I don't disagree with anything per se but a lot of the advice is obviously based on US-American culture and may have to be tweaked to work with the dating and courtship practices in other places. Two examples that would come to my mind would be "keeping a scrotation" (exclusivity is assumed and expected here as soon as you start meeting in one on one on dates and you tell the person it is not working before moving on to dating someone else) and going on dates with men who are basically strangers or men who are basically strangers asking you on a date (which would be seen as extremely superficial and a social faux-pas). You generally meet in a social context through friends, acquaintances, relatives, common hobbies etc. and get to know each other a little in that setting before asking someone out/agreeing to go on a date.
Yeah, same. I once read a comment that was like "well if dating works like that in your country then it's just infested by pickmes and libfems and you shouldn't cave, maybe find someone from another country to date." Lol. It was very short-sighted, because I know for a fact that dating culture in my country is informed by conservative values if anything. But it's like, not every country needs to model itself after the US, they're not a shining beacon of women's rights either. There are pitfalls for women everywhere, because patriarchy is everywhere. Sometimes it does make total sense to enforce boundaries that go against the grain, but you also gotta work with what you have. And I'm not here to be told that some aspects of my country's dating culture are oppressive to me and I should try to singlehandedly overrule them when I never felt like those particular aspects were more disadvantageous to me than the alternatives. Sure, we need to be careful of all the ways patriarchy tries to screw us over but not everything is a recipe for disaster just because it doesn't follow US dating practices.
I think a lot of it also stems from different definitions of "friend", "acquaintance" etc. in different cultures.
This for example
You generally meet in a social context through friends, acquaintances, relatives, common hobbies etc. and get to know each other a little in that setting before asking someone out/agreeing to go on a date.
is often said to be breaking the "men can't be platonic friends" and "don't let men be orbiters around you" rules, but where I come from a "friend" is something much more intimate than a person you just meet every week in a hobby group, who is a part of your wider social circle, who is your cousin's roommate or who you regularly talk to at events. That's a "person I know (through XY)". A lot of vetting and checking for basic compatibility happens in that stage before you ever agree go on a date or ask someone out. So basically, the "scrotation" predates the dating phase and you only go on dates with men who have already passed the "basic compatibility and chemistry" check in that stage.
We have the same upfront assumption of exclusivity and reluctancy to go out with strangers around here. It has its advantages and disadvantages like everything else. FDS is about maximizing your benefit in your particular circumstances and not wishing that dating culture was already catered to women, which it isn't.
It sounds so time consuming that I would rather not even attempt. How am I supposed to focus on my life level up when I'm so occupied with different scrotes.
However, I do understand the message in it, that we should not invest too much in one man early on.
I agree with both of these. A scrotation just sounds EXHAUSTING, and I refuse to give a man the degree of access to my assets that marriage in my state would. So those two FDS rules don't apply in my situation. Everything else I agree with wholeheartedly and preach to whatever woman will listen.
Unknown member
Feb 21, 2023
I think all the rules are *generally* what works best for *most* women, but I get frustrated with the attitude that if a woman isn't following the principles 100%, she must be ignorant or naive, instead of accepting the possibility that someone could make an informed, reasonable decision that certain rules aren't what's best for her specifically. At its worst, it feels a lot like the dogmatic religious attitudes that I got away from.
Yeah. I usually like to explain why I believe what I believe. If you say something like "men should always pay for the date" it might sound shallow and self serving. The reception is much better if you explain dating sociodynamics.
Unknown member
Feb 22, 2023
Replying to
agree 100%
Unknown member
Feb 23, 2023
Replying to
Girl same. They’ll attack you with a quickness around here. Some of the women here are giving liberal feminist and it shows! No ability to make any personal choices!
It’s all sound advice to me in theory but i find the idea of a scrotation exhausting. I don’t think that’s for me. I find dealing with men to be emotional labor and even vetting to be unpaid labor. The thought of spending time on multiple dates a week with different men just doesn’t appeal to me. It sort of conflicts to me with the idea of just sitting back and living your best life and waiting for them to pursue you. Ideally yes we would all have many men without red flags trying to date us but a man trying to impress me and do the chasing only comes along every several years. And most of the time he’s just not my type. I take it as more of a mindset of not getting too invested in any one guy until he has proved himself for a while and is making a solid commitment.
Yeah, the scrotation is a strategy that was designed to maximize our benefit as a sort of best case scenario. But it's hard to apply to a life where you're not in a major city, not out and about meeting eligible bachelors on the daily, don't have success on OLD (which is the case for most women) and are someone who leans introverted and feels exhausted by social interaction no matter how pleasant. I feel it might work when you're more extroverted, traveling a lot and meeting lots of people (in your region) for work or studies, or have the energy to start a new hobby every few months so you're exposed to new circles. It IS a lot of work just to be exposed to more men, it's not worth it to do those things if you don't already want to for your own sake. Some women might just magically have lots of men trying to date them in earnest just from their pre-existing friend/aquaintance circle, but it doesn't seem to be the norm. One way you can apply the same mindset without actually dating multiple men in parallel is just to set up fixed "dates" for yourself where you meet friends, or have some quality me time to spread out the actual dates you have with a new man.
