At some point in the last decade something changed in how men are talked about online. A new vocabulary emerged — not gradually, not organically, but rapidly and specifically — a set of terms designed to target average men for behaviors that were previously considered normal, neutral, or even admirable. Being kind. Showing interest. Providing financially. Having feelings. Being ordinary.
Each behavior got a label. Each label carried shame. And the labels spread — through TikTok, through Twitter, through Instagram comment sections, through group chats — until they became the ambient language of how men are discussed in the modern dating conversation.
This post names them. All of them. And it tells you exactly what each one targets, why it matters, and what is really happening when this language gets used — including who is using it and why.
"A language that shames a man for being kind, for providing, for showing interest, for being ordinary — is not a language built to describe behavior. It is a language built to control it."
BEFORE WE NAME THEM — AN HONEST ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Some of these terms describe real behavior that is worth examining. A man who completely loses himself chasing a woman who gives nothing back, who has no standards, who sacrifices his dignity and self respect for the possibility of female approval — that behavior is worth naming. A man who provides financially for a woman who treats him with contempt, who accepts that dynamic without question, who confuses being used with being valued — that is a real pattern and an honest conversation.
The problem is not the concept. The problem is what happened to the language. What started as descriptions of specific problematic behaviors became weapons applied broadly — to any man who shows any warmth, any generosity, any emotional availability, any ordinary human quality. The specificity collapsed. The shame remained. And now any man who does almost anything can have one of these terms thrown at him regardless of context.
That is what this post is about. Not the edge cases. The weaponization of language against the average man simply for existing.
THE TERMS — WHAT THEY TARGET AND WHY THEY MATTER
Originally described a man who completely abandoned his self respect in pursuit of a woman who gave nothing back. On social media it became a weapon applied to any man who shows basic kindness, remembers details about a woman, compliments her genuinely, or invests emotionally before she has proven herself. A man who opens a door is a simp. A man who texts back quickly is a simp. A man who genuinely likes a woman and shows it is a simp. The term has been stretched so far from its origin that it now functions as a blanket shaming device for any male warmth whatsoever.
These terms reduce a man entirely to his financial utility and shame him for being willing to provide. A man who pays for dates is an ATM. A man who supports a woman financially is a wallet. A man who is generous is a provider — said with contempt rather than respect. The double standard embedded in these terms is significant. A woman who pursues a man specifically for his financial resources has no equivalent shaming vocabulary in widespread use. The man who provides is mocked. The woman who seeks provision is not.
A man who pursues a woman with genuine intention, who reaches out, who makes his interest known, is thirsty. The implication is that wanting human connection and acting on it is embarrassing — that desire itself is something to be ashamed of. This term has done significant psychological damage to how men approach women because it has created a generation of men who perform indifference they do not feel in order to avoid being labeled desperate for simply wanting what every human being wants.
A man who expresses emotion is soft. A man who is not aggressive or dominant enough is a soy boy or a beta. These terms shame men for the qualities that make genuine relationships possible — the ability to be emotionally present, to communicate, to be something other than a performance of hardness. A man cannot be called soft for crying and also be expected to be emotionally available in a relationship. The same culture that created these shaming terms then complains that men are emotionally unavailable.
Mid means average. Dusty means unattractive or low value. Broke boy means a man without significant financial resources. These terms target ordinary men — men who are not exceptional by the metrics social media has elevated — and shame them simply for being average. The mathematical reality is that most men are average. That is what average means. Creating a vocabulary that treats average as shameful does not change the distribution. It simply makes the majority of men feel like failures for occupying the center of a normal curve.
The ick is one of the most psychologically damaging terms in current use because of its scope and its arbitrariness. It describes an instant, total loss of attraction triggered by something a man does — and the things that trigger it are frequently completely ordinary. A man who dances at a concert gave her the ick. A man who mispronounced a word gave her the ick. A man who was enthusiastic about something he loves gave her the ick. The term has normalized the idea that ordinary human behavior is grounds for complete romantic dismissal — and has been used to justify ending relationships and interests over things that have nothing to do with character or compatibility.
Originally described men in genuinely dangerous online communities with hateful ideologies. On social media it became a label applied to any man who expresses frustration with the dating landscape, who discusses the challenges average men face, or who asks questions about why dating has become so difficult. A man does not need to express any hatred to receive this label — he simply needs to acknowledge that the current dynamic is hard for ordinary men. The term functions as a conversation ender designed to silence male perspective before it can be heard.
These terms are applied when men respond to being criticized, mocked, or treated poorly. A man who pushes back against unfair treatment has fragile masculinity. A man who expresses frustration is producing male tears. A man who exhibits any traditionally masculine quality can have toxic masculinity applied to him. The practical effect of these terms is to make any male response to negative treatment seem like evidence of a character flaw — creating a dynamic where men are expected to absorb criticism without response and interpret any reaction as proof of the criticism's validity.
