In this week’s bonus, I want to keep giving some love to men. Some compassion.
I know, it’s the wrong thing to do on the internet unless you’re Andrew Tate.
And as I keep saying…
That’s the problem!
So, let’s roll through some reflections I’ve had on the impossible situation created for men while dating in dystopia.
Inauthentic; a requirement
We’ve spoken to it…
There have been so many societal realizations and rules created around what’s not allowed anymore… people (men in particular) aren’t allowed to be themselves. Which is a requirement of successful relationship. We can’t equitably “opt in” to relationship with anyone if they’re deceptive about who they are. We get a whole different person, and then have reckoning to do.
And these days? Men are required to mimic and mirror the prevailing social opinions of the times. These kindof um… flouncy ideals about things that they’ve not experienced, but they’re supposed to agree with and uphold.
And look - it’s not that I disagree with those prevailing social opinions or the need for new societal rules – yeah, we all need to be fine with sexual orientations, people having autonomy, safety, and access to basic need satiation, respect across gender, religious, and racial lines…
My problem is simply that these massive societal shifts (which are instruction pamphlets that have to be followed in order to be socially accepted) have been handed out so rapidly, without allowing for genuine adjustment in the individual minds of every human being.
We expect men to “just be different” without them understanding why, fully, viscerally, experientially… and without telling them what “behaving differently” really means.
It’s like how the phrase, “Hey, stop drinking,” doesn’t work, doesn’t cause others to change, doesn’t assist them in comprehending how or wanting to do it from the inside.
Because every person would have to go through the evolutionary process of deciding to stop that behavior, themselves, for that big behavioral change to take place. They have to comprehend it from the top-down, logically. But also from the bottom-up, emotionally. In order to have the full circuit necessary to transform how they show up and outwardly act.
In the drinking example, they have to outgrow it. They have to see how problematic it is. They have to develop other skills and replacement behaviors. For the drinking to authentically, lastingly, stop.
When the internet decided men weren’t allowed to behave in a litany of ways anymore, it didn’t get them the chance to do the same.
It didn’t allow for genuine growth or evolution. And it didn’t give them time to develop their own replacement behaviors.
Aka more enlightened beliefs, attitudes, and actions.
Instead, it told them, “this is what NOT to do… and, if you want to take a look at some influencers, this is what you MUST blindly do.”
And now we have all these PUWBs floating around because of it.
Performative unintegrated wellness boys.
Fake feminists, fake wellness gurus, fake psychoeducated ascended beings. Who still carry the implicit mark of the beast – the lingering toxically masculine views and behaviors they were raised by – but must mask those outdated and outlawed aspects of themselves.
So we get?
Totally “safe, higher minded, enlightened” men by profile, social media presence, and early relationship impressions….
The same depth provided by said influencers who demonstrated to them “how to be.”
But deeper than that - in their real personality systems, we get men who are as insecure, aggressive, and anti-woke as ever, underneath it all.
We just have to do more digging to uncover those artifacts (their real beliefs, actions, and personalities) than before.
So we get MORE invested in relationship before emotional archeology eventually reveals who we’re really dealing with.
And in the meantime have false, illusionary relationships with surface-level, approval-based personalities that are allowed by society. Which also probably doesn’t feel so great for the men. Huh? Having relationships that are all impression-management and none actual-connection?
On the women’s end, you might start an equal, find yourself getting abusively trad-wifed without consent once commitment is established… a decade old story I’d be open to sharing. It’s a frightening outlook for the feminine.
But on the male side of things – what choice do they have? They’ve not been therapized through destructive beliefs or taught how to deal with their emotions. They’ve not been shown the love or acceptance they’ve always lacked to overcome their wounds. They’ve just been informed that they need to knock it all off and be better. Be different.
And these are not the methods for personal growth or resulting behavioral change.
They are the methods for creating repression, frustration, and shame for men. Which society, again, says are unallowed for men. Which only strengthens the repression, frustration, and shame for men.
Men aren’t allowed to be themselves, where they’re at, now. Aren’t allowed to be “the wrong type of man.”
And that means they aren’t allowed to know themselves to develop themselves to grow into the selves we apparently believe they magically should transform into. The “right type of man.”
They’re supposed to “just know” and “do it.” Which is an insecure, ineffective, and confusing position to be put into. Which might be breaking down the male population, one individual at a time.
One self-disparaging attitude, one individual at a time.
Something that, I believe, deserves empathy.