Yes! I am introverted and I think you have articulated well, how much social interaction takes out of us. Even more so with men because I feel like I am always on guard around them for my own protection.
the last time I got asked on a date, last year, I had a new season of a tv series coming on that week that I had been looking forward to, and I had just opened and started a 1000 piece puzzle. I thought to myself “which sounds more exciting to me?” And I went with the show and puzzle. I used to not listen to that feeling and I am much happier tuning into it. the thought of dating most men is now less exciting to me than my alone time. I had a lovely and relaxing weekend in. because I felt like it.
Now that I’m in a serious relationship, the guidance to marry after 1-2 years of dating feels difficult. It feels reckless to rush into marriage without deep multi-year vetting. I think there is a happy medium between marrying someone you don’t fully know yet, and being strung along as a forever girlfriend.
I met my boyfriend on OLD, so after 1 year, we are just starting to be fully comfortable and open with each other and discuss a future. I can’t imagine being ready to marry a man 1 year after meeting him. It would be different if we were already in the same social circle or our families knew each other.
We have agreed that a good timeline is to date for 2 years and then be engaged for 1, so 3 years total until marriage. But we have discussed it, we have a shared plan, and he wants to marry me.
Compare that to my pre-FDS days where I was a mommy bangmaid for 3 years before finally escaping. That ex and I never talked about marriage or a shared future at all. I felt pretty early on that it was a dead end and there was no future for us, but it still took me a long time to leave.
I know that my partner would marry me but I'm not sure yet whether I want to marry at all, haha. I think it's easier for men (who have any awareness about the world lol) to actively want marriage because the benefits are more tangible. Women should be more cautious.
This is the catch-22 that I do think FDS recognizes - we want a HVM who wants to marry us, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we should actually marry him 🙃
True. And I do have to keep myself from thinking stuff like "but it would make him so happy..." It's easy to feel flattered and assign too much romantic importance when at the end of the day, marriage is a pretty businesslike contract. I've told myself that I won't sign that contract unless it offers me a lot more security than I'd have otherwise, that will also outweigh the fact that it's messy to get divorced and the risk of men switching up on you once they've really locked you down.
About the official rules: as a childfree woman, I would feel extremely uncomfortable having a man paying for my entire lifestyle, even while keeping my own money. Based on my experience I just don't think it's possibile on average to have that kind of arrangement with no strings attached of some kind (not necessarily sex). I want a generous man, yes, but not an extra parent. Anyway if this works for other women they should do it.
A couple of things that are not official FDS stances but I see a lot here: the advice of cutting off people (not romantic partners) you don't like who haven't abused you as a matter of principle, just because they don't align with all your standards. Of course vetting people is very important and caution is needed, but you cannot recreate in your real life the narcissistic "internet bubble" where everyone agrees with you and is 100% aligned with you. Being able to deal with different kinds of people is an important life and social skill, plus cutting all people you don't like off simply isn't feasible practically for many people, and it really annoys me when this is framed as low value. From my previous experience of Reddit, where similar advice is also rampant, I came to understand this hyperindividualism as an Anglosphere thing. Perhaps it makes more sense in those countries (not sure tbh) but from my cultural perspective I think it's very bad advice. Imperfect connections and conflict hold some value, as long as there's no abuse or exploitation.
The other thing I see here a lot that bothers me is the idea that long term secrecy in a couple is the best strategy to avoid deception and manipulation. That's just not true, but I will make a post about it when I have time.
You mentioned a very important thing. If I wanted children, I would want a man who is able and willing to pay for my lifestyle. I absolutely understand why that is necessary if you are going to go through pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood. I am as disgusted as anyone here when I read stories of scrotes who convince women to provide for HIM when they're already juggling parenthood and work. Plus, other women having generous men as a standard still benefits me. So I don't disagree in principle, but as a childfree woman I wouldn't want to be "funded" by someone else. Generous gifts and help, yes.
Unknown member
Feb 22, 2023
Replying to
you're probably being downvoted to hell hahaha
i agree with you. i'd like a partner who i can count on to provide for me in case i become unemployed or sick. i want a partner who is kind and generous, like you said, and will show his appreciation of me in many ways - one of them being gifts and paying for stuff often.
that's different from expecting to have everything paid for. who would want a partner who has money but expects to be provided for 100%? where i live, most people are broke (from both sexes), everyone is struggling. it's just not feasible to find a man who will pay for everything all the time. he would have to be rich.
