I was recently ranting about the ambiguous signals of women, which are partly due to nonsensical dating advice, but also to their narcissist wish of wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. They know that they can only get male company if they fuck the guy, but since they don't want to fuck any guy that comes along but still want to have some losers around who bolster up her fragile ego, they just string them along.
An interesting corollary of the female unwillingness to clearly let the guy know whether they are interested or not is that this behavior enabled the spread of the inane PUA culture. PUAs take the words of women at face-value. Instead of realizing that if she doesn't allow physical advances (one of the main points of Minimal Game), she's probably not interested in you as a sexual partner, PUAs are happy as long as women talk to them, and search for techniques to turn the interaction sexual at some point.
However, women can easily string PUAs along since many of those guys are afraid of their own sexuality. Instead, they engage in "cocky/funny" emails and text messages. As long as the girl replies, the PUA thinks he has a shot. He never had a shot, but of course he doesn't want to make a move either and force a decision. Apparently it's easier for the egos of weak men to hope that something will happen somehow, somewhere, instead.
If women immediately said "no" to the PUA, they'd just move on. However, because they then let the guy stick around and feed off the attention they get, the PUA keeps going. He might even ask for her number, and if the guy is non-threatening enough, he will not get a fake number but a real one. Then he texts and calls her, and maybe she'll ask him to join her girlfriends the next time they go out. It's a win-win for her: she's got some dude to come along, paying for drinks, and giving the girls attention, and as long as he gets a hug out of it or a kiss on the cheek, he'll be happy. This arrangement is perfect for her. She will ignore the fact that the PUA, or any of her male "friends" only sticks around because he wants to get laid. Depending on the guy's ambition, or lack thereof, it will now take several weeks or months, and anything between $50 and $10k or more before he'll eventually hear from her, "... but I thought we were just friends!"
So, Jezebel and other feminists hate sites, before you try shitting on PUA again, think about what you've done to enable this trend in the first place. If you women would have learnt to say "yes" and "no", we wouldn't had have to witness grown guys walking around with feather-boas and plateau boots, we wouldn't have guys in their 50s like Vince Kelvin making a complete fool out of themselves, and we wouldn't have Jeffy from RSD with his "rape van". He'd probably still hit on fatties, but he wouldn't pollute the internet with stories of his failed attempts.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
I like your sentence: "They know that they can only get male company if they fuck the guy, but since they don't want to fuck any guy that comes along but still want to have some losers around who bolster up her fragile ego, they just string them along."
ReplyDeleteI don't care about the opinion of PUAs except one, Bishop. I read his book 'the fire of seduction' and there are very interesting things inside it. At one point, he talks about something he calls "the waiting trap".
Here is what he says,
"Imagine you approached a woman, you spent 1 hour talking to her, things went well but you didn't get sex. You think, 'That went well, I didn't have sex but I'm gonna give her another hour and maybe then I'll get sex.'
You meet with her later that week, you spend a couple more hours with her, you still don't get sex. Now, since you don't want to feel like you wasted that time, you decide to give her even more of your time, hoping that maybe next time, you'll get sex. And this goes on for few more times because you're thinking, 'Shit, I've spent all this time on her, I can't give up now.'
Then you finally make a move because you can't wait more and she says to you, 'But I only like you as a friend.' Now, you're pissed because you spent all these hours on her, waiting for sex and she only gives you the 'I love you as a friend' crap. You waited for an outcome that never came. You fell into the waiting trap."
The observation Bishop made is very realistic, unlike the crap PUAs normally come up with. He also alludes to the so-called sunk cost fallacy, which only makes it worse. Which conclusion does Bishop draw from this? Does he recommend to escalate very quickly or advise guys to avoid going down the friendship route?
DeleteYes, Bishop talks a lot about avoiding the friendship and the therapist routes. He talks a lot about leading the interaction and if the girl doesn't go for it then you simply stay relax and move on.
DeleteHere is what Bishop specifically adds about the waiting trap:
"The reasons that so many guys end up getting caught in the waiting trap is because they think that time is what will get the outcome, instead of actually just going for it.
If we establish the lead, like any good alpha seducer does, then it becomes only a matter of when you get the outcome, not if, and when it happens in a reasonable time frame.
The time is wasted the moment you can see that things are out of your control."
This is very good advice. But is this really the same Bishop that used to be associated with Ross Jeffries' Speed Seduction? I haven't heard much sensible about seduction from Ross, which makes the quotes you posted quite surprising.
DeleteIt is the same Bishop. The "fire of seduction" was from 2004, 3 years after FORTUNATELY he ended with Ross Jeffries. He's far more mature and far more interesting than when he was with Jeffries. I see a lot in common between what you say and Bishop.
DeleteWhen Bishop was with Ross, he was learning seduction and was under the "spell" of Ross Jeffries which was (and still is), "if you want to get laid, you must play mind control". Now, he's not at all into that shit anymore.
As an example, he explicitely and at several times discourages guys to use tricks and gimmicks. He encourages guys to be authentic and express their true self. He sees himself as a guy of great value and if after 1 minutes of talk (or even less) he notices that the woman just doesn't deserve his time, he stay relax and just move on.
His philosophy is: "Does this woman deserve the time I spend with her?" He's not at all into, "I'm gonna create attraction" or "I'm gonna stay and be cocky or run routines and she'll be interested in me".
Aaron, you forum is the only one I read because I know you're authentic. Bishop is the only "PUA" I enjoy to read and listen because I know he's authentic too but... Bishop doesn't call himself a PUA and doesn't care about the PUA shit. So, he's not a PUA.
