, outside of work and home. Your inability to accept this doesn't make these trends any less observable.

Sounds like one of these "blue-red-pill-men"-channels on YT?

You literally give the advice to "start by approaching ugos/low-mids. This entire post comes off as vain, but your disclaimer at the end doesn't absolve it of also being misogynistic.

You're telling men to use "conventionally" unattractive women as target practice, implying they will be more receptive to attention, presumably due to a general lack of it. Then your advice is to leave these women behind once you've gotten what you needed, and to then seek women more attractive to you.

This is a perverse way to approach people.

And this is exactly why the dating marketplace is as ugly as it is.

Just wait until you hear what women actually say amongst themselves, this dudes comments will sound like Sunday school talk.

What, exactly, is why the dating "marketplace" as ugly as it is? Is there actually a point you wanted to make, or was there just a vague notion of a point?

> Just wait until you hear what women actually say amongst themselves

1. You assumed without asking that I was male. This indicates an inherent bias on how you perceive and interact with others.

2. You assume I have a nascent understanding of how women think and feel, compared to yourself, who must be an expert on women.

3. You group all women into a single monolithic group with shared motivation and behaviors. This is textbook prejudice and misogyny.

4. You claim that women are even more misandrist than men are misogynist, implying a justification for OP's and your own misogynistic perspective. In actuality, you're only further expressing the depths of your own misogynistic attitude towards women.

5. You claim to know what they say amongst themselves while implying I don't have the same knowledge; Are you a woman? Or do you have hidden cameras on women? How else could you have possibly ordained this forbidden knowledge?

5. My partner, a woman, does not think or act the way you described. She does not engage in overt misandry with her friends.

6. I have encountered plenty of extremely misogynistic and legitimately creepy/abusive attitudes towards women at "Sunday school" and while receiving religious education. Every one of the many dozens of churches I've been to have had extreme misogynistic undertones, and often brazen overtones. If you are trying to establish a basis for what isn't misogyny, you couldn't have picked a worse target.

7. "But I'm not the only one who does it" has never, ever, ever been an excuse for prejudice.

8. Dating "marketplace"? What are you even talking about? Apps? Websites? Dating in general? I am not conventionally attractive by modern society's standards, I'm overweight, and outspoken. I have not had issues finding or attracting women. Determining long-term compatibility is much more difficult, but a lack of vanity or a misogynistic outlook was never the problem.

My advice? Touch grass, ask a woman what she actually thinks, and listen. You clearly are not currently in a position to give others advice on women; you are in need of advice.

damn, way to make my point.

I asked if you had a point and you still have yet to provide one.

I wish misandry were real.

Males are so used to holding all the cards and having everyone do their bidding that women having self-agency and making decisions feel like emasculating humiliations and an attack on the bases of masculinity.

They won't listen because they know what's at stake.

I guess you haven't met an actual misandrist. Actual misandry, like misogyny, is pathological. I assure you that my masculinity is not threatened by women making decisions and I fully support dismantling the patriarchy. Unfortunately, things seem to be sliding backwards.

> I guess you haven't met an actual misandrist.

Of course I know them. It's me! (joshing)

Don't take it as an attack on you, by the way. But we have to recognize one of the biggest roots of the problems facing the world today.

I understand, and unfortunately pedantry becomes important here when we're agreeing upon and elevating shared ideals with the intention of establishing new institutions.

So for me, I understand and support the distinction you're making about how resistance to oppressive institutions is not hate or violence, "misandry isn't real" just doesn't tell enough of the story. The type of misandry I'm speaking of isn't systemic or institutional in the way misogyny is. It's much more pathological and individual. I haven't met many people like this and it is definitely an outlier, whereas misogyny in men is commonplace. Humans, of course. The spider dating scene is a whole different conversation.

I'm curious what in particular you meant by one of the biggest roots of the problem facing the world today. The patriarchy, or something else?

Yeah, I get what you mean.

Patriarchy, to be sure. But I'm also rallying against the false conceptions many people have about the acts of males in patriarchy.

Put simply, there is no male who does not benefit from the patriarchy. What's more, masculinity itself is a toxic expression of itself. You'll find that naïve liberal humanists often speak about "positive masculinity", yet they either struggle to define it or define it through traits that have no reason to be male-exclusive. Masculinity and, thus, maleness itself is a poison on this world that has been choking it for as long as we've been alive.

> define it through traits that have no reason to be male-exclusive

Well, this is what I do. When I think about what it means to me personally to be a man, to be masculine, I think about the ideals I try to live by. They're all universal ideals; but I think myself and the rest of the male community are better off for embodying them.