I have to thank FDS because it made me re evaluate the importance of financial generosity . I have been lucky so far in that regard, but now I think I would be actively turn off by a stingy 50/50 type of man. But I think there's a happy medium between that and letting a boyfriend routinely pay for my house, car, studies... Sure it's good to know he would and could do it if I needed it (or if I wanted children). But I would be suspicious of a man who insisted to fund my basic expenses on a regular basis . As I said, help of that kind always comes with strings attached, even if they're not immediately visible.
Now that I've pondered this more I also thought of something that doesn't sit right with me: the advice to "date like a man" or "be selfish/opportunistic/audacious like a man". Yes... and no. The goal of feminism to me was never to be allowed to do anything that men are allowed to do, because men don't set the universal standard of behavior. I understand where this advice comes from, and that it's supposed to be pragmatic, so I can definitely see where this has its applications. Especially when women are not as daring as they could be. But my inner radfem just rebels against it. Firstly, women tend to get different results from behaving like men, because they are not men and are treated differently based on their sex. Any advice that doesn't acknowledge that places too much burden on the individual and assumes a kind of meritocratic system that we just don't have. Secondly, I want women to be able to set their own standards for acceptable behavior instead of going "well now that the men have turned this into a game of X and Y and Z, at least I want to play, too". It can make sense to understand that men worry about themselves first and foremost, and try to stand up for yourself and your needs more, but honestly, I don't want to be like the average man. And I doubt it would work. ETA: in my country, there has recently been a court ruling that a company can't justify giving a man a higher salary than a woman in the same position just because he negotiated better. These are things I want to see. It's not telling women to brazenly ask for a big salary like men do, it's protecting them from an unfair advantage that men have over them. Of course, when there's no such protections, one can benefit from emulating men in some ways.
The way I see it, 'date like a man' means to put your benefit first and foremost. That I absolutely agree with.
We are extensively socialized from the cradle to put others first, while men are applauded for having the audacity to put themselves first. We should also do that. Doesn't mean we have to be selfish or cruel, but also means we don't have to put up with shit behavior from a partner.
Sure, that's fine. Sometimes it can go a bit overboard though. I've read comments along the lines of "men do <shitty thing> all the time so don't feel bad for doing ." Also, even the advice of "put yourself first" sometimes ignores how heavily women are penalized for that. It doesn't mean they should give up, but that results are not as guaranteed as when men do it. They get away with it not because they dare to, they get away with it because of patriarchy. Which never awards women the same freedoms as men.
One thing I wouldn't do is bolt from a date if the man is unsatisfying in any way, refuses to pay the bill, etc. Not because I wouldn't like to, but where I live, I run the risk of running into the guy in a different situation. I wouldn't want the man to retaliate in any way.
Edit: also, it's not a real rule, just some advice I saw thrown around
I don't disagree with anything in the sense of "this is wrong and nobody should listen to it". I feel that FDS advice is useful as it is considering the fact that it tries to be as broadly applicable as possible, which means some details are always going to be a miss with some people. Maybe the one thing I do disagree with is "if you don't follow this to a T in every single way then you're going to fail!!!" -- which most users don't say, thankfully. Of course you need to take the core principles seriously but I'm a believer in getting things 80% right to see the most benefits. Also, it's not like FDS is a monolith, there's already some variance in handbook posts alone. That said, one thing I don't really follow / have had a different experience with is "you need to be 100% healed before you can date again". Of course, when you're still in a wounded and traumatized place, you can fall victim to manipulators and narcs more easily, so I would definitely tread with caution. But a healthy and safe person can be an incredible asset to your healing, should you find one. Yes, we have friends and all, but some romance dynamics can only be healed and corrected IN a romantic relationship. Our nervous system learns by experience. To feel safe, we have to experience safety. This is very hard to manufacture. So I believe a good relationship has some space for some amount of insecurity or attachment wounding as long as you're conscious of it, in tune with yourself, ready to take responsibility for yourself, and are supported by your partner. I'm infinitely grateful to mine for holding my hand through this journey and showing me grace and compassion every step of the way. Of course, I know that this is the lucky case and we should be careful whom we let into our lives when we're vulnerable. I was in a place where I was very well equipped to spot signs of abuse and boundary crossing, and had a support network around me who would look out for me. This won't apply to everyone, of course.
I believe that there are situations in which learning how to interact with LVM/W is beneficial for you. Sure you don't want a relationship with them, but society isn't limited to romantic partners.
I'm also not against, for example, marrying someone because they will kickstart your career. Scrotes get "starter wives" all the time, don't feel bad for doing the same.
I’m not sure if having a traditional mindset is pickme behaviour but I do believe that both men and women have task that suits them better. I like being a house wife but in a LAT relationship. I don’t want men living in my house and make it a mess or rob me from my peace and demand more than I can give and the usual nagging “Where is my dinner?” Why haven’t you packed the lunch I wanted?” No sir im not your mother.
Not really disagree. Simply had different experiences. I was at crossroads once due to some confusing thoughts including : If he was just not for me, then it doesn't automatically make him low value. AND, block and delete the ex.