NPC — a video game term for a background character with no real purpose — is applied to men considered ordinary or unremarkable. Clown mocks men for their choices or behavior. Delulu — short for delusional — is applied to men who believe they deserve more than others perceive them to be worth. These terms target male self belief specifically. A man who thinks he deserves a quality partner, who carries himself with confidence, who believes in his own value despite not meeting every external standard — that man is delulu, is an NPC, is a clown. The message is clear: know your place and stay in it.
THE DOUBLE STANDARD EMBEDDED IN THE LANGUAGE
Look at the behaviors being shamed and ask an honest question — does an equivalent vocabulary exist for women who exhibit parallel behaviors?
A man who provides financially is an ATM. A woman who seeks a man specifically for financial resources is called practical, or knowing her worth, or not settling. No widely used shaming term exists for her behavior in the same vocabulary.
A man who shows genuine interest is thirsty. A woman who pursues a man she is attracted to is empowered, is going after what she wants, is not afraid to make the first move. No equivalent term exists for female pursuit.
A man who is emotionally vulnerable is soft. A woman who expresses emotion freely is authentic, is in touch with herself, is not afraid to feel. The emotional availability that is shamed in men is celebrated in women.
A man who is average looking is mid. A woman who is average looking is real, is natural beauty, deserves to be loved as she is. The same physical ordinariness that is shamed in men is reframed as something to be celebrated in women.
This is not presented as an argument that women should be shamed more. It is presented as an observation that the vocabulary being applied to men has no mirror — and that asymmetry is not accidental. It serves a specific function. It places the burden of shame entirely on one side of the dynamic.
THE MOST DAMAGING LAYER — MEN USING IT AGAINST MEN
Here is the part of this conversation that most men do not want to examine because it requires looking inward rather than outward. The terms described in this post do the most damage — cause the most lasting harm to male culture and male solidarity — not when women use them but when men use them against other men.
A man with money calling another man a broke boy. A man who is physically fit calling another man mid. A man who has dated attractive women calling a struggling man a simp or thirsty. Men who have climbed one rung of the ladder kicking at the hands of the men below them using the same vocabulary that was designed to keep all of them down.
This happens for one reason. When a man uses these terms against another man he is communicating that he is not that man. He is performing distance from the thing being shamed. He is using the vocabulary of his own diminishment to create temporary elevation above someone else. It is the oldest psychological defense mechanism available — I am not at the bottom because look at him.
But here is what that man does not understand. The vocabulary does not care about his current position. The terms were not created to permanently exempt anyone. The man who calls others broke boys is one financial setback away from being called one himself. The man who calls others mid is one bad year of fitness away from the same label. The vocabulary has no loyalty. It simply finds the next target.
A man who uses these terms against other men is not winning. He is doing the work of a system that was built to diminish all of them — and doing it for free.
"The man who uses these words against other men believes he has escaped the category. He has not. He has simply volunteered to enforce it — until the day the category finds him."
WHAT THIS LANGUAGE IS ACTUALLY DOING
The cumulative effect of this vocabulary on how men move through the world is significant and largely unmeasured. What it produces in practice is a generation of men who are genuinely confused about what they are allowed to be.
Show interest and be thirsty. Do not show interest and be emotionally unavailable. Provide and be an ATM. Do not provide and be a broke boy. Express emotion and be soft. Suppress emotion and be toxic. Have confidence and be delulu. Lack confidence and be mid. There is no position that is safe. Every behavior has a shaming term attached to it somewhere in the vocabulary.
The result is paralysis. Men who do not approach because they do not want to be called thirsty. Men who do not invest because they do not want to be called a simp. Men who do not express genuine feeling because they do not want to be called soft. Men who have replaced authentic behavior with a performance of whatever they think is least likely to be mocked — and in doing so have become less present, less genuine, and ultimately less attractive than they would be if they simply moved without the vocabulary echoing in their heads.
Understanding what this language is and where it came from does not mean ignoring all self examination. A man should examine his behavior. A man should have standards and self respect. A man should not lose himself in pursuit of anyone who has not demonstrated they are worth that investment. Those are legitimate points that exist independent of these terms.
But a man who is doing the genuine work — who is building himself, who has real standards, who moves with intention and carries himself with dignity — does not need to internalize language that was built specifically to make him feel like he should not exist as he is.
The words were designed to keep you small. Understanding that design is the beginning of refusing to let them.
The Rational Male — Rollo Tomassi
Tomassi provides the most complete framework available for understanding the cultural and social dynamics that produced exactly what this post describes. If this conversation opened something up about the landscape men are navigating and the language being used to control their behavior — this book gives you the full picture.
GET THE BOOK →