Don’t tell me to ask this question on Askindianwomen because I am banned there :D and I low-key feel proud about it!
But back to the question? Why do girls do it? Are they simply expressing sexuality or is there more to it.
I hope I don’t get boring / lecturing answers to this. I have already done POSH training and know all those concepts already. If you are going to lecture me go lecture your dad!
I genuinely do not understand this. A lot of these female influencers are clearly pushing this whole independence from men vibe and many times it even comes from a gender war kind of space. They want attention, engagement, reach, validation, followers, monetization, all of that. And fair enough, that is the game social media rewards.
But what completely baffles me is the men in the comments.
Most of these women are not even going to respond to these men. They do not know them and probably never will. The comments are just helping boost the reel further because any engagement today is good engagement for the algorithm.
And before someone says this happens with male influencers too, I do not think it is the same thing when it comes to thirsty content. Men generally cannot monetize provocative content at the same scale women can. Women can literally build huge incomes and independence through male attention online. Men usually have to provide some other kind of value or content.
So my question is, why do so many men still act like they have a chance or like their comment matters personally to her? Do they not recognize the pattern? Or do they know it and still continue because of fantasy, loneliness, dopamine, or something else?
Ps: Also personally, I may watch such reels sometimes if they appear on my feed, but I never like or comment on them because at the end of the day that is exactly what helps push the content further.
Edit: A lot of people are commenting things like “tharak”, “lust”, “simping” etc. But my point is more that once you try something a few times and clearly see there is no actual response happening, then why keep doing it for years on end? At some point you have enough data to know it is not going to work. And even if she replies, most of the time it is just general engagement with comments, not something personal. I genuinely do not understand why people do not learn from repeated outcomes.
EDIT2: IN A LARGE NUMBER OF CASES, A MAN IS NEEDED FOR RESOURCES. IF THOSE RESOURCES ARE ALREADY COMING THROUGH COMMENTS, ENGAGEMENT, VALIDATION ETC., THEN THE MAN HIMSELF IS NOT NEEDED ANYWAY. SO THE COMMENTING IS NOT PRODUCTIVE, IT IS ACTUALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BECAUSE IT IS DOING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT PEOPLE THINK IT IS GOING TO DO.
When I scroll through Instagram, I often see reels where women are dancing in revealing clothes, and it makes me wonder if this is connected to broader changes in society. At the same time, there is a growing perception that marriage laws are more favorable toward women, which makes some men feel that marriage carries higher risks. Because of this, many men seem to be becoming more hesitant about getting married or are opting out altogether.
If men are stepping away from marriage, does that make it harder for women to find partners as well? And if that is the case, could this increased online visibility and more liberalized clothing choices be a way of attracting attention in a more competitive environment?
It also seems like there could be a correlation between more liberalized clothing and society gradually moving away from marriage, especially with men becoming more reluctant. Since many men feel they have more to lose, does it mean that women may be more keen on marrying successful men, while men are becoming less interested in marriage altogether?
I have been seeing two different news stories doing the rounds on social media, and both of them raise a question in my mind.
One is about a judge who reportedly died by suicide, with allegations pointing toward sustained domestic pressure and personal distress within the marriage. The discussions around the case suggest emotional and psychological strain, and some people are framing it as an example of how men can also be victims in domestic situations but are often not taken as seriously.
The second is the Bennett University case, where a group of girls were seen physically assaulting and abusing another girl. The videos circulating online show clear aggression and coordinated violence, which challenges the common perception that women are generally less capable of inflicting harm.
When I look at both these cases together, it makes me question a broader assumption. If women are clearly capable of causing serious emotional and physical harm, then why does the legal framework still treat them as the weaker sex in many situations? Why are laws not fully gender neutral, especially in areas like domestic violence and abuse?
TLDR:
Do feminist men fall into two categories, one that genuinely believes in fairness but overlooks risks to men, and another that supports liberal norms mainly for personal dating advantages?
Is it reasonable to say that there are two broad categories of men who identify as feminists?
First, is there a category of men who support feminism out of a genuine sense of fairness but may not fully recognize how certain modern gender dynamics or legal structures can negatively impact men? Do these men tend to believe that extreme or unfair outcomes are rare or only happen when the man is at fault, and therefore assume such risks do not really apply to them?
Second, is there another category of men who are more strategic and self-interested in their support? Could it be that some men support the liberalization of social and sexual norms not out of concern for women’s well-being, but because it increases their own access to casual relationships? In that case, is their alignment more about personal gain than principle?
More broadly, how much of this comes down to human nature? If most people are primarily driven by self-interest rather than pure altruism, is it realistic to assume that support for large social movements comes mainly from goodwill? Or is it more likely that people support ideas when their personal incentives align with them?
Also, does the presence of a small number of genuinely altruistic people make it harder to generalize behavior? If everyone acted in obviously self-interested ways, would social behavior actually be easier to predict? And does this mix of motivations make social interactions more uncertain or risky?
Edit - it is really interesting to see that not a single person has answered the question or discussed the topics. Only receiving fringe responses. The key issue is not getting addressed.
If it’s not acceptable to look at behavioral traits in women, like whether someone drinks with new people every week and consider whether that correlates with things like body count or other patterns, then how exactly are men supposed to filter while dating or even forming friendships?
Do men just invest time first and hope the other person eventually reveals the truth? Or worse, find out too late after marriage?
I can understand why women wouldn’t want men using such heuristics. But what I don’t understand is why men themselves would reject these filters.
Are men not aware that the risks are increasingly one-sided? If so, what’s the alternative, just trust and hope for the best? And then hope you don’t end up paying a huge alimony or worse end in a blue drum or murdered on honeymoon?
Genuinely asking how others approach this.