Purplepilldebate

https://www.reddit.com/PurplePillDebate/comments/13yqpz9/cmv_many_acts_that_would_get_a_man_labled_as/
This post here tried to equate Leo continuously dating 18-19 year old women and dumping them when they reach a certain age to Olivia Wilde dating a man in his 20s who had a career of his own. The two scenarios are obviously very different.
The age gap discourse is mostly about men in their 30s and 40s dating women fresh out of high-school. Nobody cares if a 40 year old dates a 30 year old because there's a good chance that they both have a similar level of maturity. In some cases we even see 30 year olds that are more mature than some 40 year olds. However, it is a bit weird and concerning when men continuously chase barely legal women. It's like they intentionally go as low as they legally can in age.
(My personal theory is that Leo is like a sugar daddy to them and that these women are self-aware of the nature of the relationship, so it's fine. But I can understand why people find is creepy)

Hi, I attend kink and sex parties, and I wanted to talk about it in terms of the trade-off of mindsets.
I am over 40 years old, and I was an embarrassingly late bloomer. When I was younger, girls were amazing. Goddesses. Getting to see some legs in a short skirt would be the highlight of my school day. In the years I knew my female friends in high school and college, I desired to do things with them which seemed to beyond amazing and profound in my fantasies, and a gift they could bestow upon the worthy in their Goddess way. The power they had for me in my mind to give me moments of acceptance, initiation, and all the rest seemed the deepest and most profound of things. Something I would do so much for. I felt I would be willing marry them and be good to them forever for that, and they were so astonishingly huge in my mind.
I completely fucked up getting sexual interaction with women, including those friends, at first because I was so nervous, insecure, terrified of rejection, disconnected from them as people in my horny desire and admiration, and felt like it was this colossal feat which required doing everything perfect and saying the right things, and putting in effort in a quid-pro-quo fashion. I also felt like women were these inexplicable, irrational creatures that might bite your head off at any given point.
Fast forward a couple of decades. Times have changed, I have changed. The change was surprisingly recent, but quick. I now regularly attend parties where I see naked women all over the place, including very attractive ones, and find it not a big deal. I converse with them while their boobs are out, and it's nothing challenging. I have sex with them and give them orgasms and do kinky play. The mindset is all very chill, friendly, and relaxed. We're all just people.
And that's nice in a ton of ways. First one is that, although it took time, I finally realized no one much gave a shit that I was fat and balding and over 40. Sure, some people have age restrictions, but I look like I'm in my 30's so I fit OK with most. I have little shyness now about having my fat ass out in the open. I also discovered no one gave a shit that I have an average dick. Furthermore, my inexperience; a thing of crushing embarrassment I could never bear to admit to anyone, even became not a thing to be scared to talk about. I can also go to the gym now and see some pretty girl and legit not care what she thinks of me, and that's amazing. Why would I, after all? If she's a shallow fuck, that's her problem. I have my people.
On the flipside, chasing hotness has become less of a thing as well. I've engaged in stuff with people in their 50's, very obese women, etc. I've seen the flaws of the human body, and they don't phase as much anymore. As long as you're presentable and hygienic, it becomes not that big a deal. I'm also not creeping after or chasing women anymore, as that posture toward women has been replaced by the more friendly one.
There is still some aspect of time to this new mindset, as in right after a gathering or experience, I'm so completely chilled and confident and questioning who dafuq that angry sexually frustrated dude ever was, but after a week or so the cracks in that start to appear, and if nothing happens for a month, then pieces of more sexually frustrated mindsets begin to show up. One interesting feature of that is that I start feeling like arguing on the internet way more.
But beyond that, all good, right? I'm doing this amazing thing that is the thing of people's fantasies, and it's everything I ever wanted?
...not so fast. It's a trade-off. You gain things, but you also lose others. The most obvious is that whatever psychology made getting to simply see a girl back when in a bra the most amazing thing ever is totally gone, as is the possibility of that deep and profound moment of acceptance and arrival, where she finally gives herself to you. Women have crashed back down to Earth for me. Most dates I potentially go on hold little appeal, because I'm not trying for anything, so I can't imagine what the point is with someone I don't enjoy talking to. I also don't think I could ever get back that sense of devotion and guy-style love I would have had back when.
Simply put, there's almost no scenario where fantasy becomes reality, so turning casual sex into reality required putting fantasies away, bringing them back down to Earth, and talking whatever extra-personal value there was in 'woman' in some deep primal place of my guy brain, and eradicating that.
Some people who are into this way of being think they've found the new world order. I'm less sure. It's more, like I said, just a trade-off you accept or don't. You gain things, you lose others. I also find that this way of thinking tends to come, particularly from women, with an utter lack of understanding of men who still exist in the old, guy-classic mindset. They see it as a moral failing; that those are the 'bad men', products of the patriarchy, and possibly irredeemable. I see classic understandings about the truth about cats and dogs society once had replaced by idealism, and I risk getting myself in trouble for talking about it too much - doing so ruins the woke/hippie high that some never want to come down from.
So...I thought I would write about this because it would be an interesting starting point for discussion. I have yet to find any scenario that doesn't involve trade-off, or where you can get all the good stuff from all approaches with none of the bad. Conversely, I thought this would serve as a contrast to some of the 'this is just how it is' Red-pill stuff that puts men and women forever at odds, because I don't think that's correct either. Let me know what you guys think.

