I've recently received two reviews of Minimal Game, and I'll gladly publish both on my blog. The first one is by illuzsion. He once called Debunking the Seduction Community the best book on pick-up he has ever read, but he seems to have changed his mind after reading through Minimal Game.
The review is interesting because it puts the content of my book in relation to his personal experiences. Without further ado, here's illuzsion's excellent review of Minimal Game:
Minimal Game is not a guide for wannabe Casanovas who have fantasy pipe-dreams of seducing any women they want. It is written for guys who want to get laid on a fairly regular basis, making best use of their limited time and effort. Those who have been exposed to The Game or any of the pickup fantasy fiction books are in for a shock as they read on.
The aim of Minimal Game is not a phone number, nor a kiss, or a date. It’s objective is crystal clear: sex! Those who have already been led astray by many of the commercial game theories that focus on verbal material can have a sigh of relief when they learn from world-renowned seducer Aaron Sleazy that your verbal skills are not just rather irrelevant when it comes to getting laid, but that they can actually be counterproductive in many situations. This is true, as many guys literally talk themselves out of pussy.
What is the foundation when starting out on the road to have satisfying sexual encounters with women? That is addressed in the first section of Minimal Game. When Sleazy says that it is about looks, and how attractive your life is that increases your chances to get laid, he gives full-fledged information on how to improve both these areas of your life. It would come as a surprise to most that the basic prerequisites are to like yourself and be comfortable with your sexuality. Sleazy just doesn’t say the most obvious things when it comes to getting your dick wet, but makes us sit and think for while as to why we don’t think for ourselves in improving our sex life in the first place.
The principal rule on which Minimal Game is built on is this: "Mate selection is the domain of the female." I myself have realized over a period of months of extensive cold approaching that this is not just true, but many guys tend to overlook this fact, which leads to intense feelings of frustration. It’s said that the ability to spot an opportunity, i.e. a receptive woman, and seal the deal quickly is what separates a player from the rest. Sleazy gives a lot of pointers on how to do this.
The community is entirely oblivious of what are the realistic average success rates of a guy who pursues random women for sex. Hence, guys fall into the trap of putting too much emotional energy into every single number they get or each single interaction that goes well. As most such women won’t be willing to spread their legs, this leads to guys ending up banging their heads against a brick wall. Sleazy's remark in a section with the heading "Curb your Enthusiasm" will help to be level-headed when we experience countless false starts.
The most important part of the book is where Sleazy lays bare the simple steps to initiate contact and the steps thereafter. He doesn’t recommend fancy openers or creepy introductions. I wont spoil the meaty part of this book by revealing what it is instead. It’s for you guys who have been reading this far to take a look at the paperback book for this part. It’s not a futuristic tactic but just how people were getting laid through ages ever since the days of cavemen.
The Roadblocks section helps you overcome the basic issues most men have that prevents them from scoring with the ladies. This section is deeply grounded in reality and understanding it will greatly reduce the learning curve of guys."Great Expectation" section shows how Disney and Hollywood have fucked up so many of us deep inside, even though we claim to be enlightened about male-female relationships due to exposure to the community. Picking the right girls and closing the deal quickly is what game is entirely about. Sleazy puts in very simple terms on how to do this efficiently and faster.
The section on various types of relationships surprised me with its crisp content. It's just a few pages in total, but it will put a lot of pressure off guys to learn that it’s not like rocket science either but is instead a natural but optional continuation after a successful seduction. Sleazy discusses all the various relationship arrangements with ease, and thus this section is a fitting conclusion to the best no-nonsense guide for a regular guy who is willing to take the steps necessary to get laid often!
Thanks to Sleazy for Minimal Game!
—illuzsion
...and I thank illuzsion for taking the time to write this review!
We need to stop saying that mate selection is the domain of the female. It is both untrue and misandric - I have no idea how this ridiculous idea became so popular.
ReplyDeleteBOTH SEXES CHOOSE!!!! The guy chooses who HE goes over to talk to, and the girl chooses who SHE accepts.
What we are trying to say is that you cannot persuade, coerce, force, fool, or fake your way into a womans pants.
But the confusing, misleading, and misandric line that mate selection is the domain of the female - as if men just show up and the women choose! As if men dont reject women who walk up to them! As if men dont themselves choose who to talk to! - needs to be retired once and for all.
There, I have gotten that off my chest ;)
We need to stop saying that mate selection is the domain of the female. It is both untrue and misandric - I have no idea how this ridiculous idea became so popular.
DeleteIt's becoming more popular because it is the reality. Besides, I don't think there is anyone besides me in this industry who actively promotes it. Maybe now some others are latching on, but if my perception is right, the party line in the "community" is still that "game will get you chicks".
What you say is, sadly, incoherent and illogical. Yes, you as a guy walk up to a woman, but due to this dynamic, she eventually turns you down or not. You move first, and she reacts. If women were equally likely to approach men than the other way around, the interpretation would of course be different.
As if men dont reject women who walk up to them!
If so many women walked up to men, then why are there PUAs promoting doing thousands of approaches when all they would have to do is sitting back and not rejecting the women who come on to them. (This is sarcasm, in case you don't get it.)
Anonymous, that's like saying that a corporation isn't really the one making the choice, because you decide whether to go to the job interview or not...
DeleteSee how your logic is silly?
p.s
Science confirms this fact too and shows that all relationships start off with the female deciding she wants to be picked up, before the male decides to pick her up.
It sounds like its more a question of semantics, but the way it is phrased it sounds like guys exercise no choice at all and just present themselves, and women choose - which is obviously absurd, and degrading to men. The way it is phrased it is quite literally wrong.
DeleteWhat is meant seems to be simply that women are much more passive - dont pursue - and women accept or reject men who pursue them. But of course men only pursue women they *choose*. So mate *choice* is the domain of both women and men, quite literally, it is simply the activity component that is different. One could say *active mate pursuit is the domain of the man*, or *passive mate selection based on male CHOICE of who to pursue is the domain of the woman*.
To me, this has a much more accurate - and less misandric if slightly unwieldy, ring! While this seems to be mainly a semantic issue, the way it is phrased is quite literally false, and has a misleading and misandric ring to my ears. And serves no purpose.
Alek, if people started saying that about corporations the context would make it understood what is happening, that both employees and employers choose. With gender interactions what is actually happening is much less clear so confusing and misleading terms should be avoided.
The female can *decide* she wishes to be picked till she is blue in the face, but if the man does not *choose* her, she wont be. She can literally throw herself on the man, *choose* him in the most unambiguous and clear way, and the man can *choose* to reject her - which makes clear that both men and women choose, equally, but take different actions to actualize their choice.
Neither sex is the *chooser* by itself - both choose, but each take different steps to actualize their choice. In reality, female action in this area while less overt, can be just as non-passive as male (heavy signalling, etc)
No it's not semantics, and you're a chick.
DeleteHow do I know you're a chick? Please tell me that anonymous? How could I detect your gender over an anonymous comment?
Good call, Alek!
DeleteAnonyma,
if corporations pursued potential employees, and the applicant could actually dictate the terms of the contract, then you could say that they actually chose. To say that there is an even distribution of power between employer and employee is therefore nothing but ludicrous. Maybe you need some first-hand experience of that before you voiced your opinions online.
Likewise, if women were actively competing for men and pursuing them, and a guy would only have to lean back and make his pick among the three or four dozen chicks that came on to him that evening, then you could say that mate selection was the domain of the man. Alas, it's not, and the scenarios I described are certainly not reflected in reality.
Do you get it now?
Something is getting lost in translation here...
ReplyDeleteAll I am trying to say is that men select which women they will approach, and whose indications of interest they will respond to.
Does that make sense? Is this reasonable?
Men select their mates just as much as women do. Thus, mate selection is not the domain of the female any more than it is the domain of the male.
If it was entirely up to the female, then men would simply accept any woman whatsoever who chose them. That would be the literal meaning of having no choice in the matter.
Now, for some animals, mate selection REALLY IS the domain of the female, quite literally. The males merely *present*, and the female simply chooses, and the male goes with ANY female that chooses him.
Is that how it works for humans? Then why use a formula adapted from the animal kingdom that does not apply to humans?
The reason I am so against this phrase is because it is heavily used by PUAs to imply that men must do everything in their power to prove *worthy* of being chosen by women. Why should not women do everything in THEIR power to be chosen by men?
I am extremely puzzled as to why you and Alek are so attached to a phrase that seems so obviously misandric, and more, misleading, with the reality capable of being expressed in a way that describes the phenomena of male pursuit much better.
Men pursue more. Women give more passive indications of interest. Each sex plays an active role in mate selection, with each sex deciding who it likes and taking action to win that person, just different action.
There - this is more honest and fair than misleading nonsense like *mate selection is the domain of the female*.
The reason this phase was picked up and heavily used by the PUA industry is because it lends itself easily to male shaming - if mate selection is up to female, then you as a man better make yourself *worthy*. I dont accept that as all. *I* choose just as much as she does, and she has to make herself worthy of MY choice just as much as I do of hers.
No female supremacy for me, sorry.
P.S - Sorry Alek, you are usually right on the ball, but your perceptiveness has failed you this time ;) I myself am puzzled as to why someone so committed in general to purging misandry cannot see the obvious male bashing nature of this phrase, and that someone usually so careful to make precise and clear definitions should accept such a misleading phrase.
Anonyma,
Deletefor the most part, women do not play an active role. Yes, they sit there, flipping their hair, smiling, rubbing their tits against men they fancy, or step on their toes, but all is done with a view on plausible deniability. It's much more convenient to let the man come to them. On the other hand, playing the role of the selector, they can protect their (all-too often) fragile egos, and feel good about being desired.