So, basically when I was broken up with my ex, I did not go no contract straight away. Block and delete won't work in my case, I believed because we were great at exchanging industry insights. I ended up getting the best job after my masters because of him. Yes I kept in touch with him before having a let's not be together ever again chat and this time for real.
In conclusion, I really didn't need him to help me focus my energy on particular skills, it's just that he knew better at the time. But yeah, we were not meant to be so it might have sucked in that moment when I texted that I got through and we were not together celebrating like before. But there's like a gazillion men to do that with as well or your family and friends.
I guess nothing is easy or hard here but rather the boundaries are necessary which FDS taught me. Ever since applying them, I was able to get what I want even with the advice of the person I didn't like anymore. And, come back stronger.
Well this might not work for anyone other than me. I have realized since my whole motivation to be with that person was to make him my life partner and it failed, I still believed he is good having seen it before. And giving me great professional help was something he can do. He is a passport bro, no doubt but still is HV with his career efforts, treating women, nurturing and skill building and helping others gain that insight.
The one rule I break sometimes is the no cheap dates one, sort of. The concept of the "date 0" actually works out really well for me in some circumstances because I am extremely introverted and hate small talk. The idea of sitting down at dinner with someone that I don't vibe with AT ALL for an hour or so at a nice restaurant gives me ridiculous anxiety, so I follow my own rule of a quick meet n greet as a way to make sure I'd be able to handle a long conversation with this person.
Also, because of past trauma I have a hard time with male aggression, and abhor the thought of having to battle a man who might expect more time or energy from me because of taking me out to a nice meal. Ideally I've been able to vet / get to know him before we go on our first date, in which case I do follow the traditional FDS rules more, but if it's someone that is more of a cold meet I do the date 0 / coffee date thing to do a vibe check before I commit to anything else.
I know lots of FDSers probably hate this lol but I'm working around my own emotional / mental health here and this has worked for me thus far.
7
Unknown member
Feb 24, 2023
Replying to
you are absolutely right to respect your own limits. you're keeping your standards whilst keeping your mental health in check during social situations.
I think this is a fine approach as long as the men don't think you actually consider it a date. Maybe even respond to coffee dates by saying something like "oh so is this a pre-date meetup?" And then make sure you treat him as casually as possible, like he's a coworker.
At first I disagreed with the marriage focus and the coffee date thing. But I appreciate the importance of vetting a man for willingness to commit even if you aren't going to get married. If you want to have children, you need a man who is committed. The coffee date thing, I agree with FDS now but my caveat is for me, a coffee date is also a way of me not wanting to commit to a full on date, just to find out what kind of asshole this is. I can figure it out fast over a cup of coffee without having to go through the effort of getting ready for a date. I think FDS uses the video date for that. I'm still stuck in pre-internet dating notions when a coffee date was one of the few pre-date screening tools you had.
I'm not saying I won't get married again. But I probably won't get married again. Marriage is a legal and financial arrangement that leaves women vulnerable. Marriage is, always has been and always will be for the benefit of men. It's their institution. They made it to buy rights to a woman's labor and reproduction. We need to come up with something better. Still, I wouldn't want to be shopping for a mate, father to my children and not be serious about marriage. Women need to have a marriage contract aka prenup every single time. You need to anticipate the end, the problems. They will happen. It's a contract and financial arrangement first, an emotional one second. We have been conned into focusing on love when men are using that against us.
About the pre-screening thing: I find it incredibly hard to assess people over video or phone call, I think it's maybe a neurodivergence thing. I have had phone calls beforehand with every man I met with just to make sure he's not a total psycho, but that's about it. It doesn't tell me much more. A low-key hangout is the real pre-screening. Especially since in my country it's very uncommon to have a "real date" with a stranger. But I know why FDS advises against it, so I won't usually argue this point with anyone.
I keep circling my mind around ways women can create communities to raise children without having to rely on any man. I’m childfree, but I want women who are not childfree to have the same protection from harm that I have by not cohabitating or marrying or procreating with a man.
Unknown member
Feb 22, 2023
i have nothing against coffee dates (as long as they are in a nice place, with good coffee). sue me.
"but it's an easy way to vet" - might be for you, but not for me. if a guy thinks i'm a LVW for agreeing to a coffee date, he will show it more easily. he'll be more comfortable to be the scrote he is, which makes vetting easier. if he knows he needs to put up an act to convince me he is HV, dinner date + paying for everything will be his number one tactic.
"but it means he is cheap and wants to go out with many women" - or maybe he likes coffee, like me. and if he chooses a nice place with good quality coffee, it's not going to be cheap. plus, what if i only have time to see someone early in the morning or in the afternoon? i don't want to have lunch at 8am, nor dinner at 4pm. now, i don't know if by "coffee" FDSers mean literally just plain coffee - that's lame. when i hear "coffee", i think about a variety of beverages which have coffee, like frapuccinos, capuccinos, expressos, etc. and there's usually things to eat. i really like "coffee food", such as cakes and muffins. maybe it's a cultural thing, i don't know.
to me, upgrading dates is more important. he might start with coffee, but he's going to have to evolve. there's nothing more disappointing than starting well only to have things go downhill with time, which is what happens to most relationships.
