@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.
@moorekom huh. Let me test when I tag @redpillschool
Tagging has been fucking up for me a lot lately. I think it's because I've been copying and pasting a list of names instead of putting them in manually.
@polishknight this is good for weekend content. Women like her are begging to be pumped and dumped. She does not like weakness and most masculine men are not attracted to masculinity. She'll be asking the big question when her attractiveness fades.
@Typo-MAGAshiv doesn't look like tag worked.
@polishknight I agree with @lurkerhasarisen; there's no need to cut any of it.
I also don't see a reason to take your first post of this woman down. I'd save it for "shitpost Saturday" and include in your title that it's part 2 of a previous post, and link back to your first one in a comment.
CC: @moorekom
@polishknight the post is plenty fine without the username.
If we allow it to be visible, it might open the floodgates of others seeking exceptions.
CC: @moorekom