As does this next point that you won’t love:
Antifuckboy – antiforcedrelationship
Fuckbois, the bane of the internet…. The evil that lurks around every corner, comment, and match… the deceptors here to suck out our souls and leave us empty…
Or.
Guys who don’t want to be the anchors in the sky that others attach their dopestrings to.
As much as we’ve talked about overattachment and inauthentic attraction based on hungry brains and unfinished business… does it sound like it’s pleasant to be on the receiving end? To BE that lifeline – that delusional escape hatch in the clouds that saves the other party from touching reality?
Or does that sound like it’s too much boundless pressure with too high a guarantee of eventual mutual destruction? As we’ve assured you many times, it is?
My opinion, having often been the recipient of many clingers with anxious attachment? People looking for a savior? An emotional escape from the daily mundane?
Cause people to experience second one.
Short of having a personality disorder, it doesn’t feel GOOD to be inaccurately assessed as someone’s god. To have the responsibility of their every emotion. To be in charge of their ability to feel content. To support them, holding them away from reality, protecting them, despite all the stupid shit they might honestly be doing in that reality.
Or to know that they’re viewing you inaccurately, that you could never live up to the stories they’re telling themselves, that you will eventually be disappointing – and at that point, only drama can unfold.
It sucks.
So, considering the (stereotypically) womanly penchant for becoming devotedly attached once they start emotionally masturbating or once a penis enters the body… is it any wonder that some guys will just dip on out? Sparing everyone the trouble of those delusions turning into a real, fake, relationship?
…
I don’t think so.
I understand their avoidance of the anxious attachment being placed upon their heads – which is, unfortunately, “the norm” more than it is “the exception,” especially in uncertain times.
In a way, they’re trying to save everyone the extended drama and disappointment that lies around the corner, were they to keep playing into the emosturbation of the other party.
I’m not saying it’s noble. But it is more realistic than the romantic fantasies that often drive us into pointless, depressing, relationships.
…
And yes, I know the argument against FBs.
They’re deceptive. They manipulate. They play on your emotions to get what they want and then they disappear.
True, in some cases, sure. They’re master coercers who suggest a long-term committed relationship and then go AWOL when they get what they need out of you, because of that promise. It happens.
I think we can call those people “sociopaths” before we call them “fuckbois.”
And also, in many cases, if we were to listen up closely…
I think so-called fuckbois tell us exactly what we can expect from them.
But we don’t want to hear it.
And so we don’t listen closely.
And continue living in our preferred fantasy so the emotional masturbation (it feels so good!) can continue.
I think it’s true, ‘people tell you who they are.’
So if they say things like “I’m an asshole, you don’t want to deal with me, I’m terrible at relationships, I’m not good for these boyfriend things….” Or even “I mean, I’m a bit of a fuckboy” (yes, someone has said this to me before and it burst my bubble immediately in that moment).
Believe them.
Don’t laugh those things off. Don’t mistake them as indications of low-self regard that need to be fixed by your magical love. Don’t use them as prompts to TRY HARDER to prove to them that they can be who you want them to be. That you can “fix them” through the healing powers of your affection.
Instead…
Listen.
Integrate that information.
Whether you believe it or not, THEY believe it enough to say it aloud and probably have a reason to be telling you these things…
Like – hint hint – warning to you that they are not here for a serious thing, so please roll down the doors to your dopamine addiction factory and knock it off.
Check for signs of distance. That they’re keeping you at arm’s length or dropping disappointing sentences that don’t align with your preferred version of them. Pay attention when they slight you or don’t give you the time of day.
They’re showing you what to anticipate – what is already underway – despite how much they might text you or how flirty they might be at the bar.
And on the men’s side… can we try to understand fuckboy behavior?
In my experience, shit takes time. If we rush anything, we’re doing everyone a disservice. And fuckboys also, in their highest expression, seem to be aware of this.
They want to be free. They don’t want enmeshed relationship. They don’t want to get into a long, drawn out, “not right for anyone,” partnership of mutual destruction.
They’re still busy, sewing their wild oats.
They want to have their freedom and get to eat, too.
And frankly… It’s not their responsibility to manage anyone else’s emotions. If a girl is going to get attached based on three interactions and infinite emotional masturbation sessions, that’s sortof a them- problem, isn’t it?
It’s not even really about them, the accused “fuckboy,” is it?
That other person would have hitched their wagon, somewhat indiscriminately, to whomever met a few of their “type requirements.” The fuckboy just happened to have been the target of their lassoing.