Let's go through it step-by-step.
1) Women in the vast majority of cases do not come on to men. No, smiling at some guy is not tantamount to playing an active role. Walking up and initiating a conversation is. The men play this role.
2) The woman gives a signal, often it's just a mixed signal so that she'll have an easy way out (= passive).
3) The man tries to initiate contact (= active).
4) The woman decides wether to continue the interaction. Sure, they both have to invest something, but the woman usually leans back and waits for the man to come on to her.
In fact, women are so used to being the selectors that they literally can't get when a man turns them down, doesn't call again, or dumps them, that they'll chase after him. This is because in their minds the relationship is not over yet, since they have not ended it.
Corporations act in a similar way. If they like your work, and suddenly you say that you'll quit, they try all kinds of nonsense. Recently I heard of a friend of a friend who handed in his resignation, that they offered him double the salary. He still quit because he's had enough of banking. (Besides, his boss didn't quite realize how insulting this offer was as it said that they paid him half or less what they though he was worth). Or, if you don't return the calls and emails during the interview stage, they'll try to initiate contact over and over. However, for the very most part they don't actively chase but merely sit back and pick from the many applicants.
Good topic here...
ReplyDeleteMy 2 cents, both male and female choose. If I walk into a room filled with 100 women, and I approach 1, I am rejecting 99% of the women there. But it does not mean I am getting laid. She can say no, then I move on to a women who accepts me.
So in terms of going after a mate (approaching) men are the chooses. Yet in terms of having sex, the women are the choosers. As we all know, it is all about having sex that counts, not the approaches.
Annoymous (guess what same name as me), you do like the word misandric. Is that mean male bashing?
You dont have to do anything like what the PUAs do (ie story telling, negs, qualification etc) you just find out if she is into you or not then move to sex. Thats the sum total of what game is, well from sleazy's model.
Cani
If I walk into a room filled with 100 women, and I approach 1, I am rejecting 99% of the women there.
DeleteBULLSHIT
By this asinine logic, if you go to a job interview with McDonalds, that means you have "REJECTED MICROSOFT"?
Nice reframe, but be realistic. ONE HAS TO GET AN OFFER IN ORDER TO BE THE REJECTOR.
Do you realize how asinine this logic is? By this asinine logic YOU cani have done the following:
-> You have rejected 6 billion 999 million and 999 thousand 900 women during your lifetime
WOW DUDE, STOP BEING SO MEAN :D
-> You have rejected every corporations on planet earth
-> You have rejected George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and James Cameron (after all, you never tried to be an actor, so it means you're rejecting hollywood. Since you don't go to auditions...)
I mean dude, I get it, getting rejected is never pleasant, and reframing things might make things easier... But it's not useful in an intellectually honest conversation.
Alek,
Deletecalm down a little bit. Cani wrote afterwards: "So in terms of going after a mate (approaching) men are the chooses. Yet in terms of having sex, the women are the choosers. As we all know, it is all about having sex that counts, not the approaches."
This is what we've agreed on before.
You do make a choice when it comes to selecting a girl to approach, but then your fate lies in the hand of the girl. "Rejection" may be too strong a word here, but you do select a girl to approach, or a job to apply to. In the end, though somebody in the corporation has to decide whether they hire you or not. Similarly, a girl has to decide whether she wants to get involved with you or not. Therefore, the ultimate choice is not yours. You can only initiate an interaction.
Honestly, I never read his comment :D
DeleteI just replied based on his first sentence.
I've just heard that exact same argument word-for-word about 500 times from *feminists*, so I responded based on that.
calm down a little bit
That's how I do sarcasm, not anger lol
Alek, from reading some of your blog, and you comments in other forums, you have a lot good ideas. Yet the manner in which you state your case, is very aggressive and rude. I am not offended, I have taught kids who are rude to me, so it is water off a ducks back.
DeleteBut next time one does decide to go into a tirade about someone's opinion, make sure you know the full opinion. Otherwise, you will look ignorant and stupid.
Maybe I did not write my ideas correctly, maybe my words used or the premises didnot lead to the correct conclusions, but I do believe the jist was there overall.
------
Back to the debate.
Using the word reject, is probably too strong or just wrong one to use. I would use "choose to". Going back to the example I gave above, one man can only choose to approach one woman out of the lot there, So men have the power to choose whom to approach, yet women have the power to accept or reject that approach, and whatever ensues from that (escalations, offer of sex). But approach is not the issue here, it is whether she will spread her legs for you that is.
I think the whole argument is steming from the idea of the "average man" and the "average woman". Just like height, the average man, is taller than the average woman. In this case, the average woman, will have more choice in who she accepts or rejects to have sex with than the averaage man.
Let me give an anecdote. A woman really wants to fuck me, for whatever reason, yet I turn her down. She might be sad, but she will get over it, and go after someone else (accept someones moves) who she will say yes to. She will get a man to have sex with her is a certainty.
The inverse, a man really wants to fuck a woman, for whatever reason, yet she turns him down. The average guy would not get over it, her will chase her but to no avail. Even if he does get over her, and appraoches and escalates over girls, he will never certain that he will get another girl he wants to fuck. Unless she agrees to it first.
Maybe my arguement is wrong, or miswritten. But I do believe I got my idea across.
Cani
I'm fine with "choose to".
DeleteThe sentence you wrote "If I walk into a room filled with 100 women, and I approach 1, I am rejecting 99% of the women there." however is still asinine and illogical and something I see feminists and chicks say as a way of excusing female laziness. That exact same sentence is being said by feminists word-for-word over and over.
I choose to try and get a job at Microsoft, I am however not "rejecting George Lucas, Google and Nike".
If I hear someone saying that I am "rejecting women" by not hitting on them one more time, I will flip out again. It's fucking asinine...
Suddenly Aleksa has enormous concern for the precise use of language. How nice that she developed an intellectual conscience!
DeleteVery well then, one can say that if you approach 1 women out of a hundred, you have *passed over* the remaining 99. In other words, you have not *selected* the remaining 99.
That almost sounds like you, as a man, cani, are exercising - I shudder to utter such heresy! - CHOICE in mate selection.
But can such a monstrous thing be? A man exercising choice in mate selection? A thousand times no!
Mate selection, as we all know, is the *domain of the female*. You cannot *pass over* 99 females to approach the 100th - that would be you exercising choice, which clearly you, as a man, CANNOT do. Power is ENTIRELY in the hands of the female, as Johnny helpfully tells us below.
Think of corporations! Cannot you realize that you must think of the corporations?
Clearly, then, hitting on one girl out of a hundred does not represent any choice on your part, however much your poor, powerless male brain has deluded you into thinking that it is. We dont quite know WHAT is going here, but perhaps one day, with the help of extensive twisting of the meaning of words, we WILL.
Aaron, your last comment suggests that we dont disagree.
ReplyDeleteI never said the *ultimate* choice is in the hands of the male. Why think in such starkly binary terms? I consistently and repeatedly said that BOTH men and women choose - NEITHER has the *ultimate* choice.
Since that is the case - and you seem to be agreeing finally that this IS the case - it is utterly and unequivocally false to say that mate selection is the domain of the female. As that sentence stands, it is quite simply not true. It is also massively misandric and misleading - it is no accident that sentence has been eagerly adopted by the PUAs, who have an essentially misandric mindset and interpret all phenomena in terms of female superiority to males.
Now, as to which sex has MORE power, or has it easier, arguments could be made for both sides. Some might say having the power to actively pursue is better than having the power merely to accept or reject suitors and at most give subtle indications of interest, hoping desperately they will be perceived and acted upon. Some might say taking the public risk of being rejected is worse. Good arguments exist for both sides.
My only point here is that mate selection is not *the domain of the female* - it is the domain of the male as well.
Thats it. It is a simple point, and you seem finally to be agreeing with it, after a lengthy detour into the mechanics of what each sex DOES to act on its *selection*, which is utterly incidental to the question.
Moreover, using that phrase carries with it an implicit connotation of female superiority and male passivity - as in, it is the male role to merely submit to female judgement, and never judge females in return. No. I judge females as much as they judge me. I choose them as much as they choose me. We choose each other, or sex does not occur. It is not enough for them to choose me.
I will never use that phrase. It is literally false and I am a strong believer in using the most precise language possible, and its lack of literal precision obviously functions to buttress misandry, so I am at a complete loss to understand the attachment you and Alek have for this phrase.
But so be it.
I can't believe this! We have starkly opposing points of views, and even though you claim to not be a woman, you certainly argue like one.
DeleteListen, of course the man has to approach girls, but it's the decision of the woman whether to move forward or not (any different view would be deeply misogynic, to use the kind of word you seem to get a hard-on for). And what is the choice whom to approach versus the choice whether you get laid and then in some kind of relationship with a girl!?
Who holds more power: Your regular applicant or Google? Joe or Jane? You say, "Yeah, I'd like to work at Google!" (Express an intention). Google says yes or no. Joe says (or communicates), "Jane, I'd love to put my wiener into you." Jane responds with yes or no. So, again, whose domain is applicant selection or mate selection? Heck, everyday language gives it away: "10000 people apply for jobs at Google.", or "Men come on to women at bars and night clubs."
Really, it seems you have gone through an absurd amount of brainwashing at university when you think that equality is implied merely due to the interpretation of words in context, while you completely neglect the implication of the corresponding actions, and the actual power of they represent.
Listen, of course the man has to approach girls, but it's the decision of the woman whether to move forward or not
DeleteLogically, this means that mate selection is the domain of both men and women.