Of course a couple of months ago a Pew survey went viral. 'Twice as many young men as women are single! Who are all these women dating?'.
First off, the results aren't consistent with other surveys.
First there's the American Perspectives Survey which saw a drop of 2% from 59% to 57% in singleness among 18-29 men from 2020 to 2022, and a 7% rise from 38% to 45% among women, for an overall gap of 12%. These changes are almost the inverse of the changes across the Pew surveys. The sample size was comparable, especially considering how the Pew sample had an oversample of 1k LGBs.
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/from-swiping-to-sexting-the-enduring-gender-divide-in-american-dating-and-relationships/
The recent GSS survey showed 59.3% of 18-29 men and 48.8% of 18-29 women were single. A gap of 10.5%.
The gap for 30-49 men was also much lower and the gap for 50-64s and 65+s was widened (more single women).
The GSS also doesn't show a widening of the gap from 2012-2022.
​
It's also worth mentioning that it's largely a continuation of the 2019 Pew results due to the fact that as well as new recruits being added, many panelists were carried over, including the relatively unusually low proportion of single 18-29 women.
​
When it comes to the 30-49 bracket, we wouldn't necessarily expect a reversal of the gap, as the pattern would also presumably affect older generations, creating a balancing effect whereby while some portion of 30-49 men pull from the 18-29 bracket, some 30-49 women are pulled by 50+ men. So the notion that a lack of a reversed skew in that bracket disproves the effect of age gaps isn't true.
​
Even the fact that according to the Pew surveys 12% of 65+ women supposedly entered relationships while 4% of 65+ men left them should raise suspicions as to the reliability of the data. I mean who are all these grannies shacking up with all of a sudden?
​
The narrative we hear from incels and co. is naturally the chadspiracy, wherein a small group of physically attractive men are "spinning plates", or dating multiple women simultaneously, unbeknownst to them.
It seems hard to believe this is a widespread phenomenon, especially in the age of social media.
The National Survey for Family Growth asks about the 'number of current nonmarital/noncohabiting partners', and shows that about 1% of men in the 18-29 age bracket claimed either two or three concurrent partners, and if anything the rate is dropping.
Returning to the APS, you'll notice when looking at the chart that unlike the Pew survey which simply refers to 'committed relationships', being vague enough to allow for this explanation to seem more plausible, the APS breaks it down into marriage, cohabitation, and committed relationships.
What we actually find from this breakdown is that the gap actually exists almost exclusively in the categories of marriage and cohabitation.
This is also observed in the GSS data, the smallest gap is among those who are in a relationship but not cohabiting.
And also the NSFG, though the number of non-cohabiting is abnormally high. I had to use a separate question for it which may be why. NSFG also does show a moderate reversal of the gaps for 30-49s.
This more or less rules out the chadspiracy in my view, as most of the women involved would have to be living with or marrying chad along with other women.
The marriage possibility doesn't pass the sniff test, and would actually be violating US federal law.
We're left with the portion which are cohabiting in polyamorous arrangements. I feel like we would've heard about this burgeoning widespread phenomenon if it were a thing. The rate of consensual non-monogamy seems to be ~5% but also includes open relationships, swinging, etc.
The APS also found the rate of singles dating more than one person was 2%. So if you think the chads tended to state that they're single but they're also "dating" FWBs that consider it a relationship while he lacks the same feeling of commitment, you don't have much to work with. 10% of single people also reported dating one person, so some of the gap maybe be explained by men who feel less commitment than their date, 'one-sided situationships' if you will.
​
So it seems like much of the confusion caused by the Pew survey may be simply down to sample error. Also seems like there shouldn't have been quite as wide error margins though, but flukes do happen, and when they do they make for sensational media headlines.
We saw this of course with the 2018 GSS survey and the washington post article put out in response, with a focus on the male sexlessness rate which shot up to 28% while women's barely moved, but the next two surveys which were quietly ignored saw a reversal of this supposed trend.
The actual gap is probably between 10-15% like it has been for decades, and is caused by age gaps, not chad bogeymen stealing the women.

