The term simp is used to describe someone who admires woman and defends them in hope of gaining validation, correcting historical wrongs and ultimately gaining sex by not being part of the sexist collective of men.. It is either a pseudo-acronym for "sucka idolizing mediocre pussy", or a shortening of the word "simpleton". The term came into prominence in the post-3rd wave feminist period as increasingly, men took on the mantle of being feminist in an effort to please the newly 'empowered women' and get access to their pussies as a consequence. Due to the overlap with self-debasing behavior, 'simp' increasingly became a derogatory term, one that is deemed so insulting and volatile that some online platforms have banned its use.
How simps view woman
Generally, simps believe woman should be protected worshipped and elevated above men, sometimes at the expense of other men. They believe that being on the right side of history will attract woman who want the convenience and protection of feminist men.
Simping vs simpsoning
Simpsoning, is when men do mediocre impressions of Homer Simpson in order to worship him.
Consequences of simping
Individuals in the manosphere, and men more broadly, often believe simping spoils women by increasing their courtship expectations, increasing the amount of investment that is required from a man before a woman provides him with sexual access. Thus, simp shaming can be seen as a male version of the pussy cartel, where women generally seek financial and emotional investment from men in exchange for sex, and men seek to counter this tendency by shaming other men who are seen to overinvest by providing investment with less-strings attached than other men, thereby collectively lowering men's bargaining power on the sexual marketplace.
Other men argue that simping reaffirms women's solipsism and entitlement, and thus promotes socially aversive and exploitative behavior on behalf of women. Other men propose that simping is simply ineffective; either because women prefer being treated like shit by assholes, or because any relationships that result from simping, being transactional in nature, and not grounded in mutual attraction, will be unsatisfying (for the man) and fundamentally exploitative in nature. However, there is some evidence that certain behaviors/attitudes associated with less-pathetic manifestations of simping, such as benevolent sexism (chivalrous attitudes and behavior towards women), are both generally seen as desirable by women and are associated with better relationship outcomes for men who hold these attitudes. Some men also perceive simps as being weak and effeminate due to their agreeable nature, and therefore a fitting target for bullying.
Does simping pay?
Theoretically, simping should not be seen in a pejorative light, as being nice to women should be accepted, since at face value being altruistic and empathetic are seen as positive virtues. Altruism and having empathy fall in line with the central creed of all the major religions, which is one that encourages following the Golden Rule; do unto others as you would wish upon yourself. However, women have brought it upon themselves that being nice to them is now seen as lowly. Take the term nice guy for instance; a bluepilled outlook would suggest that a nice guy procures all the benefits of being an upstanding member of society. However many individuals in the manosphere and society more broadly argue these agreeable, chivalrous males often fail at procreation, due to women's inherent scelerophilia and hybristophilia, which manifests itself in women at different levels of intensity. Thus they argue that simping generally doesn't payoff for men.
On the other hand, research indicates that men who believe in simping have a higher subjective wellbeing. This suggests the pathologization of simping in the manosphere is primarily a response to the perverse exaggeration of the women-are-wonderful effect in modern times, combined with the increases in male sexual frustration spoiling the females due to runaway competition among men for women's affections, rather than simping (or investing into the female) being unnatural or harmful in itself. Since women have been dependent on men's resources throughout human history, it should be expected that men also have evolved to derive pleasure from investing into the female as ensuring the survival of the mother and enabling her parental investment is heavily conductive to men's reproductive success, especially among k-strategists, and that women should tend to approve of and sexually select men who are willing to provide for and protect them.
Recently, OnlyFans (a website that monetizes simping) has been on the rise, and most bluepilled channels are are focusing on "unearned intimacy". Milkmired women within the FDS community characterize this behavior as an example of the Madonna-Whore Complex, where women are either submissive housewives or they are whores (women used solely for sexual gratification).
Hence, feminists blame "patriarchy" as the main cause of simping, and not 'gynocracy' as many in the manosphere claim, due to patriarchy often promoting or co-existing with benevolent sexist behavior (BS) (chivalry and adherence to traditional gender roles during courtship). There is stronger correlation between the Madonna-whore complex and benevolent sexism, as opposed to hostile sexism (a proposed an 'alpha' trait). And feminists have argued this complex produces negative outcomes for men as well as women, as men with this complex are more likely to be dissatisfied with their relationships, an effect which is not found among women. However, evidence suggests this higher relational dissatisfaction is entirely mediated by HS, as BS rather strongly promotes greater relationship satisfaction among men, while hostile sexism is associated with greater levels of conflict in men's relationships and lower relationship satisfaction.
Opponents of feminists argue that women without this type of complex are more likely to be weaker in social dominance orientation (SDO), i.e. they are more likely to be disloyal to their superiors and their in-group in favor of out-groups. They become neither caretakers (K-selected behavior) nor sexual providers (r-selected behavior), and thus are more likely to be a feminist with an empowerment complex. (See: Sexual revolution) These anti-feminists argue treating women as individuals is not necessarily a virtue, as female hypoagency and affirmative action in the workplace can be used to gaslight a man into social shunning and submission. Thus, anti-feminists and traditionalists more broadly tend to claim this complex promotes healthy and adaptive behavior on behalf of individuals of both sexes.
Women, especially those with feminist sympathies, increasingly resorted to a backlash in light of the increasing usage of the term simping. These women believe that exhibiting a respectful, kind, and loving posture towards the fair and frail sex should not induce ridicule. However, this backlash is never going to hold any weight, as "the nice guys finish last" or "good-hearted guys finish last" trope is a real-life phenomenon entirely begotten, fostered and effectuated through the attitudes of the female sex.
Other feminists, when faced with unwanted simping, resorts to claims of "female objectification" as representing a form of maladjusted chivalry. This behavior also implies a sort of "male subjectification", or the desecration and warping of male self-image, which the feminists desire to tear down. If women wish to be treated as an equal to man, they must also behave as if men were their equals, which includes the removal of female hypoagency (which defaults men to be superior) and their drive to feminize and 'domesticate' men (which defaults to men being inferior, and justifies simping).
- Nice guy
- Oofy doofy theory
- Tutorial mode
- Bateman's principle
- History of female sex-favoritism
- Putting pussy on the pedestal
|MRAs||Warren Farrell • Natty Kadifa • Mel Feit • Karen Straughan • Honey Badger Radio • Alison Tieman • Pro-male collective|
This page contains text from editors (Bibipi) and (Altmark22) who wanted their text released under CC-BY-4.0. In order to reduce complexity, this whole page is CC-BY-4.0. If using the whole page you may credit it as 'Bibipi, Altmark, William et al', unless otherwise stated. Most other pages on this wiki we declare as unlicensed to re-use by non-copyright-holders outside of here unless expressly stated by email and under the conditions listed in the email.