And what is the choice whom to approach versus the choice whether you get laid and then in some kind of relationship with a girl!?
Both are choices.
This whole experience is beginning to feel more and more like the idiocy that goes on on PUA blogs and more and more disillusioning.
1) A completely illogical claim is made.
2) When I protest, I am called a *woman* by someone, then every single other commenter joins the bandwagon like lemmings and begins calling me a woman, because I dared question the reigning orthodoxy. I lost count of the times I have been called a woman for disagreeing with PUA sites. When someone knows that they are saying flagrantly illogical things, the first thing they do is insult the person who challenges them. Its fucking disappointing as hell that this idiocy takes place here as well.
I guess there really is no place where truly logical and honest arguments can take place. Emotion is everything, and if you challenge someones emotionally held belief, they will just insult you and deny logic. What is so weird is why you would be so attached to the idea of *female power* - I guess it ties in to your feelings of self-pity? Who knows, who cares.
I cannot be bothered to psychoanalyze you guys. All I know is that you guys are being retardedly illogical in the PUA style by denying the plain, simple meanings of words, then insulting those who challenge you on it. I am getting the same kind of weird brain-fuck where I realize that someone is denying the plain meaning of words out of a deeply held emotional belief he does not wish to challenge.
I thought if any site would be sympathetic to me dismantling subtly held ideas of female supremacy through clear, plain logic, this would be it. The most disappointing thing is the denial of plain logic and the plain meaning of words, the simple lack of honesty and the tedious resort to insult
I am just sick of that kind of thing already. Every time I dare think I have found a space where things can be discussed logically, it turns out there is a limit beyond which the plain meaning of words is denied, logic is abandoned, and the resort to insult takes the place of argument.
The old story all over again.....and again, and again.
I am particularly disappointed in Alek Novy, who has set himself up as so critical. It is so disappointing to have your faith in people prove hollow again and again and again.
What complete bullshit. I really have to stop posting on websites and keep my thinking to myself -who cares really what illusions and idiocies other people suffer under?
Tut, tut, Erin, once again all my other comments appeared but somehow a lengthy comment containing extensive criticisms of you was visible momentarily and now seems to have vanished. How utterly strange what does and does not appear and the time lags involved in this blog devoted to reasoned, critical argument, where no one would ever censor anyone. (I am the same anonymous from the political post, BTW).
DeleteNo doubt, Erin, the comment will appear shortly. Odd how this blog where everyone is so committed to reason and logic seems to spontaneously put certain critical comments on the backlog, while allowing others through.
Dude,
Deleteif a comment is visible momentarily and then disappears it means that the spam filter has picked it up. Or do you honestly think I sit in front of my blog and refresh the browser window every two seconds?
Thanks Erin, much appreciated ;) I waited quite a few hours for it to appear, but it seems nothing works quite so well as a prompt.
DeleteTo respond to your "lengthy comment containing extensive criticism", I can only add that you have not done yourself any favor with it as you demonstrate that your thoughts are either extremely muddy, or you are simply being dishonest.
DeleteJust because one party has to play along does not entail that both play equal roles. We've been through that, and you'll find plenty of people on here trying to correct your absurd interpretation of reality. Let me ask you, have you studied a formal science, or done AP Calculus, or anything else that requires clear thinking instead of bullshitting and moral or epistemic relativism?
Anoymous guy/girl,
DeleteI don't think it's wise for you to mock me, not only because it gives you the appearance of a kid throwing a tantrum.
To respond to your "lengthy comment containing extensive criticism", I can only add that you have not done yourself any favor with it as you demonstrate that your thoughts are either extremely muddy, or you are simply being dishonest.
DeleteI leave that to each reader to judge for himself. You are obviously an interested party. I have always thought that to make self-congratulatory statements about the performance of your adversary in a discussion betray a painful lack of self-awareness and sophistication. But thats just me.
Let me ask you, have you studied a formal science, or done AP Calculus, or anything else that requires clear thinking instead of bullshitting and moral or epistemic relativism?
Ah yes, the one thing lacking so far in your arsenal of tactics - the argument from *authority*. Nice - should we go through the entire roster of fallacious reasoning tactics, or will you content yourself with the argument from authority?
I notice this seems to be a favorite of yours, as it should be for a good European.
Actually, I was genuinely curious. An argument of authority would be if I said that because of x, y, z I am right. As you may notice, if you re-read my post, I do not make such claims. Apparently, you are very well aware that you lack proper reasoning skills. Or why else are you so butt-hurt?
DeleteAaron, at least have the courage of your innuendos. You were obviously implying that since you have certain formal *credentials* in logic (as if such a thing were possible) that you wish to suggest I lack, we should regard you as an *authority* whose arguments have more credence than mine.
DeleteAh, but if you were merely curious, and wished to imply nothing, nothing at all, certainly not that whether or not I have taken APl calculus should have any bearing on how someone should judge the truth of my arguments, well, then, I will say two things.
You have a touching faith that rationality is a matter of intellect and training and not a matter of will and emotion. It is almost as if you have read too little history (perhaps because you were too preoccupied with AP calculus) to be aware of the fact that it is extremely common for highly intelligent men with the most thorough scientific training to be utterly irrational in areas of life which have a strong emotional charge for them. This is almost a commonplace. It is interesting to see how oblivious you seem to be to this - read up a bit on 20th century history.
And secondly, I did take AP calculus, in fact, and took a course on formal symbolic logic in my freshmen year in college.
But none of that, of course, makes on white of a difference to whether what I say here is true or not. Nor would you ever imply such a thing, I am quite sure.
There are instances (like this argument of Anonymous) where I think too much of liberal arts education really fucks people up. I think this statement gives her (I am relatively confident its a "her" and not "him", no matter what Anonymous claims :) lol) education background away - "Good arguments exist for both sides". Then too much usage of the words misandric, misogyny etc. also points to heavy indulgence in feminism?
ReplyDeleteI mean it's one thing to say that okay, there are some guys out there who in some instances turned women down or that a few of them really do play a small role in the mate selection process. Similarly, you can say that there are a few candidates out there who have turned down an offer here and there from companies or really chose not to apply to a certain company knowing that they would get in for sure.
However, saying that mate selection is not primarily a woman's domain, is absurdly stupid.
As an aside - you said "power merely to accept or reject suitors and at most give subtle indications of interest, hoping desperately they will be perceived and acted upon". Why not pursue those guys explicitly? What stops you from doing it? The day you did that, I would 100% agree that guys also choose.
The instances where I say candidates also have the power to choose companies, are examples at top universities where a lot of companies explicitly fight it out for a few top guys. Here the guy really just has to play along a bit and largely just say yes or no.
Point is this - unless you are in a position to say yes or no to an offer knowing that if you say yes, the other party is going to accept - you don't have much power.
Lets be honest, if man had the power, or the ability to choose or reject women, we would not be here, Aaron would not be giving advice, there would be no PUA, no game, because we would be getting all the sex and choice of women that we wanted.
ReplyDeleteBUT we are not among the most desirable, the powerful etc. So we are not the choosers of who has sex.
You could argue that women have game too, they talk about tactics etc. Yet these tactics are for ensaring a guy to marry, to commit, not just to have sex. Cause all women know there are guys who would have sex with them, or at least one guy who would. Can I any man say the same?
Cani
Cani,
Deletethis is a wonderful proof by contradiction:
"Lets be honest, if man had the power, or the ability to choose or reject women, we would not be here, Aaron would not be giving advice, there would be no PUA, no game, because we would be getting all the sex and choice of women that we wanted. "
Too bad our anonymous opponent is unable to follow it.
Ahh, seems someone is stuck in either/or land.
DeleteArent liberals and Europeans in general supposed to be really good at seeing shades of grey?
So there are only 2 possible positions 1) All the power is in the hands of women 2) All the power is in the hands of men.
It cannot be that there is a division of power. Why it cannot be, we do not know - just trust us, it cannot be. More, we will pretend that the IDEA does not even exist.
My dear anonymous above, try considering the idea that men have some power, and women have some power. That men cannot get whoever they want, and that women cannot get whoever they want. That men engage in mate selection, and that women engage in mate selection. That for sex to occur, both parties must *select* the other - that mate selection is not the *domain* of either sex exclusively. More - that there is no need to limit ourselves to either/or propositions.
I know, these terribly novel, outlandishly bizarre and terrifyingly heretical ideas might be hard to stomach at first, but over time, if you meditate upon them, I am convinced that their inner harmony and essential cosmic beauty will be revealed to you.
Now off you go to meditate!
Are we now playing politician? After having been utterly defeated and embarrassed in this discussion, you simply keep repeating your untenable arguments regardless. Pathetic.
DeleteI have been *defeated* and *embarrassed* in this discussion, Erin? It is sad to me that this is how you see intellectual debate, not as an attempt to attain clarity and truth, but as an attempt to *defeat* your opponent, and then crow about your *victory*!
DeleteAnd yet it is *I* who am the politician!
Now that I understand the angle from which you view this entire debate, your performance here makes a lot more sense.
@Cani - (Sorry this browser doesn't let me reply within the thread - some weird javascript problem)
ReplyDeleteSo Cani I guess we all agree (other than the Anonymous whose sex we aren't sure of :P) that in terms of sex it is almost exclusively women women who have the power. I want to respond about the choose-to notion you mentioned in that we decide who we approach.
My definition of power is basically as I said above, knowing that if I say yes, the other party is going to comply. The choosing to approach a girl thing has some value if you know that with a very high probability that you will get the girl you are going to approach.