So, let’s say that the fuckboys are trying to avoid being the object of obsession simply because the other party requires a person, treated as an item, used as a stairway to heaven, to support their mentality through life… and they were the closest object available in that moment.
Which makes a lot of sense.
In a way, it’s delaying serious relationship because they know they’re not ready. They might realize they have an effect on members of their sexual interest that tends to spiral out of control. They might want to prevent all that, while still having the fun and connection of intimate affection.
And I’m not sure why we’ve demonized that, except “it’s not what women stereotypically want.”
Which isn’t a valid measure of good or bad behavior. It’s just a difference in maturity and needs between the two (stereotypically and heteronormatively speaking) genders.
And in this way, I can’t be too mad.
I can feel compassion for guys who need physical attention and emotional connection… but aren’t ready to be the sole suppliers of meaning or comfort for someone they don’t know and maybe don’t have the skills to know intimately, anyways, at that point in their development.
Remain celibate until ready for marriage… something that won’t happen without relational practice… OR crack a few eggs and get called a fuckboy, because those eggs threw themselves off the counter as soon as the chef entered the room?
It seems like an unfair choice. An unfair label. An unfair set of expectations to place on men, again.
Here’s another one:
Too little/too much; everything a sign
So the young gent who sparked the economics of dating episode… a little further information. He’s a guy I’ve been dating for about a month.
Our first date? He suggested a really expensive, fine-dining-ish restaurant. A $30-50 a plate, $20 a drink, situation that could easily hit that $189 average date cost.
When he issued the invite, I told him? “Ya know, let’s see if we like each other first.” Not wanting him to over-extend himself, to establish a pricey pattern, or to have the awkward situation described – being stuck at a long, uncomfortable meal together, everyone trying to act extra civilized, and deeply pressured for it to be a good experience.
Also, it admittedly dawns on an internet-educated person… “is this an over-display of affection? What’s the purpose of that high-roller move? Are we talking about a narcissist here, trying to woo me over or create a debt that I owe?”
So instead of the dinner, we grabbed some beers and had cheap-ish Mexican food later when the meeting went well and we wanted to keep talking.
Given, it was still probably a $60 evening. Which is nothing to sniffle at when that’s not too dissimilar from the price of filling a gas tank, April 2026.
Fast forward to date three. He suggested dinner at his place, he’ll cook. He’s a chef and didn’t seem overly concerned with my dietary restraints, so okay. Let’s do it. We’ll get out of public and see what it’s like to chill in the same residential space – something we’ll have to do a lot more than we’ll ever be out dining.
I thought nothing negative of the suggestion, except for the thought “if he’s thinking third date and getting me to his place mean something, we’ll have to talk about it.” Not a big deal. I have no hangups about the phrase “Sure, but I’m not going to fuck you, if that changes your mind.”
So we had dinner at his place. And he wasn’t pushy. And I didn’t have to utter that sentence. We had a good, calm, heightened “getting to know you” time that included both of us accidentally letting a dog eat one of our dinners as we didn’t pay attention to the dining table, so we had to adorably share one.
It was sweet and a fun memory to throw down early on. I was stoked about the chef’s dinner.
A day later, I tell my friend about how the date went. Great! He nailed it, in taste and comprehension of what I can’t eat. It felt really good.
Her reply? “Cooking for you? Huh. Be careful it could be lovebombing.”
…
Which, in my case, causes a fucker to ask…
OKAY. What ARE men allowed to do these days without it being a sign of nefarious intent?
First, he tries to take me out to a fancy place, earns suspicion of narc behavior.
Then we try an intermediate date plan, it earns derogatory statements because we started with drinks (which was my suggestion).
Then he tries to go with the cheaper (and I would say the more vulnerable option of cooking for us) and also earns suspicion of masterminded abusive intentions.
The only thing that didn’t happen was him inviting me out for a free hike, which I can only imagine would come with accusations of murderous plotting in the woods.
….
So, what the fuck is a boy to do?
EVERYTHING can’t be a warning sign.
And this, I think, is one of the dangers of the snappy but oversimplified internet toks or reels about psychology and abuse.
Removed from context, anything can appear to be a red flag or a pattern.
When we report on these things as facts, it leaves people with very few – if any – options to appear “safe” or “uncreepy,” as our last episode would say. There’s no way to know what will make someone feel uncomfortable or insecure. As we grow increasingly suspicious of each other.
Make a fucker, again, wonder, how are men supposed to plan a date?