I agree with you. I seem to have crazy high standards, per my USian friends, because I had always expected any man I had dated to know how to run a household as a full grown man. But to me, it isn’t. My dad and uncles taught us all how to run a household: from cooking an array of dishes, cleaning hacks, home and car repairs, yard work, etc. They are all socially conservative GenX Latinos (my dad and my uncles). That’s why my first marriage (starter marriage) failed: that man was not up to standards. But my current husband (since 2011) has surpassed all standards I had set for myself.
Unknown member
Feb 24, 2023
Replying to
yeah, it's similar to breakfast. i actually like starbucks and chatting. starbucks is expensive where i live, so if a guy invites me to a coffee date at starbucks, it's not considered cheap of him. on the contrary.
I am actually a little uncomfortable with the general group-think here and the “must run it by us to make sure it’s FDS aligned” mentality. This is basically the same as any other political position where the individual is erased to make way for the larger group. I don’t think that many of the values are allowed to be customizable outside of someone’s private life, so it’s not advisable to really discuss anything too novel here.
As women were not really given much decision making power here. If we were, we would be able to discuss new and unique ways that FDS has helped our own life. I’ve noticed that this isn’t really possible here. I’ve also noticed that bullying is acceptable and in some ways, considered part of growing pains. I personally have begun to rethink if FDS is even accepting of women from various unique walks of life, and what that means for me and my strategy.
On another note, many of the dating strategies are moreso beneficial in a large city where options are bountiful. I live in a small area with most people married, horribly ugly, or only living in the area on a temporary basis. Most attractive men have a lot of options and are uniquely positioned to be choosey. I’m also bisexual and find the strategies a bit exclusionary of women who date women.
I second the fact that a lot of FDS advice is factually inapplicable in small towns. Unfortunately.
Unknown member
Feb 24, 2023
Replying to
people disregard everything you say because you mention one thing they disagree with. it's indeed bullying. and i have also seen victim blaming, which i find unacceptable. i like FDS and am aligned with most of it, but i filter everything. i take what resonates and reflect upon the rest to see how trully useful it can be to me. about success stories, i've only ever seen very few from non-fdsers i know. and to be honest, i think they just got lucky. that's how it goes with romance. people get lucky or they don't. there's no recipe for success. but there are ways to avoid trauma and violence and that's where fds makes a big difference to me.
Unknown member
Feb 24, 2023
Replying to
This so much yes. I like thinking of ways to keep myself safe or hear stories of such a thing. Actually I recently decided to cut the dinner first dates for a drink or coffee date. I’ve had too many unsafe situations happen after a perfectly enjoyable date, time and time again. I just don’t bother saying as much because I’ll be victim blamed I think. I made a post a while ago with some back and forth from me and an online match..all I got was telling me that I was wrong for not just blocking and deleting.
Like we’re not all going to react all situations perfectly. Some might say that storming out of date for a small faux pas is unnecessary, but I will grant any woman that because I support women in however they wish to use FDS in their life. There’s a militant push towards blindly following all the strategies which just doesn’t sit right with me. It’s always worked out customizing to my life, but no one is ready to hear anything like that.
I’m childfree and not interested in marriage or cohabitation with a man (jury’s out on marriage and cohabitation with a woman but it’s unlikely). So a lot of fds advice geared that way doesn’t work for me, but I’ve adapted and continue to adapt the philosophy to make it usable for my relationship needs and goals.
As I get back into dating (women, not men), I will continue to take this philosophy with me, even though I will have very different details than the target audience of fds.
I actually don’t really use the site/handbook for its intended purpose. I have my Nigel and continue to vet, but mostly use the site for other relationship/friendships/opportunities in my life.
That said, I don’t disagree with any of it. If you’re looking to use the site for its intent, you can’t find a better guide.
I vehemently disagree with the whole “don’t approach a man” thing. It is more than fine to say “hi” to a man, to pay them compliments, and to compliment their media taste. Those are great ice-breakers. I do agree, however, that after that initial “ice-breaker” the ball is in his court and he must “do the rest” (eg. ask and/or give contact info, invite you for a date, etc). But merely approaching a man? That’s fine.
I mean yeah, it's weird to just refuse to strike up conversation with a man on principle (except when you're introverted and never initiate conversations at all lol) just because he might be interested and you don't want to take away his chance to approach you.
It is such an asinine concept that a man will permanently see me as less for merely letting him know that I exist. Also, communication is a two-way street: the same way he might not be further interested in me, me doing said “icebreaker” can also help me gauge if I have no further interest.