I expect women to do this as well; I think the majority of positive feminine traits one might try to identify are traits that have no reason to be female-exclusive. I don't think either femininity or masculinity are inherently toxic. What I would call the dominating ideas of modern "masculinity" are mostly toxic.

But I'd ask of you to consider that many of us are trying to be positive examples to other men. I myself have isolated toxic traits within myself that were learned from the male community; I didn't have a dad or a present mom, my male guardian was extraordinarily abusive and patriarchal (Catholic deacon ex-boxer), and I grew up in a backwards, rural area. I'm still working on being the best version of my self.

Especially when you consider that for any change to be effected within the male community, the conversation takes place with respect to any notion of masculinity. You are not going to be able to sell to men as a whole the idea of shedding their gender identity. Believe me, I would love if the entire concept of gender identity disappeared tomorrow and we all just saw ourselves as people, free to express ourselves in whichever manners we choose, without constraints such as "maleness" or "female...ness". But, gender identity exists today, it is culturally inherent and the best way to effect change today is to discuss what masculinity should be. I'm glad that the traits that come to mind for me are not male-exclusive. I would be very sad if there really were such fundamental, irreconcilable differences between men and women.

Oh jeez someone in this thread who recognizes women are people, too. Reading this thread was so disheartening.

Every time I go online I try to remind myself that the majority of comments are coming from bots. The men in my life don't talk this way.

And where is this sentiment that women will only look at the same 5% coming from? One woman's 5% is going to look very different from another woman's 5%. Go outside and don't interact with just women, but a variety of people and a variety of different couples to see what normal relationships look like.

It seems in these conversations that the main concern for men is attracting women, but going by the way they talk about them, it doesn't sound like they respect them as fellow human beings. Some of the concerns women have during dating are: are they safe to be around (read: am I walking into a situation where I am going to get raped), am I going to be called a slut or a whore if I do x y and z? (Am I going to be called a slut if I don't?) It's what the internet talks about, and what media and your family will constantly warn you to be on the alert for.

A lot of people seem to think that attracting women involves changing superficial aspects of yourself so that they take the bait and discover you also have a huge, throbbing personality. Yet the very thought of entertaining such a superficiality speaks more about the shallowness of the man in this situation than the women.

Do women also engage in superficial behavior? Sure. Yet, I don't fault them for it. Women have been subjected to centuries of socially reinforced mass commercial and government propaganda, just like men. We are living in an age of manufactured consent and commodified personality traits. Gillette leveraging womens' magazines to convince women and men that body hair on women is not sexy. I hate what this culture of propaganda has done to us as social beings.

And yet, as you've described, the difference in experience between men and women is chilling. From how they perceive the world when walking alone at night, how they have to be more careful when consuming intoxicants at parties (and are socially shamed for failing to do this even when men are given a pass for getting so plastered they shit themselves), have to be more considerate of their presentation, their words, etc. And what is sad is that when you try to bring these things up as a man, you're often met with suspicion that you are against the entire concept of manhood. Which on its own is quite telling about how men subconsciously perceive themselves on a collective level.

The conversation seems unbalanced to many men because the world we live in is unbalanced, but many just don't see that because they see benefit in the status quo.

The bizarre thing is you’re the one treating them like they aren’t the same as everyone else and capable of the same perversions, shittiness, etc.

I’m not seeing anything about attracting women, just the natural dynamics present in populations.

You’re the only one I see using ‘slut’, ‘white’, etc.

Please point out where the commenter used the word 'white'.... Oh wait nope, that was just you bringing race into this for no reason. This speaks volumes about your internal hangups.

And talk about missing the point; You are either ignorant or deliberately manipulative to admonish someone for speaking plainly about women's experiences. Are you next going to tell the Black community they're no longer allowed to use the n-word?

‘white’ was autocorrected ‘whore’, which they did use. Race makes zero contextual sense in that sentence. Nice try though!

I was speaking plainly about womens experiences, and was responding to the poster who was denying them. The poster who was shaming recognizing women as people who are not actually on pedestals.

what are you even talking about?

Your comments are increasingly hard to follow and if you can't even be bothered to proofread them first then I see no reason to continue feeding a troll.

Convenient

Please don't read things that I didn't say. I did not state that they aren't the same as everyone else. Of course women can be horny (that's why a lot of them like attractive men -- they aren't blind) and absolutely they can be superficial. When in positions of power they can be just as evil. That's what makes them people.