Right now you are in the early dating stages of dating two different people:
Person #1 is someone who you're very physically attracted to and is the type of person who you look at and think "wow they're so hot". You can't wait to rip their clothes off when you two are home and alone. Interests wise, you have at least one thing in common with them but you two are also fairly different as well in terms of hobbies and interests. And while their personality isn't completely terrible either, they do have some personality flaws such as being high strung when upset and complaining a little too much sometimes.
Person #2 is someone who you have a lot in common with. You both like doing the same activities and you two share similar interests to one another. In addition, they have a great personality. They're funny, upbeat, positive, and seem to really care about you. Physically, you don't find them ugly but you don't find them super attractive either, they're just average looking. On a scale of 1-10, you might consider them a 5. You're not repulsed by them but you're not dying to have sex with them either.
Both of them are interested in you and want to date you.
Which person will you choose?

I mentioned being insecure once, and a girl told me that it's toxic and dangerous if a guy is insecure, and that if a guy is insecure that's a red flag.
This girl was someone who normally has logical opinions, and I argued with her and she eventually understood my point on why her thinking was sort of harsh.
I think anytime men talk about certain things, we get slammed and it's sort of a harsh world to be a man.
We talk about body shaming with women (which I agree is wrong) but it sort of feel like it doesn't go both ways.
If a guy is unattracted to a lady for what ever reason, it's body shaming.
If a girl is unattracted to a guy, it's preference.
I feel like not being interested in someone for whatever reason you have is valid, discussing what your reasons are in conversation is valid. But telling someone why you're uninterested is mean
If a guy tells a girl she's too fat, that's wrong, same if a girl tells a guy it's because he's short.
I've never had either of those lines before, just using it as an example.
Anyways what's your opinions?

Generally when a man courts a woman by explaining to her how he would treat her, he is labeled as a "nice guy" with ulterior motives to have sex.
This is a shame because, if I reflect upon what I would consider a good reason for a woman to choose me, this is the number one answer that I can think of. Everything else seems superficial compared to this.