It is just “small talk”. If neither of us, or either of us is not “feeling it”, then move on.
Constantly refering to men as scrotes. I am sure many of them deserve that title, but I can't engage in name calling. One of the main reasons I can't share this forum with any of my female friends is because they would find this aspect extremely off putting.
Couldn’t you explain to your friends that it’s an attempt to create a word marginally comparable to ALL of the many insulting words that men have invented for women, for which men did not create an equally bad word for men? That’s how I’d explain it, and that’s how I explain my use of the word “testerical” and “teste” applied to men. I wouldn’t have had to create those words is men hadn’t already invented “hysterical” “slut” and all of the other insults they’ve made for women. Men I know have even sometimes loved that I have these words for men to equal the “insult playing field”a little.
.png)
I don't disagree with anything per se but a lot of the advice is obviously based on US-American culture and may have to be tweaked to work with the dating and courtship practices in other places. Two examples that would come to my mind would be "keeping a scrotation" (exclusivity is assumed and expected here as soon as you start meeting in one on one on dates and you tell the person it is not working before moving on to dating someone else) and going on dates with men who are basically strangers or men who are basically strangers asking you on a date (which would be seen as extremely superficial and a social faux-pas). You generally meet in a social context through friends, acquaintances, relatives, common hobbies etc. and get to know each other a little in that setting before asking someone out/agreeing to go on a date.
I think all the rules are *generally* what works best for *most* women, but I get frustrated with the attitude that if a woman isn't following the principles 100%, she must be ignorant or naive, instead of accepting the possibility that someone could make an informed, reasonable decision that certain rules aren't what's best for her specifically. At its worst, it feels a lot like the dogmatic religious attitudes that I got away from.
It’s all sound advice to me in theory but i find the idea of a scrotation exhausting. I don’t think that’s for me. I find dealing with men to be emotional labor and even vetting to be unpaid labor. The thought of spending time on multiple dates a week with different men just doesn’t appeal to me. It sort of conflicts to me with the idea of just sitting back and living your best life and waiting for them to pursue you. Ideally yes we would all have many men without red flags trying to date us but a man trying to impress me and do the chasing only comes along every several years. And most of the time he’s just not my type. I take it as more of a mindset of not getting too invested in any one guy until he has proved himself for a while and is making a solid commitment.
Now that I’m in a serious relationship, the guidance to marry after 1-2 years of dating feels difficult. It feels reckless to rush into marriage without deep multi-year vetting. I think there is a happy medium between marrying someone you don’t fully know yet, and being strung along as a forever girlfriend.
I met my boyfriend on OLD, so after 1 year, we are just starting to be fully comfortable and open with each other and discuss a future. I can’t imagine being ready to marry a man 1 year after meeting him. It would be different if we were already in the same social circle or our families knew each other.
We have agreed that a good timeline is to date for 2 years and then be engaged for 1, so 3 years total until marriage. But we have discussed it, we have a shared plan, and he wants to marry me.
Compare that to my pre-FDS days where I was a mommy bangmaid for 3 years before finally escaping. That ex and I never talked about marriage or a shared future at all. I felt pretty early on that it was a dead end and there was no future for us, but it still took me a long time to leave.
About the official rules: as a childfree woman, I would feel extremely uncomfortable having a man paying for my entire lifestyle, even while keeping my own money. Based on my experience I just don't think it's possibile on average to have that kind of arrangement with no strings attached of some kind (not necessarily sex). I want a generous man, yes, but not an extra parent. Anyway if this works for other women they should do it.
A couple of things that are not official FDS stances but I see a lot here: the advice of cutting off people (not romantic partners) you don't like who haven't abused you as a matter of principle, just because they don't align with all your standards. Of course vetting people is very important and caution is needed, but you cannot recreate in your real life the narcissistic "internet bubble" where everyone agrees with you and is 100% aligned with you. Being able to deal with different kinds of people is an important life and social skill, plus cutting all people you don't like off simply isn't feasible practically for many people, and it really annoys me when this is framed as low value. From my previous experience of Reddit, where similar advice is also rampant, I came to understand this hyperindividualism as an Anglosphere thing. Perhaps it makes more sense in those countries (not sure tbh) but from my cultural perspective I think it's very bad advice. Imperfect connections and conflict hold some value, as long as there's no abuse or exploitation.
The other thing I see here a lot that bothers me is the idea that long term secrecy in a couple is the best strategy to avoid deception and manipulation. That's just not true, but I will make a post about it when I have time.
