Dedicated to exposing all the women who complain about wanting a "good man", to show women's poor dating behavior and unreasonable standards while offering little to no value themselves.
Without that as our guiding star we'd eventually and inevitably devolve into just another "point and laugh at the foolish women
I have never heard anyone say that - and I certainly did not.
Why frame it in this way?
The point is not ridicule women IMO; It is to highlight bad female behavior in the dating market.
I don't see anything humorous about this woman's post at all. IN fact it is fucking horrifying. and it deserves visibility.
I like how OP pulled together different content (assuming that was done in good faith and it is in deed the same woman). This is good work and more men need to see it.
I get why we have rules. I have been a mod of a few subreddits, so I get it.
AND - we have different flairs for different reasons. Because the key lesson is not always so obvious - and there are different "flavors" of content.
More content is better (within limits, of course). I just prefer more room to breathe.
Read MoreFucking phone fucked up tagging you @Impressive-Cricket-8
Going without sex for a long time isn't the same as seeking commitment.
If she's NOT looking for commitment, why would she be engaging in trad-fem games of withholding sex
A lot of women mistakenly believe that the reason their relationships "DiDn'T wOrK oUt" is that they had sex too quickly, too early on, when the real reason is that they suck at picking men and/or suck at keeping men. If you're right for each other and treat each other right, you can have sex at your first encounter and be together forever.
That, and it's a (stupid) power play. A lot of women also mistakenly think that sex only benefits the man (it's supposed to be a mutually enjoyable activity that brings the two closer), and subconsciously realize that they offer nothing besides sex to keep a dude around.
This particular woman in your OP is "happily single" and quite clearly doesn't actively desire a man in her life; she's just open to the possibility of one and wants to string him along to extract maximum benefits from him before she gives him what she thinks is the only thing men want (really the only thing women like her offer) and he inevitability bails like so many others before him.
"He must have left because he got the only thing he wanted . It can't possibly be that he left because I'm an insufferable bitch!"
CC: @moorekom, @woodsmoke, @deeplydisturbed, @lurkerhasarisen, @@Impressive-Cricket-8, @MelkorHimself, @Land_of_the_losers
Read MoreThis woman is CLEARLY a "WAATGM" candidate.
Rule 5: Submissions must show a woman who is looking for commitment while also either complaining about jerks or promiscuity, needing her kids provided for, being entitled or unreasonable, or complaining that she "can't find a decent guy".
She is not seeking commitment.
How many of our red flags does a woman (or post) need in order to qualify!?
If she isn't seeking commitment, then she could theoretically have infinite red flags and still not qualify.
The "shitpost Saturday" flair is there to accommodate the desire to share such profiles, but we should stick to the theme and purpose that make us unique for the rest of the week.
@woodsmoke well said, and exactly my thoughts
@woodsmoke Agreed.
Weekday content not abiding by Rule 5 goes against the very theme of the sub. For other content, we have the weekend and the tribes. We can still make fun of her here, but our goal is to show dual mating strategy failing or to highlight it so that men can avoid it.
I don't think disregarding the central theme qualifies as "tweaking the rules."
One can read all kinds of things into what she wrote with a reasonable degree of accuracy but the inescapable fact of the words on the screen is this woman simply isn't actively seeking commitment. She may need a bailout but, at least according to the information available, she's not actively pursuing one.
As such, she doesn't fit rule 5.
Without that as our guiding star we'd eventually and inevitably devolve into just another "point and laugh at the foolish women exhibiting stupid behavior" community, of which there are already dozens if not hundreds scattered across the web.
@Typo-MAGAshiv @moorekom @deeplydisturbed I respect the rules and that's why I check here if any doubts, but I thought these following statements qualified as significant indicators she was "seeking commitment". Quote: “I would not be physical for a long time” “absolutely be an issue if things got serious”
If she's NOT looking for commitment, why would she be engaging in trad-fem games of withholding sex until commitment and fretting about when things would get serious?
I thought this qualified for regular content and was wondering about the flair: she has some "strong, independent woman" going on (while unable to afford getting her car fixed) as well as "single mother tears" and "bailout" (even though she's in denial that's what she really needs).
That said, I can post for weekend content if that's ok and flair appropriately either as Shitpost Saturday or one of the above.
Read More@Typo-MAGAshiv @moorkom
I will occasionally advocate for tweaking the rules.
This woman is CLEARLY a "WAATGM" candidate. How many of our red flags does a woman (or post) need in order to qualify!?
We are needlessly shackled by our own rules.
/Rant over/
Not seeking commitment, and nothing from the second half of rule 5 either.
I could see it as "shitpost Saturday" since she is such a parade of red flags, but nothing else.