This daily thread is designed to be a place for all the funny discussions on PPD.
Feel free to post off-topic questions, information, points-of-view, etc... in this thread.
Here you can post everything you don't think warrants it's own thread. Or just do some socialising.
Comments are automatically sorted by NEW - you can post throughout the day and people will see your comment.
​
If you'd like to see our previous daily threads, click here!
​
Please Join Us on Discord! Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.
​
Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

Feminism is not inevitable. Rather, it’s a byproduct of power that is derived from geographical and historical anomalies. Feminism is an idea which has no guarantee to remain. It has no more of a moat than patriarchy did. Both feminism and patriarchy are at the mercy of their environments. And to this point I believe that we’re living in the last decade of the current environment. What will follow will be patriarchy 2.0. It will be fueled by an incidental convergence of factors that will naturally happen.
Below are the strongest patterns that I see contributing to this:
1) Globalism is an anomaly. It did not exist before WWII. And the only reason it existed after was due to the US being a sole superpower of the seas. A consequence of globalism was that primarily male, middle class, manufacturing jobs went overseas. This decimated the male workforce. This is coming to an end. We are going back to a pre-WWII order. The world will deglobalize and manufacturing will return to the United States. This will happen at the same time that a largely legacy boomer factory cohort has retired. Essentially any male X’er, Millennial or Zoomer will be in high demand and have access to a well paying physical manufacturing job. For more on this read The End of the World Is Just the Beginning by Peter Zeihan. A short video on it.
2) At the same time that manufacturing will be returning to the United States, AI will be replacing job categories that are disproportionately dominated by women.
3) Similar to 2), digital sex workers will be put out of business by AI. In the not too distant future no woman will ever profit off her sexuality ever again. This will be due entirely to market forces and not any overt policies. Synthetic alternatives will simply be better and cheaper. When you consider that there are things like Call Annie or things like img2img it’s not hard to predict the consequences. Attractive women will lose their market advantage. In the short term they will be replaced by unattractive women. Or the billion or so third world poor males who are willing to be actors. Eventually all sexual actors will be replaced entirely. The cost of this tech will drive prices to zero. What is the impact here? Well there’s roughly 2.1 million content creators on Only Fans in the United States. A portion of these unemployed women will become escorts, which will create a buyers market for men.
4) US Passport Bros will increase. When you combine the destruction of third world economies with the reemergence of a US manufacturing base, you’ll have an even more extreme disparity between 1st world and 3rd world countries.
5) The current dating environment is largely a byproduct of laws passed in the post 1960’s era by a Silent Generation and Boomer cohort. These include:
- 1965: Affirmative Action
- 1971: No Fault Divorce
- 1973: Legalized Abortion
All of these three laws are being actively challenged. It’s not surprising that this is happening. When you compare the male cohort that enacted these laws vs the male cohort that is disavowing them, it’s clear they are different. I don’t think unemployed single males who've dropped out of the system care about continuing these laws and politicians sense this. Men with nothing to lose vote conservatively on women's rights.
6) Increasingly high resolution simulated experiences will enable men to carry out digital rape and violence fantasies against female AI NPCs. This will normalize certain sexual behaviors in the same way that porn has.

The correct life stages are:

• minorhood (birth to age of consent)
• prime (age of consent - wall)
• post-wall (wall - menopause)
• geriatric (menopause - death)

Notice that these stages are solely dictated by age and don't include factors such as education, career progress, offspring, experience, or relationship history, all of which are utterly irrelevant.
Notice also that after the age of consent, these stages don't correspond to anything with men. Thus, the "life stage" argument against age gap relationships is invalid.