Now that I've pondered this more I also thought of something that doesn't sit right with me: the advice to "date like a man" or "be selfish/opportunistic/audacious like a man". Yes... and no. The goal of feminism to me was never to be allowed to do anything that men are allowed to do, because men don't set the universal standard of behavior. I understand where this advice comes from, and that it's supposed to be pragmatic, so I can definitely see where this has its applications. Especially when women are not as daring as they could be. But my inner radfem just rebels against it. Firstly, women tend to get different results from behaving like men, because they are not men and are treated differently based on their sex. Any advice that doesn't acknowledge that places too much burden on the individual and assumes a kind of meritocratic system that we just don't have. Secondly, I want women to be able to set their own standards for acceptable behavior instead of going "well now that the men have turned this into a game of X and Y and Z, at least I want to play, too". It can make sense to understand that men worry about themselves first and foremost, and try to stand up for yourself and your needs more, but honestly, I don't want to be like the average man. And I doubt it would work. ETA: in my country, there has recently been a court ruling that a company can't justify giving a man a higher salary than a woman in the same position just because he negotiated better. These are things I want to see. It's not telling women to brazenly ask for a big salary like men do, it's protecting them from an unfair advantage that men have over them. Of course, when there's no such protections, one can benefit from emulating men in some ways.
One thing I wouldn't do is bolt from a date if the man is unsatisfying in any way, refuses to pay the bill, etc. Not because I wouldn't like to, but where I live, I run the risk of running into the guy in a different situation. I wouldn't want the man to retaliate in any way.
Edit: also, it's not a real rule, just some advice I saw thrown around
I don't disagree with anything in the sense of "this is wrong and nobody should listen to it". I feel that FDS advice is useful as it is considering the fact that it tries to be as broadly applicable as possible, which means some details are always going to be a miss with some people. Maybe the one thing I do disagree with is "if you don't follow this to a T in every single way then you're going to fail!!!" -- which most users don't say, thankfully. Of course you need to take the core principles seriously but I'm a believer in getting things 80% right to see the most benefits. Also, it's not like FDS is a monolith, there's already some variance in handbook posts alone. That said, one thing I don't really follow / have had a different experience with is "you need to be 100% healed before you can date again". Of course, when you're still in a wounded and traumatized place, you can fall victim to manipulators and narcs more easily, so I would definitely tread with caution. But a healthy and safe person can be an incredible asset to your healing, should you find one. Yes, we have friends and all, but some romance dynamics can only be healed and corrected IN a romantic relationship. Our nervous system learns by experience. To feel safe, we have to experience safety. This is very hard to manufacture. So I believe a good relationship has some space for some amount of insecurity or attachment wounding as long as you're conscious of it, in tune with yourself, ready to take responsibility for yourself, and are supported by your partner. I'm infinitely grateful to mine for holding my hand through this journey and showing me grace and compassion every step of the way. Of course, I know that this is the lucky case and we should be careful whom we let into our lives when we're vulnerable. I was in a place where I was very well equipped to spot signs of abuse and boundary crossing, and had a support network around me who would look out for me. This won't apply to everyone, of course.
I believe that there are situations in which learning how to interact with LVM/W is beneficial for you. Sure you don't want a relationship with them, but society isn't limited to romantic partners.
I'm also not against, for example, marrying someone because they will kickstart your career. Scrotes get "starter wives" all the time, don't feel bad for doing the same.
I’m not sure if having a traditional mindset is pickme behaviour but I do believe that both men and women have task that suits them better. I like being a house wife but in a LAT relationship. I don’t want men living in my house and make it a mess or rob me from my peace and demand more than I can give and the usual nagging “Where is my dinner?” Why haven’t you packed the lunch I wanted?” No sir im not your mother.
Not really disagree. Simply had different experiences. I was at crossroads once due to some confusing thoughts including : If he was just not for me, then it doesn't automatically make him low value. AND, block and delete the ex.
So, basically when I was broken up with my ex, I did not go no contract straight away. Block and delete won't work in my case, I believed because we were great at exchanging industry insights. I ended up getting the best job after my masters because of him. Yes I kept in touch with him before having a let's not be together ever again chat and this time for real.
In conclusion, I really didn't need him to help me focus my energy on particular skills, it's just that he knew better at the time. But yeah, we were not meant to be so it might have sucked in that moment when I texted that I got through and we were not together celebrating like before. But there's like a gazillion men to do that with as well or your family and friends.
I guess nothing is easy or hard here but rather the boundaries are necessary which FDS taught me. Ever since applying them, I was able to get what I want even with the advice of the person I didn't like anymore. And, come back stronger.
Well this might not work for anyone other than me. I have realized since my whole motivation to be with that person was to make him my life partner and it failed, I still believed he is good having seen it before. And giving me great professional help was something he can do. He is a passport bro, no doubt but still is HV with his career efforts, treating women, nurturing and skill building and helping others gain that insight.
The one rule I break sometimes is the no cheap dates one, sort of. The concept of the "date 0" actually works out really well for me in some circumstances because I am extremely introverted and hate small talk. The idea of sitting down at dinner with someone that I don't vibe with AT ALL for an hour or so at a nice restaurant gives me ridiculous anxiety, so I follow my own rule of a quick meet n greet as a way to make sure I'd be able to handle a long conversation with this person.