How are they going to feel confident or secure or emotionally well with circumstances like this? And they haven’t been provided an internet walkthrough to know what they’re allowed to do? And every move they make, in attempts to learn through trial, error, and affective signaling, is a sign that they’re horrible?
In my opinion? Popularized internet culture has spread bad information about how to regard each other and how to behave, which is casting shame through every logical option and standing in the way of dating effectively. For (stereotypically) both sexes.
They have to be allowed to act authentically and seen to be non-threatening, at least sometimes. Or what’s a boy to do?
And this brings us to our last topic that people will probably hate:
The consent generation
So hear me out.
Is it wonderful that we’ve started teaching each other what the word “no” means? Or, more importantly maybe, the word “yes” is required?
Absolutely.
Do I love that we aren’t spreading 80s romcoms of date-rapey romance tropes anymore?
Famously.
And also… has this contributed to a better understanding of each other, across gendered lines? Or improved social skills? Or more emotional maturity? Or better relationships? Or long-lasting matches?
In my experience, no. And it’s made dating a real boner killer, too.
Here’s what I mean.
Again, due to internet culture, guys are now so freaked out about making us uncomfortable, crossing a line, or being creepy… that they seem to be fear-stagnated into doing nothing.
Or fear-pressured into CREATING an awkward moment with zero human connection where one does not need to exist. Where one didn’t exist, 2 second earlier, by asking…
“Can I kiss you?”
Ugh! YUCK! No! Not if you’re going to just randomly ask in lieu of everything we know as “romance” or “vibing.” The answer would have been yes, had that happened. But instead, this is repulsive. You appear lazy. And it feels like a hard curveball was just thrown in the interaction we were having.
Maybe I was comfortable, but now I am not. And also, I don’t respect you. I certainly won’t be emotionally masturbating to this moment, with you.
And I realize, this is not a fair reaction, because they’re only doing the one thing they HAVE been provided explicit instruction about.
“Ask before you do anything.”
It’s really a travesty, that’s all they’ve received.
Because here’s the problem: it skips over any actual connection or “moment making.”
Instead, you (men, in my case) randomly lobbed the question, seemingly out of nowhere, without leadup or indication that it was coming, without connection to facilitate the behavior….
None of which creates the conditions necessary to confidently feel “yes.”
And one must instead choose, abruptly and without a great way to redirect the conversation – will you agree to something you’re NOT genuinely consenting to, to spare their feelings and your safety? Or will you hurt the feelings and esteem of the guy, potentially create a dangerous situation, and probably reduce any chance at another date?
None of which are good or uncorrupted options.
Because, due to consent culture, do men better understand the experience of being a woman? Of the pressures and dangers we feel? Is that wrapped up in the “can I kiss you” question?
No, not really. They’ve just been trained that it’s “nice” and also “mandatory” to ask. It’s “the right thing to do.”
The experience behind it? Still not commonly understood or appreciated.
Do guys benefit from doing this? From asking for consent before any physical interaction? Are they getting clearer signals? Testing the interest of their date partner and finding direct answers?
No. Like I said, as the woman you might simply feel pressured into saying yes and then kissing them. A positive response doesn’t indicate “I want this and I’m into you.” It suggests “I want this situation to be as easy and comfortable as possible, so fine… I guess so.”
Do women benefit from men doing this?
Nope. It doesn’t feel more like “freedom of choice.” And it doesn’t feel safer.
Because if you say “no,” point blank, and challenge the ego of a dude, we all know that tends to erupt. The shame takes over, to protect themselves they externalize it, and might act verbally or physically aggressive towards the newly identified “opponent.”
So we just have to choose: accept the kiss or push them away with words (hopefully) rather than physical action, like we used to have to take before.
Meaning we’re still not consenting or getting to express our honest opinion. We’re just putting on a little play, pretending that’s the case.
And does it create more trust or a greater sense of connection?
Absolutely not. Refer to everything I just said.
We aren’t creating emotional connections or safe circumstances pre-kiss attempt. We aren’t building moments together. We aren’t communicating better. We aren’t learning to feel each other out, pick up on subtle signs, or generate emotional blossomings.
We’re doing the same song and dance as always, but now via dry and scientific, butterflyless, self-protective, explicit inquiry… rather than seeing each other in a special light, sharing a meaningful laugh, and the tinglies of a face to face lean-in.
So please tell me how that’s empowering for either gender.
I think it probably results in a lot of lackluster kisses out of obligation, awkwardness, and kindness.
And then a lot of ghostings afterwards, as one or both parties don’t know how to proceed or don’t actually want to.