The subject of this post is how two different types of high n-count men get that way, and why one approach takes more "work" than the other.
I was talking to Guy X yesterday: 6’1”, low-30s, in shape, moderately successful, socially capable, above averagely handsome with an n-count over 50. Sounds like a winner. But he describes the effort it took to get those women as a "full-time job" in which he does 100% of the work, and adds that the women themselves as not always very attractive. He believes this is just the reality of dating.
That’s surprising to me: most guys I know who rack up numbers like that do so rather easily. They're picky, women meet them with mutual interest and effort, maybe have one cheap “real” date (often, less), hang out for a couple of weeks, part as friends, repeat. It’s play, not work. Sure, some of them are great looking, but most are what I—and speaking as a proxy based on prior conversations, the women around me—would consider in the “above average” range. They’re not models or Henry Cavilles or anything like that. They’re also not rich, high status or built like superheroes—nothing that obvious that would make them outliers. So I’m trying to figure out what the difference is between Guy X and Guy Y.
Maybe this is a lack of imagination on my part, but it seems reasonable that the difference could be their personalities. But what does “personality” mean here?
I think it comes down to this: most straight men are man’s men, or think they should be. They desire women, but don’t necessarily relate to them or want to. Success in dating thus requires them to cross the traditional gender gap with masculine strategies. That crossing takes WORK—which is why so much red pilled dating advice is about getting muscles, getting money, getting confidence, asserting dominance, holding frame, et cetera. It's proactive. Even the axiom “it’s a numbers game” reveals the expectation of having to try over and over and over again. Red pilled advice is for how to be successful as a Guy X.
Blue pilled advice is about how to be successful as a Guy Y.
Where red pilled theory may be cynical, blue pilled is naive. The goal is not to cross the gap, but to shrink it until there is nothing keeping men and women apart. That’s why such advice tends to minimize perceived differences between genders, embrace female perspectives,encourage authenticity (the dreaded “be yourself”), support inter-gender friendships, and so on. The ideal Guy Y doesn’t work hard to get women—he's integrated with women and has good vibes.
Look, depending on who you are, the exact advice you’re given and how you choose to take it, either approach can be totally viable, or delusionally insane. I've seen both work many times, but only one actually looks like work while it's happening. And, let’s be real, both Guy X and Guy Y have to be physically attractive to be very successful—though what “attractive” means is a whole other post.
So I think what’s important is ultimately not looking down on either type of Guy, or dismissing either theory of dating as “misogynistic” or “cucked,” like I see online every day. Maybe it’s just a matter of identifying what type of Guy you are and playing to those strengths.

In a recent episode of 60 Minutes, a man talks to an AI robot that is capable of human emotions: https://youtu.be/wGWVKkYEHBE
While watching this video, it is clear that many men or women can fall in love with robots. It is highly likely that advances in AI and robotics will impact on sexual relationships. As robots become more lifelike, people will fall in love with robots instead of humans.
Robots can be designed to be perfectly attuned to our individual needs and desires. They can be programmed to be as physically attractive as possible, and they can be programmed to know exactly what we want to hear and do. This can create a level of intimacy and satisfaction that is difficult to achieve with a human partner.
Robots can be made to be completely safe and non-judgmental. They will never cheat on us, they will never lie to us, and they will never hurt us.
Finally, robots can be made to be incredibly affordable. The cost of robots is decreasing rapidly, and it is becoming possible to own a high-quality robot for a fraction of the cost of a car. Relationships with humans usually have a significant financial cost, so a robot may be seen as a more affordable option in the future.

Simple question- what do you think the effects on dating would be if men were as picky as women are?

In case your wife/girlfriend is no longer be able to have sex with you, not because she doesn't love you, but for example because of an illness or an accident, what would you do? Would you leave her or cheat on her? Would you start using porn, if you did not look at it during your relationship? Do you think it is unreasonable if a woman doesn't want her man to cheat or use porn, even in such a scenario?