Also, because of past trauma I have a hard time with male aggression, and abhor the thought of having to battle a man who might expect more time or energy from me because of taking me out to a nice meal. Ideally I've been able to vet / get to know him before we go on our first date, in which case I do follow the traditional FDS rules more, but if it's someone that is more of a cold meet I do the date 0 / coffee date thing to do a vibe check before I commit to anything else.
I know lots of FDSers probably hate this lol but I'm working around my own emotional / mental health here and this has worked for me thus far.
At first I disagreed with the marriage focus and the coffee date thing. But I appreciate the importance of vetting a man for willingness to commit even if you aren't going to get married. If you want to have children, you need a man who is committed. The coffee date thing, I agree with FDS now but my caveat is for me, a coffee date is also a way of me not wanting to commit to a full on date, just to find out what kind of asshole this is. I can figure it out fast over a cup of coffee without having to go through the effort of getting ready for a date. I think FDS uses the video date for that. I'm still stuck in pre-internet dating notions when a coffee date was one of the few pre-date screening tools you had.
I'm not saying I won't get married again. But I probably won't get married again. Marriage is a legal and financial arrangement that leaves women vulnerable. Marriage is, always has been and always will be for the benefit of men. It's their institution. They made it to buy rights to a woman's labor and reproduction. We need to come up with something better. Still, I wouldn't want to be shopping for a mate, father to my children and not be serious about marriage. Women need to have a marriage contract aka prenup every single time. You need to anticipate the end, the problems. They will happen. It's a contract and financial arrangement first, an emotional one second. We have been conned into focusing on love when men are using that against us.
i have nothing against coffee dates (as long as they are in a nice place, with good coffee). sue me.
"but it's an easy way to vet" - might be for you, but not for me. if a guy thinks i'm a LVW for agreeing to a coffee date, he will show it more easily. he'll be more comfortable to be the scrote he is, which makes vetting easier. if he knows he needs to put up an act to convince me he is HV, dinner date + paying for everything will be his number one tactic.
"but it means he is cheap and wants to go out with many women" - or maybe he likes coffee, like me. and if he chooses a nice place with good quality coffee, it's not going to be cheap. plus, what if i only have time to see someone early in the morning or in the afternoon? i don't want to have lunch at 8am, nor dinner at 4pm. now, i don't know if by "coffee" FDSers mean literally just plain coffee - that's lame. when i hear "coffee", i think about a variety of beverages which have coffee, like frapuccinos, capuccinos, expressos, etc. and there's usually things to eat. i really like "coffee food", such as cakes and muffins. maybe it's a cultural thing, i don't know.
to me, upgrading dates is more important. he might start with coffee, but he's going to have to evolve. there's nothing more disappointing than starting well only to have things go downhill with time, which is what happens to most relationships.
I am actually a little uncomfortable with the general group-think here and the “must run it by us to make sure it’s FDS aligned” mentality. This is basically the same as any other political position where the individual is erased to make way for the larger group. I don’t think that many of the values are allowed to be customizable outside of someone’s private life, so it’s not advisable to really discuss anything too novel here.
As women were not really given much decision making power here. If we were, we would be able to discuss new and unique ways that FDS has helped our own life. I’ve noticed that this isn’t really possible here. I’ve also noticed that bullying is acceptable and in some ways, considered part of growing pains. I personally have begun to rethink if FDS is even accepting of women from various unique walks of life, and what that means for me and my strategy.
On another note, many of the dating strategies are moreso beneficial in a large city where options are bountiful. I live in a small area with most people married, horribly ugly, or only living in the area on a temporary basis. Most attractive men have a lot of options and are uniquely positioned to be choosey. I’m also bisexual and find the strategies a bit exclusionary of women who date women.
I’m childfree and not interested in marriage or cohabitation with a man (jury’s out on marriage and cohabitation with a woman but it’s unlikely). So a lot of fds advice geared that way doesn’t work for me, but I’ve adapted and continue to adapt the philosophy to make it usable for my relationship needs and goals.
As I get back into dating (women, not men), I will continue to take this philosophy with me, even though I will have very different details than the target audience of fds.
I actually don’t really use the site/handbook for its intended purpose. I have my Nigel and continue to vet, but mostly use the site for other relationship/friendships/opportunities in my life.
That said, I don’t disagree with any of it. If you’re looking to use the site for its intent, you can’t find a better guide.
I vehemently disagree with the whole “don’t approach a man” thing. It is more than fine to say “hi” to a man, to pay them compliments, and to compliment their media taste. Those are great ice-breakers. I do agree, however, that after that initial “ice-breaker” the ball is in his court and he must “do the rest” (eg. ask and/or give contact info, invite you for a date, etc). But merely approaching a man? That’s fine.
Constantly refering to men as scrotes. I am sure many of them deserve that title, but I can't engage in name calling. One of the main reasons I can't share this forum with any of my female friends is because they would find this aspect extremely off putting.