My objection to the original thread was the dehumanization of women (and men) using the words ugos, mids, "the best", and grooming (young) men to approach situations in a calculated manner and assigning value to people based on their looks. If they happen to get rejected by an ugo that they perceive as being of lower attractiveness, how is that going to make them feel?

I'm not a psychologist nor do I understand human behavior, but this entire wording makes me uneasy, and it is awful to see it being promoted in something as benign-seeming as a tech forum. Also see: hypergamy, "explain them the math" -> "share the same top 5% of men", "women actually say amongst themselves".

The entire point of me including that last paragraph was to share a little picture of the kinds of expectations/language women are thinking in (sounds like I failed?), hopefully humanize them, and may also add color to these "natural dynamics", on top of other factors than just pure number ratios.

Men having the ability to date 100 women isn't the same as women having the ability to date 100 men because the risk factor and thinking is different. And if you are coaching men to think in this sort of language, well... IDK. I'm just glad I don't need to date in this current climate.

I love my SO and he adds so much to my life, but if I hadn't found him, a life with a snuggly cat sounds just as lovely :). I hope people who are afraid of being alone after they see this-and-that scary number are able to see a future in which they can also just be content by themselves, if it comes to that.

> 3. You group all women into a single monolithic group with shared motivation and behaviors. <

You will be shocked, if you talk with men who are really able to analze their traits and talk openly about it, how SIMILAR and shared these are :-)

Men are quite simple on some layer. Especially this dating layer. Even if some claim not being part of these "mind & traits behaviour", nonetheless they mainly think the same.

Now we're also assuming that I don't know how men talk to each other, either? Is the assumption that I live in a box with no windows or doors?

You might be interested to know that "this is the way things are" is not a valid excuse for perpetuating learned prejudice. I in fact take issue with some of the collective behavior of both men and women. Shocking, right?

What i was saying:

Men around the world are functioning the same way,esp. on some levels like dating. Like it or not :-)

I clearly don't like it, and am speaking out against it, so what's your point?

You can speak out against whatever is your desire. But more interesting is, why you think that whatever Babo in US would behave differently to whatever Babo in Europe vs against whatever Babo in Asia.

Men are simply >simple<. You do not have to accept this, even if its statisticly true.

And upon this adds men-specific behaviour with huge costs to society,but thats not part here.

I don't need your permission to speak and I don't need to entertain your simplistic world view. Have a nice day.

I wish you all the best, regardless of your votes.

> what women actually say amongst themselves

Once a girlfriend "invited" me to those conversation by giving some examples, so ..yeeessss. :-D

Indeed. It's literally lampooned, including the specific language, in a Big Bang Theory episode, because it fit perfectly to Howards creepy early-seasons personality.

Going out and desensitising yourself to anxiety over approaching strangers by talking to people without the intent or expectation of it going anywhere is the less offensive version, and one that works, without any need to rank people by appearance to do it.

> You're telling men to use "conventionally" unattractive women as target practice, implying they will be more receptive to attention, presumably due to a general lack of it. Then your advice is to leave these women behind once you've gotten what you needed, and to then seek women more attractive to you.

I dunno, this seems to be interpreting the comment in the worst way possible. Like, assuming bad faith.

The comment above suggested that guys approach less-attractive women until they "build some confidence". This is not about the woman's receptivity to attention, this is about the guy's confidence or lack thereof. It makes sense: when confidence is worse, the conversation is more awkward and stilted, and that awkwardness is more likely to reinforce the idea that talking to strangers is a waste of time.

The charitable interpretation would be this: that you practice talking to strangers in scenarios that feel safe. Gradually, work up towards your goal - making new friends, talking to people you want to date, etc.

I halfway agree with you. The comments underlying advice isn't that awful. But he really shot himself in the foot with the wording, and so I don't think it's weird that people take issue with the wording.

As I pointed out in another comment, he could've just argued for approaching people without expectations and intending it to go anywhere and suggested that a way of doing that is to approach people you're not attracted to.

In other words, make it about your intent and preference rather than about ranking women by appearance.

The reason why I suggest these co-workers approach ugos/low-mids: They tell me that they are too nervous to approach women "on their level" (whatever that means). (1) Most people are more comfortable to speak to strangers that they do not find (particularly) attractive. (2) Who knows... maybe that ugo/low-mid suddenly becomes a lot more attractive when you see their personality. Maybe they are funny, unusually kind/friendly/intelligent, or adventurous.

The Red Pill movement is about social manipulation to sleep with as many women as possible or have an endless string of situationships. My advice aims to help them to learn to meet strangers... and maybe spark a romantic connection. It is exactly how I dated my younger days... long before dating apps (when it was less brutal).