This IMO can only happen if you are very careful with who you approach (check for IOIs, know your type, have reasonable standards) and you are good at taking initial interest all the way. In this case, yes, I agree that if you spot 5 such women where you know that yes, if I approach them, I will probably have sex with them - then choosing to approach someone has some notion of power.
In most cases and for most guys on the planet, this criteria is not valid, so even if they approach girls, it is basically all hail mary and being able to choose who you approach is practically useless.
As you also rightly said, a lot of guys do have power when it comes to relationships, marriage etc. But in terms of sex, for most guys on the planet, sex is ENITRELY the domain selection of women
But in terms of sex, for most guys on the planet, sex is ENITRELY the domain selection of women
DeleteAmazing, this means that any woman can get any man - it is ENTIRELY up to her! The man plays NO PART in selection!
Wow!
And THIS is supposed to represent a qualitative advance over PUA thinking.....
But I promised myself I would no longer try to point the idiocies of others who plainly have no interest in thinking logically. Carry on, guys, lol.
Anonyma Said:
Delete"Amazing, this means that any woman can get any man - it is ENTIRELY up to her! The man plays NO PART in selection!"
Just refer to the corporations analogy.
When we say
"the corporation has all the selection power, and the guy applying for a janitor has none"
We do not mean that the corporation can get any human on planet earth to work for it :D That doesn't change the fact that the corporation has all of the selection power.
It seems like this person is just stuck on one point - that women throw out imaginary signals to guys who they like but unless they decide to approach, women can't do anything about it. My point is this, firstly, why the fuck do you just not approach explicitly and risk rejection, embarrassment and the like just the way guys do day in day out? Till the time women don't do that, everything is in the hypothetical domain! I can sit here claim any woman can get any man she approaches. That men have no standards. How can you be sure I am not right till you don't actually approach! Till the time there is no action to back up the theory, it's all BS. The day women risk rejection by saying yes near explicitly to guys without having much of a clue whether the guy is going to say yes or no, I will say yes, the men have power.
DeleteTake the corporations analogy which I gave earlier. I am saying there are some candidates out there who have power. Heck, I have been in that situation myself. I have personally turned down near explicit offers from 2 of the top 4 strategic consulting firms, 3 of the 5 best I-banks. But I can claim that because there was fucking action behind that theory. Their hiring managers did outright tell me that we want to hire you. Hence, I can claim that I have some degree of power. However, If I am a company and all I sit and do (largely speaking) is say yes or no to candidates then saying that candidates also have power, because hey, I can't anyone I want then it's all theoretical bull. The day Google starts cold calling candidates saying that I am offering you a job, would you like to work here? then yes, candidates also have a lot of power. Till then though, once again, it's theoretical bull.
Yeah we can sit here discuss all we want about what might happen if women did that, did not do that, why they do/don't approach, that oh men also have the power blah blah blah. You are not allowed to make a point till women don't actually approach! The moment you explicitly start approaching, where you say yes to guys without knowing their answer in return, lets continue this discussion. Till then, lets please avoid keyboard jockeyness.
Alek, to borrow a line from you - do you understand what the meaning of ENTIRELY means? Do you? Huh, punk? ;D
DeleteI am a big believer in using precise language.
It seems now you are arguing that women have more power in sexual selection than men. That does not mean that selection is ENTIRELY the domain of the woman, as Johnny says, nor does that mean that one can use the statement that *mate selection is the domain of the female*.
That you are no using fuzzy language suddenly when you call so many people out all the time for doing that is a bit strange, to say the least. Its OK, though, we all have limits to our ability to be logical.
If people merely wish to suggest that women have more power in selecting sexual partners than men, say so. Using sloppy language helps no one. Then we can discuss *precisely* how much more power women have, and whether men still retain considerable power.
The fact remains that men have considerable power in selecting which women they will sleep with, and can and frequently do reject female advances and choose which women they will approach - all which plays a huge part in determining who a man sleeps with. (Sorry for my offensively clear and honest of expressing so simple a reality, I will try to fudge more next time)
Which means that you, Johnny, and Aaron are quite simply wrong in your statements on this thread. If you have other, related points, learn how to refine your language and come up with more precise formulas.
In the meantime, I consider the absurd phrase *mate selection is the domain of the female* - or even more absurdly, *sexual selection is ENTIRELY the domain of the female* to be literally false. At best, it is a vast exaggeration. At worst, a misandric falsehood.
I have done with this bizarre and illogical conversation that is too reminiscent of the kind of illogical silliness that takes place on PUA blogs.
I leave it to readers of this site to decide for themselves what they wish. I simply no longer care. I only wish to discuss things with people committed to logic and precise, clear use of language.
This discussion is absolutely ridiculous. We never argued that mate selecting depends entirely on the choice of either the male or female.
DeleteAnonyma, I am not reading your response.
DeleteAs long as you're making excuses for women being lazy and passive, I don't care what mental acrobatics you can peform to rationalize female laziness.
Women have feet.
Women can walk up to men.
Women have mouths.
Women can ask men out.
PERIOD - end of issue.
Johnny Nailed it
DeleteYou are not allowed to make a point till women don't actually approach! The moment you explicitly start approaching, where you say yes to guys without knowing their answer in return, lets continue this discussion. Till then, lets please avoid keyboard jockeyness.
QFT
Aleksa, are you sure you are responding on the right thread? I am at a complete loss to understand how what you said has anything to do with what is being discussed here.
DeleteWhat we are discussing on THIS thread is merely the question of whether men select who they sleep with or whether mate selection is the domain of the female.
Whether women SHOULD walk up to men and ask them out or not has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. I agree with you - women SHOULD. Would be nice. Would be fantastic.
If you like, we can discuss that at length on some thread devoted to it. Now, if you have something to say on the question of whether mate selection is the domain of the female or whether it is the domain of the male as well, please, do contribute.
The one being asked to answer with a yes or no is the one that chooses.
DeleteCORPORATIONS CHOOSE - in every case where the applicant went to a job interview.
The ONLY TIME where where the FUTURE employee is ALSO part of the choosing process is when the corporations CALLS HIM specifically. When a corporation contacts you due to a recommendation, you have a choice too.
YOU choosing to go to a casting call (audition) does not mean that you are "selecting" -> James Cameron is the selector. The only time you are also a selector is if James Cameron specifically calls you and asks you if you want to be in his next movie.
AS LONG AS MEN APPROACH and escalate, and women act with these lazy ass signals (ooooooooops I accidentally flipped my hair as I passed in front of him) ---> they are only advertising an audition, a casting call.
You can NOT be a selector if you're the one POSING the question. The one who answers YES or NO is the one who selects.
p.s.
DeleteObviously we're discussing 99% of hookups, not relationships. After the first lay men get equal or even greater selection power.
In 99% of first lays (or makeouts), everything that lead up was in the female selection domain.
There are 1% of cases where the man is the one selecting...
You can NOT be a selector if you're the one POSING the question. The one who answers YES or NO is the one who selects.
DeleteNo! What logic is this? What language is this? This sounds like straw-grasping.
You can select WHO TO ASK THE QUESTION OF. That IS a selection.
There are a thousand companies - you can pass over 900 of them, and only ask 100. That is a choice.
The fact that your choice can then reject you does not alter the fact that you MADE A CHOICE. You can then decide that no other company holds any interest for you - you have then MADE A CHOICE.
Companies advertise all the time. You may know that you fit their requirements to a tee, and CHOOSE never to apply. You MADE A CHOICE.
You can decide that you have no interest in the companies that WOULD accept you, and never apply. You have MADE A CHOICE.
Both the companies and you are making choices all the time - when the two choices coincide, you get hired, and the company gains an employee.
Without BOTH parties choosing, nothing happens.
In 99% of first lays (or makeouts), everything that lead up was in the female selection domain.
DeleteThis is simple false. The man had to find the woman attractive enough to agree to a hook-up.
There might have been 90 girls out of 100 in a club that the man would NOT have found attractive enough.
In that case the man did not choose any of these women - he passed them over. Now, it is entirely possible that these women would not have chosen these men had these men presented themselves, but that does not alter the fact that the man made a choice that he wishes nothing sexual from these women.
The only difference I can see is that in 99% of cases the man PASSES OVER women, and women REJECT men. BOTH actions represent a CHOICE, a SELECTION.
Anonyma, with your silly logic a homeless person who applies as janitor at McDonalds has "selection power"
DeleteNuff said.
I don't agree. This is where this absurd conversation ends. You can use university-taught skewing of language and relativism all you want, the homeless person doesn't "have selection power" coz he chose to work at McDonalds... I'm not buying it.
Btw anonyma, you do realize that if your asinine logic was used, then we would need to contact the people at the dictionaries and have them remove the word "selector"?
Deletehttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/selector?s=t
Do you not SEE that your logic can be used for ANY area of life. If your logic applies, then there is no such thing as a "selector".
By your asinine logic, the judges on american idol are not the ones who are selectors, because the contestant CHOSE to perform on american idol... etc... etc... etc...
Why not pair the homeless man with some shitty company that abuses its employees and nobody wants to work for? Then the two would be about evenly matched in terms of *selection power*.
DeleteIts a nice trick, Aleksa, but it wont fly.
There are shitty companies that have little selection power. There are shitty employees that have little selection power.
Your trick is not to compare category to category, but least desirable member of one category to the entire second category.....
I could have sworn over at seductionmyth.com you were arguing that women are NOT more selective than men, either.....
Do you not SEE that your logic can be used for ANY area of life. If your logic applies, then there is no such thing as a "selector".
DeleteIt is an empirical question. Some situations a result is reached through mutual accord, other situations it is reached through the decisions of a single individual or group of individuals. There is no logical necessity for every situation to be the same.