The woman, feeling as though she survived an intimate encounter, the act of which might give the man the wrong idea about her interest because she felt backed into a corner. Then needing to pull way back or disappear off the earth, since communicating directly isn’t the individual’s strong suit – what got her here in the first place.
The man, left wondering what went wrong and why his money was wasted this time. What’s incorrect about him, after he made some difficult attempts to “date right.” A narrative like “We even kissed at the end of it – I asked, she said yes – now she won’t answer me. I don’t know what’s gone wrong since.” Potentially taking the wrong message away from it and entering self-disparagement territory, especially if this is a repeat experience. Potentially, building more negative judgments against women, as a defense. Potentially, making him less likely to care about consent or safety – so that the whole scenario backfires as the brain does a 180 from the consent culture it was raised in.
….
So do we believe in “can I kiss you?”
I do not.
UNLESS. It’s used correctly. With a blend of emotional connection, buildup, and then consent inquiry.
In other words, here’s the explicit instructional DO:
Hey guys… You do need to get to know each other and both feel something positive in your bodies. Which requires being present and tracking the emotions being shared between you two. You do need to create “a moment” or sense when one is happening. When you’re sitting a little closer, leaning in, maybe a brush of the hand on an arm or leg, eye contact and subtle glances down at lips, a moment of silence – a pause, when everyone is wondering “are they going to fucking kiss me?”
And in that exact moment – as it’s about to happen anyways, one thinks – as one is naturally driven, moved, to inevitably lock lips…
That’s when the question should be popped.
“Can I kiss you?”
Because the consent has already been building. There are indicators that the woman (assumedly, the woman) is interested in what’s happening. There is nonverbal communication taking place, which helps everyone’s nervous system to feel calm and in-tune.
Then the question “can I kiss you” is just a final check to make sure cues aren’t being misread.
Consent is not a way to move from 0 to 100, through lobbing an awkward and somewhat rhetorical question into the air, to move a date from “sitting there” to “mouth wrestling.”
You see what I’m saying?
One: whiplashing, surprising, uncomfortable, not something that can be answered honestly without causing unpleasant emotional experiences for everyone.
The other: natural, based on human connection, reflective of emotional connection, and indicative of REAL CONSENT, based on REAL FEELINGS. Not mandatory consent based on anxiety to avoid getting murdered.
With me?
“Can I kiss you” consent – a misdirected attempt at respect and sensitivity that actually makes everyone feel more awkward and less consensual. Less likely to connect or meetup again. More likely to contribute chinks in self-esteem and miscommunications, as everyone just tries to “be who they’re supposed to be” so “no one feels uncomfortable.”
Let’s try to do better.
For both genders.
And that brings us to…
Our WRAP.
In conclusion…
Men aren’t allowed to be themselves or follow the masculine template of the “men” that have come before them, but haven’t been provided instruction about what that means. As a result, they act inauthentically and unassuredly. And their partners are likely to be disappointed when they find out who the guy REALLY is, down the road.
They’re shit on for being “fuckbois” – which might simply be their attempt at getting physical needs met while avoiding the trap of committing emotional need destruction against another person. If they know that they’re not ready for a real relationship or have no desire for one, but the opposite gender or individuals within tend to be latchers-on… is it any wonder that they fuck around with romance, get physical, and then get out of there before the unhealthy attachment turns into a whoopsie-relationship that will only make everyone feel bad?
Meanwhile, everything they do on dates is considered a red flag. If the date is too pricey, they’re a narc. If the date is too free, they’re trying to lure you into a murder shack. If the date is too alcohol-based, they’re an addict. If the date is too personal (like cooking you a meal), they’re lovebombing.
And if they get you on a date, they better not try to seal it with a kiss or they risk being labeled a sexual assaulter. That is, unless they directly ASK if they can kiss you. Leaving the other party with only one marginally less-awkward option (“yeah, I guess so.”). And one option that might slay the man’s esteem, cause shame, and spark violence… or just make him less likely to ever try again. So that consent isn’t really consent. It’s just avoidance of worse options with a truly uncomfortable, unwanted, out of left-field smooch.
And for all these reasons, I say…
Poor boys.
I hope these episodes have had you rethinking how hard it is to be a man, on the market, in our modern world.
Next up, we’ll be talking about female-ruining experiences in dating that might not be top of mind.
Try to keep the challenges in mind, across gendered lines, as you keep empathetically
Dating
In
Dystopia
And I’ll talk to you soon.