She was only a willing passenger and cheerleader on the bus when the bus was saving her from the walk in the direction she wanted to go.
Well put.
While we can discuss editing Rule 5 to make it clearer, it is to be understood that the rules are in conjunction to the "understanding our theme" post. Maybe we can move it to the top of the rules list as a must read article or include it in Rule 5 directly.
I do not think she will fit in the weekend either. This is why we have Whereallthegoodmenare and the tribes portion. If @polishknight wants to write an essay on why women like this end up asking the big question and why men walk away from them, it can be hosted there. Even then, I think it should focus on how this is an avoidable issue and how women complicate their dating lives unnecessarily.
cc: @lurkerhasarisen
I don’t see this as a case of the dual mating strategy.
It certainly isn't.
If that's our requirement, though, then we should amend rule 5 to mention something about posts containing evidence that the woman in the post is participating in Dual Mating Strategy. As it's currently written, she fits.
If you and @moorekom are both against featuring her as a weekday post, why not a weekend post under rule 9?
@moorekom hmm. I need to do some re-reading, as it's been a while since I've read anything besides the rules and the flair guide.
Thing is, we've featured Carols who weren't cock carousel riders in the past, as long as they met the other criteria in rule 5 (or rule 9 on weekends).
We might ought to reword rule 5 a bit if being a virgin is enough to completely disqualifies a woman who otherwise meets the rule. Again, she is seeking commitment (which satisfies the first clause) while also being entitled and unreasonable and while complaining that she can't find a decent guy (any of which satisfies the second clause).
From "About" section (emphasis mine):
In response to r/niceguys, this sub is dedicated to exposing all the women who complain about wanting a "good man" after dating jerks and riding the cock carousel in the prime of their youth, and think they're deserving of commitment and financial stability when all they have left to offer is their depreciating looks, narcissistic mentality, used-up vaginas, and another man's kids.
From "understanding our theme":
Our central theme is exposing women who seek Good Men for commitment and financial stability after dating jerks, riding the cock carousel, and who likely have children they want provided for.
This is called a dual-mating strategy, aka Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks. This strategy of dating jerks and riding the carousel before settling down with a good man is not only planned by many women, but it's encouraged by feminists.
While this girl has her own set of problems, as we've been discussing here, she does not fit the theme.
The top comment in reddit is:
Ehhhhh.... This one seems a little harsh here. I mean, she's worked hard and is even a virgin. I get that having never really engaged with men in her teens are early twenties and she then experiences online dating; it's probably quite disheartening for her.
The guy who informed her about caereers not mattering is correct though, as we have seen multiple times on this forum.
I actually sympathise with her a bit.
Intention to commit a crime is not the same as committing the crime. We showcase the latter and my point is that she falls under the former category. If it can be proven that she does fall under the second category, we can showcase her in the sub.
Read More@moorekom even though she is (supposedly) a virgin who has never even been on a date, she fits both rule 5 and the "strong, independent woman" flair.
Rule 5 in its entirety, with the words/clauses relevant to the OP in bold:
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".
They don't have to be promiscuous; the word "or" is the coordinating conjunction of the second half of rule 5, not "and". They also don't have to have kids, for example.
Anyone saying we're being unduly harsh has their White Knight instinct kicking in, just like when @loneliness-inc originally posted his first post featuring Dr. Macavoy (weird - my sticky comment is still stickied but isn't at the top).
Read MoreTypo,
Let's recap for a minute:
She has not had any relationship.
She has not had any sex (so she says).
She has been spending her time productively becoming a doctor (which reduces her dating options considerably).
Now for the cons:
She wants to be "wooed".
She is complaining about being treated like a piece of meat even though she gets a lot of attention (so she says).
To conclude: she is expecting way too much, is being run over by her sisterhood which is way more sluttier, is possibly not good looking enough, is being tempted to become a slut, will possibly become one and end up asking the big question. Yes, she is entitled, but she has not crossed the Rubicon yet.
We don't have enough information to showcase her in our subs. If we had more background info via her subsequent comments or posts, she might fit. As it is, I do not think she fits.
Also, Kevin wrote this about SIW (emphasis mine):
She spends her prime years chasing degrees and careers while riding the carousel, then comes onto the dating market post-wall expecting men in the top 20% to commit to her long term. And she's not looking for just "a man with a job and goals". Because of women's hypergamous nature, the SIW wants a man with a greater income and education than she has, which allows her to use his money to support her debts stemming from her degree, 4-bedroom house and luxury car. So only handsome doctors, lawyers and business owners may apply, regardless if she's post-wall with kids.
PS: Sympathetic comments were in reddit. The top comment pointed out that she was alright and we're being harsh.
cc: @polishknight.
Read More@moorekom while she certainly doesn't fit the WAATGM-ITM flair (which is weekend- only, @polishknight), she fits the "strong, independent woman" flair as described by @Kevin32 when he created that flair. She wasted her youth and most valuable years chasing education and a career.
I sympathize with her too (haven't read the comments at the removed post yet), but she fits rule 5 under that flair. Hell, she comes this close to asking The Big Question.
Thanks for tagging me here. As I mentioned before, I do not think this fits the theme of the sub since there isn't an overt indication that she fucked around, rejected good men and chased after her career for far too long. She isn't too far gone and without more info, I do not think she should be featured in our subs. As you might have noticed, some comments were sympathetic to her and did point out that her situation is recoverable.
While we can discuss these posts in the tribes portion, I do not think these women should find their way to forums.