With men and women, for sex to occur, both parties have to select each other.
I am amazed at the tenacity if your denial - I could have sworn over seducmyth you were arguing that women are not more selective than men.....
It is an empirical question. Some situations a result is reached through mutual accord, other situations it is reached through the decisions of a single individual or group of individuals.
DeleteThe only situation where a situation is not reached with the voluntary approval of both parties is called SLAVERY.
Again, using your logic, there is no such thing as a "selector" outside of slavery.
Is this true?
I am amazed at the tenacity if your denial
You're the one in denial. You're disputing all of evo-psych, biology and common sense put together.
There are ONLY two groups of people on your side. PUAs and feminists. That's it. Everyone else says that sex is the choice of the female.
It would change if women got off their lazy assess and started hitting on men and initiating sex more often... (more often than 1% or whatever it is)
"I could have sworn over seducmyth you were arguing that women are not more selective than men....."
First of all we're not arguing here who's "more selective" in a general sense. We're arguing who IS doing the selecting. The one being approached and tasked to say yes/no is the one doing selecting.
SECONDLY (in response to me supposedly having said that women are "not more selective) - That's asinine. As a feminist chick you must have read what you wanted to read.
The scientific evidence is pretty clear that when it comes to sex women are far more selective than men.
In fact I posted links to papers that show that when it comes to sex, women's criteria goes up, and men's criteria drops down. With commiment it's the opposite, men's criteria go up for relationships, while women's go down.
In fact I posted links to papers that show that when it comes to sex, women's criteria goes up, and men's criteria drops down.
DeleteDidnt you just post something on seducmyth that when it comes to men the women know or are famous and well known in general, women have the same rates of acceptance for casual sex, that it is only fear that makes them reject at a much higher rate?
re; slavery -
There are situations where one group can voluntarily surrender the decision making process to another group. All subsequent decisions are then entirely under the control of the second group, without it being slavery. And even a single instance (or multiple instances) of compelled assent is not slavery.
But this is all just quibbling!
Forget about words for a moment, we are getting too hung up on labels and words -this is what I am trying to say, honestly and in good faith. Men have standards that limit which women they are willing to sleep with. Men do not merely accept any woman that will have them, as some PUAs claim, and as some animals DO. Whatever words you wish to use to describe this phenomena, do you agree that this is a fact?
If this is a fact, then do you think the formula *mate selection is the domain of the female* captures what is going on very well? To me, this formula implies that men will sleep with any woman that chooses them. Now I know this is not true in my case, and I find this deeply offensive to men in general.
Both women and men have standards that define who they are willing to sleep with, and that the formula *mate selection is the domain of the female* is used in the animal kingdom to refer to animals where the male does NOT have standards and is utterly at the service of females, so that when we adapt it to humans, we are giving a misleading impression.
I am NOT denying that men approach women, who then reject or accept, in most cases. NOR that women often give heavy IOS, sometimes flagrant, sometimes less so, and men can choose to act on those or not, and that the cost in public risk is the same in both cases. Far from it.
It is reasons like this that I sometimes think Anonymous commenting should be disallowed from blogs. I have no freaking clue if this is Cani or the other random Anonymous or maybe just some third anonymous. So it's impossible to follow the thread of comments and connect the dots with the earlier ones. It would be good if you could just pick a random nick and stick to it, especially if you intend to participate in a debate. It will be beneficial for all parties involved.
ReplyDeletePeople can use any name if they select "reply as name/URL", and it's also anonymous, or pseudonymous. I have enabled anonymous commenting only rather recently on this blog. The upside is that it lowers the threshold for people to contribute something to a discussion, but the downside is, just as you said, that discussions can easily get a bit confusing.
DeleteJohny,
DeleteI am not doing multiple accounts, and trying to give different points of views. I just rather use annoymous than my account, as it is easier. But I am so sad, to make a point over and over again.
cani.
Hey Cani,
DeleteI am not accusing you or anyone for that matter. It was a general statement. I see that you usually sign off comments as Cani - the point was just generally people picking some name - any name is fine and just sticking to it because it helps understand the person and the discussion.
And yeah, I agree with you. This discussion became useless a long time ago. Our anonymous discussion participant is more interested in abstract theory than talking about anything which happens in reality.
I think traffic intended for RSDNation or TheAttractionForums was misrouted, and ended up on Sleazy's blog by accident.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the people at Cisco are taking care of it.
I hope so, too! ;)
DeleteI do believe that calling "annoymous" a women was in bad taste. No one truly knows whether that is true or not.
ReplyDeleteI dont believe that anonymous ideas are correct. Believing that there is equality in how the mating game works, is just a delusional idea. Females and males are different, and thus do things differently. It is this feminist bullshit which purposes that women can do what men can.
Now if man truly had the power of whom they have sex with. Then this would only be the case in a society which tribal or mostly likely pre tribal (just one women and one man for example). But would most likely lead to a man just taking any women with out reciprocation (basically rape). I know this thinking is controversial, and i might be wrong.
The above message was by cani.
DeleteI do believe that calling "annoymous" a women was in bad taste.
DeleteI've heard those exact same wording and arguments word-for-word hundreds of times by women (mostly in real life, but on the internet too).
It's how chicks argue when it comes to this topic. Every single argument and even the phrasing is just like chicks talk about this topic.
@Anonymous (cani). Thank you for pointing out the absurdity if some on this site responding to logic with insult. But I believe you have not quite grasped what I am saying. Allow me -
Delete1)Believing that there is equality in how the mating game works, is just a delusional idea.
But I never said this. I merely said mate selection is not the domain of the female, but of the male as well. BOTH choose. Perhaps not equally, but BOTH choose. I am even open to the idea that women have more power - although I am not convinced on that. But I assert men retain considerable power.
Do you get that? I am not quite saying what you are claiming I do.
2) If Females and males are different, and thus do things differently.
I have even emphasized this. I said both men and women choose, but act on their choices differently.
3) It is this feminist bullshit which purposes that women can do what men can.
This is what Alek thinks, and Johnny - that women should approach men, just as men approach women. I think its an OK idea, but this is not my main point.
4) Now if man truly had the power of whom they have sex with.
I certainly never claimed they did. In fact, my point is that for the statement *mate selection is the domain of the female* to be true, women should be able to have sex with whomever they wish. That they do not, makes clear that men choose, too.
Thank you. I hope now my ideas are clearer to you.
This is what Alek thinks, and Johnny - that women should approach men, just as men approach women. I think its an OK idea, but this is not my main point.
DeleteIt doesn't matter what you think should be. We're discussing what is.
The one GETTING AN OFFER is the one doing the selection. The one MAKING an offer is not. Simple.
Anonyma...
DeleteYou're talking about a theoretical hypothetical context, we're talking about the real world.
In the real world women only sit around and say yes/no.
The men are NOT GETTING OFFERS. You can not "select" if you are not OFFERED a selection. ONE MUST HAVE OFFERS in order to SELECT from the offers.
So now we're once again discussion linguistics it seems?
Delete"But I never said this. I merely said mate selection is not the domain of the female, but of the male as well. BOTH choose. Perhaps not equally, but BOTH choose. I am even open to the idea that women have more power - although I am not convinced on that. But I assert men retain considerable power."
We don't deny that it takes two to tango, but think about who is rejected! Let's say ten dudes walk up to some girl in a club. The first 9 she just kind of played with to feed off the attention they are giving her, and the tenth she takes home and fucks. So, one chick just leaned back and let the guys come to them. How would you describe her actions other than inviting men for an audition, as Alek so fittingly put it? She basically let's them put on their little song and dance, and then decides whether to move forward.
So, would you honestly claim that the rejection a woman gives to a suitor is equal to the rejection you merely interpret (!!) because some dude walked up to girl A and not B, C, and E?
Let's assume men would not pursue any women at all and just sit there, sticking their chest out and chatting to their male friends about the latest GQ issue. Would you then say, "Oh, those men are rejecting all the women here?" Let's further assume all the women just did what they were doing before: zilch, i.e. waiting for guys to approach them. In your asinine logic, they now BOTH chose, or don't they? Well, of course they don't, because no one is initiating an interaction, and that's called a contraction. :P
But maybe this was a bit too fast for you, so I'll try to illustrate it once more: 100 guys walk up to one girl. 99 go home empty handed. One dude "got lucky". So, to what did the "selection" of the 99 guys amount to? Right. Nada. The woman, though, just sat there, saying no 99 times in a row, before she got tried, or noticed that it was getting late, and then finally said yet to someone.
You do realize the gross asymmetry here, do you?
Don't tell me you did well on your calculus and logic classes if you can't figure this out.
Aleksa, put it this way. Men select who to approach from a range of choices. No one can deny that. Women select who to accept from a range of choices. No one can deny that. Men select who to approach. Women select from among those who approach them.
ReplyDeleteNow sex results as a result of two selections, one by a man, one by a woman..
What are the differences? When men make their selection, they do not know if it will be reciprocated. When women make their selection, they DO know.
For a selection to take place, all one must have is a range of choices. Both men have a range of choices, and women have a range of choices. There are differences - I have never denied that - but the conditions for there to be a selection - merely a selection - exist in equal measure for both men and women.
How can you deny that?
It seems to you selection means actually HAVING. To me a selection means simply making a choice from a range of options. There is no necessity of actually possessing the object of my choice for it to be a selection.
DeleteIf you tell me to select my favorite color from a palette, I can do so without then HAVING that color. If you tell me to select my favorite fruit from a tray, I can do so without then HAVING that fruit. So, too, a man can select his mate without then being able to GET that mate. He is just choosing from a range of options - the women in a bar. A woman, too, can select her mate - express her preference for a particular man - without actually being able to GET that man. In both cases, the range of options is DIFFERENT, but each party selects.