I think the way a lot of people talk about systems of oppression implies that individuals with higher social standing have happier lives than people below them. It's that conflation of the American dream where wealth and power means success, and success comes as a packaged deal with happiness. The system wasn't built to facilitate the happiness of some off the backs of everyone else though, it was designed to facilitate order and a sense of stability. Stability so paper thin even the people with the most wealth and power in the world need to spend the rest of their lives running around like headless chickens trying to maintain it. I'd argue no one is really happy under our current social order, the powers that be are just very comfortably miserable.
I think this might be the sticking point that loses most men when it comes to social justice, straight white cis men especially. The industrial machine relies on male bodies to be the all-purpose multi-tool of the workforce and war. The ideal man is a literal drone loyally willing to have his body abused for profit and expansion then come quietly to the back of the barn to be put out of his misery when he's no longer useful.
Totalitarianism 101: it's easier to keep a population oppressed by getting it to police itself and actively perpetuate it's own oppression. The easiest way to get a population to self-police is to establish a pecking order. No matter where you are on that hierarchy you get a whole lot of stick, but those on the top get just that little bit more carrot to keep them loyal. All you have to do at that point is constantly threaten to take away their carrot if they or the people below them step out of line. Trick them into never questioning what all this stick is about. To be proud that they can take so much stick, unlike the carrot-less losers below them.
It really just makes perfect tactical sense in a society dependant on men's willingness and loyality to act as fodder for capitalist idolatry to be allotted the most privilege. You can force women into motherhood way easier than you can force men to be meat shields at the front line. That doesn't mean the system treats men well though.
Part of why the system is so hell bent on using the rule of law to force women to carry pregnancies, force women to stay in loveless abusive marriages, force women into staying isolated at home is because men are a lot more useful to them when they're purposefully turned unto emotionally knee-capped 300 pound toddlers. Society is being engenieered to actively psychologically cripple your typical joe-blow into a big tough dumbass who's useful as a pawn. "Masculinity" as defined by western society being so precious yet so fragile isn't a bug in the system, it's like that by design. Out of the two gender roles as defined by society, masculinity gets redefined way more radically almost every time a big societal change occurs because what society needs to manipulate men into being changes with it. It's not a silly little quirk of history that what would have been considered the height of stylish male fashion pre-industral revolution reads as stupid and girly-looking now.
Individual men need to be held individually responsible for their perpetuation of social oppression. Individual mens' childishness and interpersonal unintelligence needs to be called out. But it's honestly counter productive to act like toxic male behavior is the primary issue and not a symptom systemic oppression. Even for well-meaning men, it's hard for them to understand what it's like to be placed below them on the social value hierarchy by design. The system pits it's pets against each other and as hard as it us to swallow, we're all equally responsible not to play it's game.
Men who adopt "red pilled" world views on gender politics are correct in their observations if not wildly off the mark in their conclusions, ans not in any way justified when those conclusions drive them to unforgivable behavior. There is to some degree a double standard when it comes to blaming men for their own social conditioning, ridiculing them for their damage.

In my opinion, the biggest factor in a man's dating success is not his looks, or money, but his environment.
The key word is "factor" , meaning what has the biggest multiplier in effect on success or failure. The reason I believe this is, men are evaluated mostly in the context of a woman's surroundings and day to day life. Wealth, looks, height, are all relative qualities. You can only be rich if people around you have less money than you. You can only be tall if others are short.
This pattern is evident in many different scenarios. One is why software engineers are regarded often to not do well in dating, but a doctor is often thought of as desirable by women. A doctor tends to earn much higher salaries than his surrounding area, and in general are less common individuals. One doctor say an ophthalmologist may serve tens of thousands of people in the surrounding area. Mean while, software engineers tend to be concentrated in "tech hubs". This causes these areas to have many people all earning high salaries, with high costs of living, etc. So despite earning a lot and being highly educated, a developer does not really stand out from the crowd.
Then there's the concept of movements like passport bros. The men in these movements , are going to countries that are less developed, but also have shorter and smaller men. A big destination is the Philippines , where the average height of a man is 5'3". Comparing to the US, where the average is 5'9". This means a man going to the Philippines would be like standing at 6'3" or 6'4" in the USA. Now, why are passport bros not going to places like, the Netherlands ? The netherlands has the tallest people in the world. Literally, the average height is 6 feet for men. This means, that a 5'9" man in the Netherlands would be like a 5'6" man in America.
Last, why is self improvement not the biggest factor ? It's because self improvement generally does not propel one to multiple standard deviations above the population. It's rare in most cases for someone to raise their income form $70,000 to $250,000 , for example. and men can't change their height.