There may be a whole host of other conditions that need to be met if your selection is to result in possession - but possession is NOT a necessary condition for a selection to take place.
Now, EVEN if the word *selection* implied a preference that resulted in POSSESSION, then mate selection STILL would not be the *domain of the female*, because a given woman might prefer a given man in a bar - select him for a mate - and be unable to obtain him.
I think that finally clarified it -
DeleteTo you guys, selection necessarily results in possession. So since a woman selects from among men who approach her with offers of sex, only her decision can properly be called a selection.
But of course selection merely means choosing from a range of options. It does not imply a choice that results in possession.
Now amongst certain animals, the males are utterly passive and do not choose females from a range of options. They meekly accept any female that expresses a desire for them. The term *mate selection is the domain of the female* was originally used to describe this situation.
The first time I encountered it was amongst PUAs who applied it to humans in its literal form - that men are just dogs with no standards whatsoever, who will take any girl who comes up to them, and it is holy woman who is the superior being who has all the standards. I know from myself how untrue this is, and it was so obviously anti-male, the my gorge rose at it.
Online def of selection
DeleteNothing here suggests that possession is necessarily implied in selection, sorry guys.
To take as a choice from among several; pick out.
v.intr.
To make a choice or selection.
adj.
1. Singled out in preference; chosen: a select few.
2. Of special quality or value; choice: select peaches.
3. Of or relating to a lean grade of beef.
4. Careful or refined in making selections; discriminating.
n.
1. One that is chosen in preference to others or because of special value.
2. (used with a pl. verb) Chosen or preferred items or people considered as a group. Often used with the.
@Aaron,
ReplyDeleteBut - the fact that many men approach this same woman ITSELF shows that men do not simply accept any woman, but exercise choice?
Which is my main point - men have standards which limit and define who they are willing to sleep with, and do not merely sleep with any woman who will have them, which makes the formula *mate selection is the domain of the female*, which was originally used in the animal kingdom to describe a situation where the males have NO standards and accept ANY female, a highly misleading and misandric formula.
Of course, you have done a version of what Alek has done - taken the case of the BEST female and used her to represent female as a *group* against males as a group.
Should we take the case of the BEST male, who has half a dozen hot women congregating around him at the bar vying for his attention, which he deigns to dole out lazily only to the girl who most suits his fancy?
Does he *represent* men any more than the other girl *represents* women?
The point is, it is the mans job to approach. Fine. Some women will get tons of approaches, some women will get almost none.
In reality, which *group* - as a group - has more power?
Sure, you can take the case of the BEST female and use that to claim women as a group have more power. Or you can take the case of the best MALE for the same claim in the opposite direction.
Both are examples of tendentious arguing.
Isn't abstract mating theory fun ?
ReplyDeleteHere's some more to sink your teeth in :
State and prove the fundamental theorem of pick-up (3 credits)
Discuss Mystery's existence & uniqueness theorem (4 credits).
Let G1..Gn be girls, with n finite. Prove that there exists at least one tactic to be selected by at least one of them, in finite time. (5 credits)
Draw a frequency distribution for HB's in mid july on Ibiza. Estimate the likelihood of you being selected by at least one HB8..10, within one hour of arriving. Assume your look is an 8 and your game is a 9. (take confidence level = .95) (4 credits)
How are the following defined (4 credits)?
mPUA
Male selection tactic
Pick-up bootcamp
Unicorn
Consider Jeffries fractionation conjecture.
How would you attempt to prove it (or to find a counterexample) ?
(5 credits)
Solve Mystery's ODE for the case HB=7, MAXNEGS=5, Value=HIGH, alpha=.99, TFinal >= 7hours. (5 credits)
Make a fourier analysis of the steady state (up to harmonic 4). (5 credits)
(without Maple !)
Post your solutions below, so they can be graded by our TA's.
Ha ha, I like this a lot,
DeleteOh I remember using Maple
cani
Yes women can argue illogically, and yes a lot of women do this. Yet men are likely to do this too, I am not saying at the same rate. But what men are especially culpable is using logical reasoning to prove ideas with false premises. Mainly using deductive reasoning ( a al Decartes and the mathematic method) instead of emperical reasoning ( a la Bacon and the scientific method).
ReplyDeleteAll this debate around who are choosers and who have more power in mate selection, can never be truly resolved, until we have an experiment (not just observing with out test/placebo cases). But that will be very hard to implement. Thus every one will make their conclusions on observations and come up with different ideas.
This is getting very abstract, and thus being mental masturbation.
The point of this site, is finding out what works and does not work is the aim for having sex. Complicating this shit is what caused the whole PUA thing.
I find that women are the more powerful sex, and they can say yes or no to offers of sex, and that is the final decision. Unless you want to consider rape (but that just means we are going to jail). All we as man can do is find out if she is physically/sexually attractive, Find out if it is genuine and make offers for sex (escalate) and if she accepts we carry on escalating. If she does not she leaves or I leave. Thus getting rejected is a normal occurrence and having courage to continue and a thick skin is necessary to be successful with women.
IF you are talking about Long term relationships, then this is more of a 50-50 choice. But it seems that men have lost their balls in terms of what they want, and accept anything. Thus accept and stay in LTR cause they feel they wont get better.
Cani
I find that women are the more powerful sex, and they can say yes or no to offers of sex, and that is the final decision
ReplyDeleteThe *yes or no* of the man was already contained in who he chose to walk over to. That decision represents something as final and decisive as the female yes and no (or it can), it just looks different.
Female power is just more dramatic in the mind of the male because it is exercised AFTER the male has already exercised his power. When the male approaches the female, he is is in a position of weakness for that moment, because he has made his choice already and she has not yet made hers.
But if you look at the moments preceding that encounter - i.e the total picture, it will be readily seen that the power is roughly evenly distributed and each sex plays a vital role in mate selection.
But I agree this has reached the point of mental masturbation......and I think ego-investment has made this discussion more absurd than it needed to be.
I just dont like misnadry and misandric and misleading formulas in general, will never use the contemptible and misleading adaptation from the animal kingdom phrase *mate selection is the domain of the female*, as it is demonstrably false, and used primarily to the detriment of males.
But to each his own. Cheers
I am trying really hard to not just insult you.
DeleteYou write, "The *yes or no* of the man was already contained in who he chose to walk over to." But what does this amount to in the end if the woman does not agree? On the one hand you've got 100 dudes saying, "Yes, I'd like to have sex with you." And if the woman says "no" to everyone, what is it good for? It magically turned out that the woman had the power to turn down 100 men in a row. Her initial investment is merely showing up somewhere. Heck, you yourself concede that the male has exercised his power already in the approach, which is of course the crux of the problem. Why don't you just follow that though to it's logical conclusion?
Imagine we were talking about an abstract game. Party one moves first and shows his intention. Party two then reacts. Party one has zero information. Party two has complete information. Who has more power?
BTW, that it requires a strong effort on your part not to insult me suggests both that you wish very much to be right and that are quite uncertain as to whether you are. The combination of those 2 factors usually create a strong urge to insult your debater.
DeleteI am quite serene and feel no strong urge to insult you. I have no strong desire to be right, merely to ascertain the truth of the matter. I would feel just as happy having it shown to me - through logic - that I am mistaken in my sense that the formula I oppose is misandric and misleading - in fact, that is an outcome I would actually prefer.
You write, "The *yes or no* of the man was already contained in who he chose to walk over to." But what does this amount to in the end if the woman does not agree?
ReplyDeleteBut what does her theoretical ability to say yes or no amount to if no guy approaches her? But lets go about this methodically.....
Aaron, the problem is you are mixing too many separate concepts together. Let me walk you through this.
There is 1) The power to select a mate 2) The social risk involved in taking action on your selection 3) The investment each sex makes in trying to obtain the object of their selection. 4) The power of each sex to obtain the object of their selection
My claim is that 1) Each sex plays an equal role in selection 2) Men take greater social risk than women 3) Men invest slightly more in trying to obtain the object of their selection 3) Men also have slightly greater power to obtain the object of their investment.
I am not saying that the sexes are equal in every possible way and have the same level of power on every possible metric, I limited my claims to the power of selecting.
Since you are so averse to abstract thinking, let me start out with a very concrete example, then draw the appropriate abstract conclusions from them.
Man walks into bar. There are 100 girls there. 90 of them he does not like. 10 he likes.
Woman is in a bar with 100 men. 90 of them she does not like. 10 she likes.
The man *passes over* those 90 women and only approaches the 10 he likes. One of them go home with him.
The woman gets approached by 40 guys. Unfortunately, they are only from the 90 she dislikes. The 10 she likes never notice her or approach her, despite her efforts at giving IOIs. She goes home alone.
Now what are the similarities and differences? The man *passes over* the women he dislikes. The woman *rejects* the men she dislikes. That is the salient difference. A single woman might *reject* 40 men. A single man might *pas over* as unworthy 40 women. What are the implications of this for the 4 categories we have enumerated?
1) Both men and women have the same power of selection.
2) Men risk more publicly in acting on their selection.
3) Men invest slightly more (men approach, women only give IOIs)
4) Men have slightly more power in obtaining the object of their selection. (Men can actively pursue who they like, women depend on being noticed and approached. The man must have the courage to do so and lack the obtuseness that would prevent from noticing signs of interest).
Which sex has more overall power? I have no idea. I know there are advantages and disadvantages for both sexes.
Which sex has more overall power and has it *better* or *easier* in the mating game is a complex question that probably depends on personality quirks (some guys love the *chase* and would HATE to be relegated to the passive role), but that has never been the question I was discussing
I merely wished to point out that men and women play an equal role in mate selection. There are many ways in which they do NOT play an equal role. But men select women as much as women select men.
Fact: Generally, women DO NOT approach men.
DeleteFact: Men approach.
Fact: Therefore, men risk rejection.
Fact: Women do not risk rejection. They avoid this issue by being passive.
Any more questions?
Let's construct the "mating game" in more detail: Let's assume the mating game commences once both parties begin an interaction. The male makes the first move. The female has perfect knowledge about the situation (since she makes the second move). The male's first move can be seen as an invitation. The female's move (the second move in the game) consists of either accepting or rejecting the male's offer. Since it is up to the female (the second mover) to determine the outcome of the interaction (which we shall call "mate selection"), she holds more power, and thus it can be concluded that in the "mating game" the object of "mate selection" is the domain of the woman.
Your mistake is that you somehow count interactions that have not taken place to construct equality. However, men make the approaches. Women, for the very most part, simply sit back and wait for guys to approach them. So, tell me again with which step in this argumentation you disagree?
The mating game begins when a man and a woman enter the bar. Until the male initiates, he holds more power. After he initiates, she holds more power.
DeleteIf you freeze frame at a particular point during this time flow, you will get an incomplete impression.
You say - *Since it is up to the female (the second mover) to determine the outcome of the interaction (which we shall call "mate selection"), she holds more power, and thus it can be concluded that in the "mating game" the object of "mate selection" is the domain of the woman.*
But it is up to the man if there is going to BE any interaction at all!
The selection process consists of two halves 1) The man initiating 2) The woman responding.
Both parts of this process determine if sex will occur, and both parts represent a selection from a range of choices. To focus on the second half as somehow more decisive merely because it takes place later in the sequence of events, is to have selective vision.
You seem to be implying that the female *no* or the female *yes* on their own determine the outcome. But on their own, the female yes or no mean nothing. Just as on its own, the male initiation means nothing. Female yes only means something in conjunction with male initiation. So we can see that the female yes or no, and the male initiation, are two halves of a single process of mate selection. Neither half of the process contains all the power.
Of course, each sex, from its narcissistic perspective, will be more vividly impressed with the decision power of the other, because that is the element over which they have no control, and thus dread. Fear impresses things wonderfully on the mind and distort entire perspectives.
Your mistake is that you somehow count interactions that have not taken place to construct equality.
I say merely that interactions that men choose not to initiate are an example of male mate selection every bit as important as the female one. I make no larger claim about equality in general.
However, men make the approaches. Women, for the very most part, simply sit back and wait for guys to approach them.
This is true, but each role has its upside and its downside. However, each role is capable of satisfying the conditions for a selection to take place - which is, in the end, my only point.
Anonyma,
Deleteplease re-read my last comment, read it from top to bottom, and tell me the first statement you disagree with and why. We'll take it from there.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAaron Said"Your mistake is that you somehow count interactions that have not taken place to construct equality."
DeleteThat's the whole point. Anonyma keeps counting Hypotheticals in order to construct as false equality between men and women.
She uses what didn't happen, but might have, could have, or should have, but might or might not have happened as an argument to dispute the blatant inequality of what DOES happen.
Until the male initiates, he holds more power. After he initiates, she holds more power.
DeleteThat sentence doesn't make sense. If a man "has the power until he makes the move" than how does he lose it the moment he makes a move? :D
That makes no sense... Again, your sentence is equivalent to
"Random actor off the street has all the casting power until he walks into the audition room, but once the random actor walks into the audition room, James Cameron gets all the power - therefore the random actor and james cameron have about equal power" :D WTF!?!?
or
"Random unemployed person has all the hiring power until he walks into a job interview, at which point the interviewer gets all the power -> Therefore the unemployed person and the job interviewer have about equal power" WTF?!?!
Again anonyma YOUR ASININE "logic" says that every woman I don't approach I have given "no" to
ReplyDeleteARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?!??
I pass like 500 chicks a day on the street, without approaching them!!!!!!! Your asinine chick logic says that I am "rejecting 500 chicks a day".
Do you have any idea how ASININE that claim is anonyma?
The point is this...
Delete- Angelina Jolie is in a room, surrounded by bodyguards, but she secretly wishes she could fuck the bartender John
- John likes Angelina Jolie a lot, but he thinks he has no chance, so he never even tries to meet her, so he chats up another more average chick
In your asinine and retarded logic anonyma, you are saying that John has "rejected Angelina Jolie"... Do you fucking see how fucking ridiculous that is?!?!?
Right, so women get to reject men, while men dont get to reject women as much. Sux. (there are other holes in your logic, but I want to stay on focus as much as possible)
DeleteAlso not my point.
My point is that men select women as much as women select men, and for sex to occur, each party must select the other. Thus, mate selection is not the domain of any one sex, by the plain meaning of the language.
That women get to reject men all the time, and all men get to do is either ignore IOIs ( a much milder form of rejection), or pass over women, is a good example of how women have it easy. There is a downside to women in this way of heaving it easy which I mentioned earlier, but that is off topic.
None of that changes the fact that mate selection is the domain of both men and women, about equally. We can talk all day about the ways in which women have it easier or not, but mate selection will still be the domain of both men and women.
"Right, so women get to reject men, while men dont get to reject women as much. Sux."
DeleteNice strawman. This is the typical feminist "oh, you're just whining" line. Nobody here is complaining that this is what is.
We just want you chicks to admit that women have all the power.
-We're not "whining" about women having all the sexual power
-We're not asking that women stop being lazy and indulging in plausible deniability ego protection that forces all the responsibility and risk on the man
We just want you to admit that's what you're doing and stop pretending you don't have all the sexual power.
"Also not my point."
But that IS the point. You keep avoiding the PRACTICE, because it doesn't fit your *hypothetical* theory.
For your HYPOTHETICAL linguistic arguing on power to have ANY significance in the real world, we would need a female population that actually made moves and escalated.
Your HYPOTHETICAL would only be RELEVANT on a planet where women are not passive. As long as women are passive, your THEORY doesn't apply to THIS planet.
"and all men get to do is either ignore IOIs ( a much milder form of rejection)"
See THIS is why we know you're a chick. Every chick I've argued this with in real life says this bullshit. No man has ever said this in real life - only "anonymous men online".
Flipping your hair and kinda maybe somewhat looking into a man's general location, and him not MIND-READING it, is NOT a "mild form of rejection" it's not EVEN micro-rejection. It's not rejection at all.
We have a society that allows women to construct elaborate schemes that allow them to never experience rejection. "I flipped my hair in the general direction of John in yoga class, and it could have been directed at John, it could have been directed at the instructor, or the chick sitting on the other side - and then john didn't approach me" ---> Only chicks have the ARROGANCE to claim that this is a "form of rejection".
None of that changes the fact that mate selection is the domain of both men and women, about equally.
You need therapy. Especially since you said "mate selection".
If you had said "spouse selection" I would say you're closer to sanity. But "mate selection is equally on men and women" is something that puts you in the insane asylym.
Anonyma,
Deleteone more thing: You claim to be a man, so it doesn't really apply. But imagine you were a woman and wanted to get laid. What would you have to do? Go to a club or bar, stand somewhere, and wait for guys to come on to you. Do you agree?
Now, since you are a man, you presumably want to get laid on occasion. So what do you do? Well, maybe check out a bar or club around the corner, and just stand there, waiting for the girls to come on to you, and pick one. Oh, shit, what's the problem here? Right, it is that women normally just won't come on to you. Is this also your experience? So, now please tell me about your "power to reject a woman"? Do you feel that you are rejecting all the women in the club you are not approaching? Certainly, I have never heard anybody make such a ridiculous claim.
The girl sitting on a bar stool has any reason to say, "I've rejected twenty dudes before I went home with Jim." What do you say? That you rejected every fucking woman in the club even though none came on to you and you did absolutely nothing all night!? The girl said "no" to dudes. What do you do when you "reject girls" who don't even come on to you? Please elaborate on that. I'm really curious to get to the bottom of this.
Aaaron said:
Delete"I have never heard anybody make such a ridiculous claim."
I've met dozens of people making that ridiculous claim in real life. Every single one of them was a female.
I was referring to men in this example. I have certainly never heard a man make such claims, even though women often live in some kind of la-la land where they think they "hit on men" if all they really do is stand around and wait for guys to come on to them.
Delete@Alek
DeleteWe just want you to admit that's what you're doing and stop pretending you don't have all the sexual power.
If women had ALL the power, they could have any man they want. Please look at what the word *all* means. If women even had MOST of the power, they could have MOST guys they wanted.
Since neither claim is true, it is clear women do not have all, or even, most of the power, in deciding if sex takes place.
What women DO have - is a psychologically easier time in the mechanics of the process that leads to sex.
But POWER? No. They just dont take risks.
For your HYPOTHETICAL linguistic arguing on power to have ANY significance in the real world, we would need a female population that actually made moves and escalated.
Whether females make moves and escalate has nothing to do with the fact that men have roughly half the power in determining which female has sex with which male.
If a man decides in his own mind that 90 women in a bar dont suit him and he would never sleep with them, then he has exercised considerable power in who gets to sleep with whom.
Of course, those 90 women dont KNOW they have been passed over, so they feel no psychological sting (perhaps), and the 40 men who get explicitly rejected KNOW they have been rejected, so they DO feel the psychological sting,
But the difference is not one of POWER in shaping who gets to have sex with whom - it is in who risks more potential pain in the mechanics of the dating game.