People keep saying this but...Getting kidnapped or assaulted on a date isn't a typical heterosexual man problem. Unfortunately, it is a typical heterosexual woman problem. I feel like this alone makes the claim that women have it sO muCH eAsier in dating, kind of moronic. The most 'traumatic' dating story most men can cough up really doesn't compare. There are exceptions, but for the most part..not really.
Sure. Women may get more matches. Who cares? I don't think think someone messaging 'hi bb u want sum fuq" is an adequate suiter. Even if you are a woman who is attractive, and men are lining up..lining up for what? Piecing apart people's motives when they're actively lying is very hard, and makes it difficult to trust or develop any kind of relationship.
Extremely awkward men, that are at least 6s, that are smart, and make reasonable efforts to pursue women, and have a generally kind disposition towards women, **and look for people with similar personalities/interests...**can get gfs that love them...pretty easily. Self-reflect if you're having a horrifically difficult time. Ugly men with no career aspirations can regularly punch above their league and date hot girls. This is much more common than the reverse happening. Men with little to offer regularly feel entitlement to the hottest girl around.
Don't get me wrong. Women can be annoying to date. But will they harm you, physically? Not usually, no. And yes...men usually have to make the first move. But I thought this sub hated feminism, so why the complaints?

​
Please Join Us on Discord! Include your reddit username, pill color, age and gender when you arrive in the welcome mat to introduce yourself and help people get to know you.
​
You can also find Mrs_Drgree on Instagram and Twitter for notifications on when good threads are posted.

Sexual attraction and finding someone beautiful from pure aesthetic point of view - are different. E.g as a cishet man I'm attracted to women, yet I can recognize aesthetics of any body.
I personally find men less aesthetical. Body hair and shape of genitalia are meh. Men look good when dressed or at least wearing pants and with their body hair shaved. This is totally subjective, of course.
So I'd like to hear your thoughts. Who looks better in your opinion?

From my personal experience I have observed women are the one who feel they settled down and are angry about it.Possibky because women have higher access to quality man they want than men have access to quality women they want so most of the times when don't have any experience with women they wanted while women have some sort of casual fling,fwb,sitautionship with those guys and when they don't secure commitment from them they feel bitter about any other guy they end up with.Whats your opinion? Who settles more and who is more angry at this?

Unless you are literally THE best option for her within a reasonable distance, you are always replaceable.
Tinder and social media make seeing and connecting with other men almost instant and easier than ever. She could go for a trip to the toilet in the night, be gone five minutes, and have had a flirty chat with a guy from the gym she’s only only admired from a distance.
So why would she settle, and why would she settle for a long period of that time when the fort is being assaulted from all sides by other options?
Unless you genuinely think or believe that you are not only her best option objectively, but are her actual best option emotionally too. But how do you know? Maybe the next guy would genuinely care for her more and make her happier?
This is the thing. It’s hard to envision a world where people get together and stay together for very long from now into the future. Unless a woman makes a conscious decision to not entertain the idea of other men, “giving up” and making something work. But is that the right thing to do? Maybe she could be happier and find a better match if she holds out?

My understanding of hypergamy is it's the GENERAL tendency to want to date someone who is equal to or better than one's self in the following categories

1. Smarts and Education
   
2. Salary
   
3. Status
   
4. Physically strength
   
5. Height
   

My understanding from the pill world is it's generally believed that men are not hypergamous along these dimensions. Do you believe this is true?
If so, why are men not hypergamous?
Inb4 I know this one specific example. I'm talking about in general

One thing TRP got right was to ask whether there were any evolved psychological traits in women that supported the near universality of what anthropologists called hypergamy: marrying up in class or status or resources. Simply noting the existence of the dynamic seemed like insufficient investigation to me.
I do not really agree with how many TRP thinkers have answered the above question, though. Too many very specific conclusions about female biology have been drawn with insufficient evidence, particularly when it comes to parsing nature from nurture. That said, I do think there is a very real, biologically instantiated hypergamous instinct in women that has evolved in them over time. We can get into what I think more specifically. But what do you think?