But in actual determination of OUTCOME, choosing with whom to initiate and deciding who you will absolutely not have sex no matter much she indicates interest is just as powerful as accepting or rejecting offers.
See THIS is why we know you're a chick. Every chick I've argued this with in real life says this bullshit. No man has ever said this in real life - only "anonymous men online".
DeleteFlipping your hair and kinda maybe somewhat looking into a man's general location, and him not MIND-READING it, is NOT a "mild form of rejection" it's not EVEN micro-rejection. It's not rejection at all.
This is simply not true.
As a man, I do something similar to what women do, before approaching. I will seek out eye contact and make it painfully clear that I am seeking attention from a particular girl. Lots of times I am either completely ignored, or it is painfully obvious that the girl is avoiding my attempts.
Psychologically, it is frustrating and hurtful when this happens, and it is quite obvious that I am being rejected. Having approached girls and been politely shot down, I am not at all sure that being politely shot down is ANY worse, psychologically, than being utterly avoided and ignored by someone that I am clearly trying to interact with. In fact, it might even be better, if I think of my own case.
Human communication is something like 90% non-verbal anyways, so a non-verbal rejection or avoidance of communication can be JUST as hurtful, final, and decisive as a verbal one.
I am not at all sure that an explicit verbal rejection is LESS POLITE than a clear avoidance of my attempt to establish human communication through eye contact, in a bar. It may even be that avoiding eye contact is a more hurtful form of rejection.
So a woman gets a clear, decisive non-verbal rejection - avoidance of contact after a clear attempt to establish one. A man gets a polite verbal rejection, but at least this came at the end of an accepted human contact
No, the more I think upon it, getting politely rejected by women is LESS hurtful - because at least it comes after we were *acknowledged*, so to speak - than being completely avoided, as if you are not even human.
Thanks for making me think this through! This actually clears up some things about why I feel so bad when large numbers of women refuse eye contact and other obvious attempts to establish communication, but less bad when I am politely verbally rejected.
I now realize just as I verbally approach with less investment, I need to non-verbally indicate interest with less investment, too, for my rejections to feel less bad.
So it seems the only way female rejections are worse is when they are HARSH - which is a fraction of the time.
AND the fact that many women will not KNOW they are being *rejected*, because they are only being *passed over*, really.
The second point does indeed give the advantage in terms of easiness to women, but not by a huge margin.
We have a society that allows women to construct elaborate schemes that allow them to never experience rejection. "I flipped my hair in the general direction of John in yoga class, and it could have been directed at John, it could have been directed at the instructor, or the chick sitting on the other side - and then john didn't approach me" ---> Only chicks have the ARROGANCE to claim that this is a "form of rejection".
DeleteAlek, you have a tendency to argue a general point from an extreme, outlying example. That is logically illegitimate.
When women give me IOIs, they are heavy and overt. When I ignore them utterly, I have no doubt the women feel clear and obvious rejection, and pain. Sure, SOME women will give me these utterly ambiguous IOIs, but that is far from typical and cannot be used to generalize about the whole phenomenon.
Sometimes I will go into a bar and get several extremely overt and clear indications of interest, in the form of obvious attempts to establish eye contact and some kind of non-verbal human communication. - when I reject these, it is quite clear I am rejecting these women.
You need therapy. Especially since you said "mate selection".
If you had said "spouse selection" I would say you're closer to sanity. But "mate selection is equally on men and women" is something that puts you in the insane asylym.
Sadly, my friend, this is pretty characteristic of the level of your argument this entire time. I say so, so its true. You would have saved yourself a lot of grief and trouble by simply saying *listen, bub, me and Aaron say so, so you better accept it.*
@ Aaron
Deleteone more thing: You claim to be a man, so it doesn't really apply. But imagine you were a woman and wanted to get laid. What would you have to do? Go to a club or bar, stand somewhere, and wait for guys to come on to you. Do you agree?
Aaron, you must not have many female friends to say such things.
If I was a woman, and I wanted to get laid by an attractive man I like, the outcome would depend on my own level of attractiveness in complicated ways (if I am too attractive, I might even intimidate men), and would take time and effort, usually me investing a lot in giving IOIs.
If I wanted just ANY man, sure, what you say is correct.
Now, since you are a man, you presumably want to get laid on occasion. So what do you do? Well, maybe check out a bar or club around the corner, and just stand there, waiting for the girls to come on to you, and pick one. Oh, shit, what's the problem here? Right, it is that women normally just won't come on to you. Is this also your experience? So, now please tell me about your "power to reject a woman"? Do you feel that you are rejecting all the women in the club you are not approaching? Certainly, I have never heard anybody make such a ridiculous claim.
Not at all. As a man, I go to a bar. Some girls notice me, some dont. If I like any one who obviously notices me, I make a move. If I like one of the ones who dont notice me, I make efforts non-verbally to indicate interest. If she respons non-verbally, I make a move. If not, I move on.
As you can see, to get with a girl I really like, I have to make some kind of effort and spent some kind of time.
To get with just ANY girl, I could just hook up with the first warpig that *notices* me, just as the girl can accept the first guy in the example above.
Who has it better? I dont know. Good arguments exists on both sides.
We are talking about the power to determine outcome, though, so it is not entirely relevant.
So, now please tell me about your "power to reject a woman"? Do you feel that you are rejecting all the women in the club you are not approaching? Certainly, I have never heard anybody make such a ridiculous claim
I said I have the power to *pass over* women, and *reject* some women, the ones giving me IOIs.
I feel I am passing over - deciding I would not sleep with and de-selecting - many women in the club, and rejecting others who give me IOIs.
But none of this is the point!
I have consistently said that in some ways women have it psychologically easier! Why are we arguing about THAT?
All I have said is that in determining outcome male choice plays as vital a role. Do men risk more pain? Sure! Nevertheless, male choice and preference in mate plays an equal role in determing who gets to have sex with whom.
Yes, women get to reject lots of guys. I admitted this! Yes, guys only pass over women, for the most part, so far less women are hurt psychoogically. OK!
None of this has to do with the inescapable fact that male choice in mate plays an equal role in determining who has sex with whom (gender vs gender, pls dont cite me the example of an unattractive man having little choice)
I was referring to men in this example. I have certainly never heard a man make such claims, even though women often live in some kind of la-la land where they think they "hit on men" if all they really do is stand around and wait for guys to come on to them.
DeleteAaron, although this utterly tangential to my point, but you must not then do anything non-verbal - or do very little - before you approach girls.
Any man who walks into a bar trying hard to establish some kind of non-verbal communication with women there, yet is not just utterly ignored, but even actively avoided, knows the psychological sting of it - I am not at all sure it is worse than a polite, friendly, rejection, given with a smile that acknowledges my existence as a human being, and respects my dignity.
.
Anonyma (claiming to be a man) said:
Delete"When women give me IOIs, they are heavy and overt. When I ignore them utterly, I have no doubt the women feel clear and obvious rejection, and pain. Sure, SOME women will give me these utterly ambiguous IOIs, but that is far from typical and cannot be used to generalize about the whole phenomenon."
That's an oxymoron. If it is overt and CLEAR than it is not an IOI but a "move". How is it an IOI if it clear and unambiguous?
-> Are women ASKING YOU OUT?
-> Are they jumping on you and kissing you first?
-> Do they start undressing first?
-> Do they grab your cock first?
-> Do they approach you asking if you have a girlfriend?
Those are MOVES, not IOIs. But its' DEFINITION, an IOI is ambigious, unclear and indefinite.
Anonyma (claiming to be a man) said:
"Sometimes I will go into a bar and get several extremely overt and clear indications of interest, in the form of obvious attempts to establish eye contact and some kind of non-verbal human communication. - when I reject these, it is quite clear I am rejecting these women."
No, just no...
If you're a dude, you are extremely inexperienced, because you would know that a general glance in your direction doesn't mean she wants to fuck your brain out.
A woman staring you down to the point where it's 100% clear that it's for you, and just for you, happens extremely rarely even to the most handsome of men.
So you are either a chick, or you're lying your ass off? You get a bunch of these EVERY TIME YOU GO OUT? Aaron (who's a good looking guy) and most of my good-looking friends will tell you this is extremely rare.
About 99.99% of the chicks do nothing more than general 0.01 second over-the-shoulder glances which may or may not be for you and they may or may not be for your friend or the bouncer 5 feet to the left of you.
If you're a chick, you're intellectually dishonest to claim that women are clear in their signals and only give clear signals that can only be read by one way by the right man intended to. This is a lie dis-proven by both experience and research.
Anonyma (claiming to be a man) said:
"Alek, you have a tendency to argue a general point from an extreme, outlying example. That is logically illegitimate."
You're the one using extremes. What I am describing is what 99.9% of chicks do - super duper ambigious and vague signals that may or may not show interest, and they may or may not be directed at you, your friend or a guy 10 feet away.
Your example is extreme and super rare.
Anonyma,
ReplyDeleteI was thinking of an analog for the discussion in this comment thread, and it struck me that you are like some liberal arts chick bumping into a group of engineers on campus and trying to convince them that gravity is just a social construct. Keep your eye on reality!
Dude, no offense, but what thinking power you have is better spent on making a logical point than in crafting elaborate and complex insults for me.
DeleteYou are clearly misallocating your resources.
The interesting thing is, that the seduction industry is quite similar to the fitness industry. For example, if you want to look good and get muscles, you can just do the basic stuff, like the basic lifts and increase the weigth every time, or you can rely to the fitness propaganda and buying crazy training stuff or go to courses like Zumba etc.
ReplyDeleteThe Fitness Industry also need to improve their marketing and get new ideas to attract customers.