That's very interesting! I'll check out more of his writing. Even thought people might have gotten the impression that I'm only out to "bash" the PUA scene, this is not really my motivation. If I see bullshit, I comment on it. However, I find it quite satisfying when I see that others have come to similar conclusions about seduction, and have made experiences I can relate to (unlike PUA nonsense that just all sounds foreign to me).
DeleteDo you have any current links at hand regarding Bishop? I just googled "Bishop PUA" and only found a blog that ended in 2008. Of course, googling just "Bishop" doesn't lead anywhere...
Yes, Bishop isn't into business anymore. Here is what he wrote in 2010, "In 2005 I released "The Fire of Seduction" through my company New-Alpha. I sold the company in 2008, and with it all rights to future book sales."
DeleteForget about the time when he was into speed seduction. His most interesting product is "The Fire of Seduction". I've got it for several years now.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to find it now. Maybe with torrent?
>>wanting to have their cake and eat it, too
ReplyDeleteDo you think this would ever change? Do you feel that women will always see themselves as very high value, string along men, show ambiguous interest, and never risk being rejected -is it not the most profitable solution for them?
When you were getting laid with alot of different women, what did women who felt like you were playing them complain to you about?
In the current climate, there is little incentive for women to change. In fact, they are being encouraged by mainstream media and the feminist zeitgeist. It wasn't always like that, and there is reason to believe that it won't be like this forever. Culture changes slowly, though.
DeleteI'll answer your second question in a separate blog post, but please give me some time because I've got a lot on my plate.
'In the current climate, there is little incentive for women to change. In fact, they are being encouraged by mainstream media and the feminist zeitgeist. It wasn't always like that, and there is reason to believe that it won't be like this forever. Culture changes slowly, though.'
DeleteI've heard the argument that this is a good thing in terms of being able to more easily get a lot of lays. I'd imagine that girls in the 50's didn't put out as much as the ones today.
Then there's the belief in the community that only a small percentage of men are able to capitalize on the easy sex. What are your thoughts on this? Is it possible that women can be both highly ambiguos in their mating ques and very sexually active at the same time?
Yes, it's only a small number of men who get laid a lot. This is sometimes expressed as "80 % of the women are interested in 20 % of the men". Don't take the percentages too seriously, though. Fact is that female attention is quite unevenly distributed.
DeleteOf course women can be ambiguous with their signals and get laid a lot. As long as she's hot and the guys do all the work that's fine, but it's not a promising strategy for your average girl.
The biggest thing feminists did to enable this trend was to convince men that women don't want to be touched. I grew up in an environment where we were being told to ask women before initiating each bit of physical contact. Of course, asking like that is the most effective pussy-drying device on earth.
ReplyDeleteThe surest way to find out how a woman really feels about you is to feel her up, but nobody taught that until recently.
Not true. It is traditionalist,religious women, not feminists, who want to rope suckers into marriage so they could live the fantasy of the hubby, the 2.5 kids and the house with the white picket fence. These are the types of bitches who believe in the old adage about giving away the milk leading to a man not wanting to buy the cow. Feminists are more in line with casual sex and going out in the world to earn their own bread.
DeleteBravo on both articles today, I can't wait till I see the AVfM versions, I see feminist heads EXPLODING :D
ReplyDelete---
On the topic: The most appalling part surrounding ambiguity is the complete denial-ism surrounding it.
Now the typical woman has a reasonable semi-denialism, and if you explain things to her, she will generally get it.
But feminists take this to a stratospheric height, to where they don't admit ANY AMBIGUITY EXISTS AT ALL WHATSOVER. And in fact, they will (like a feminist commenter in the other post on here) accuse any man of bringing it up of being "autistic" or having some sort of a brain defect.
They go that level, that they'll actually say that IF YOU CAN'T read women's intentions, desires, preferences and wants EXACTLY, then YOU as am an must be FLAWED in some way.
The feminist frame is always:
- Women perfect
- Men broken
It can't POSSIBLY BE that women need to CHANGE ANYTHING, and any and all problems and issues experienced between the sexes must be 100% the fault of MEN, it can't POSSIBLY BE that women have ANY responsibility or ANY part in causing these issues (or power to fix them).
On a tangential note: feminists/women are quick to insult you when you question their actions and motives. Suddenly, you're a guy who is "bitter", "can't get laid", "surely a virgin", and in more recent times, you got the whole slew of insults based on the autistic personality disorder spectrum. I might tolerate that from an ill-mannered child, but not of an adult who wants to be taken seriously.
DeleteI question feminists and I can't get laid, but I used to believe feminists and I couldn't get laid then, either. So there!
DeleteAlek Novy,
DeleteCould you kindly inform little bit how you are training those 10 minutes a day? I found this text on the other site.
-> I only exercises 10 minutes a day (every day)
Exactly. PUA and the laziness of women are a symbiotic relationship. Now and then a feminist will scorn PUA but more often they are supportive of it. They want men to keep having to do the work of dating. Amanda Marcotte once wrote "get some game and stop complaining" during a discussion of how hard it is for men to get a date when women's standards are so high. The queen shouldn't have to change, it's up to the lowly peons to do that!
ReplyDeleteI think in allot of cases its the wrong approach to talk with woman just for sex. Sometimes guys can just enjoy talking to a woman and a woman enjoys talking to a man. Flirting is fun. If sex happens great. If not oh well at least i had fun flirting. Am not saying not to sexually escalate. If you feel its appropriate I think its the wrong approach just to go out and try to get laid. Instead go out to have fun and experience different people. Weather they be men or woman.If something happens that just made the night much better.
ReplyDeleteBut how much fun is "flirting" if you end up investing a lot of your time and money for nothing in return? Also, please don't kid yourself. You're talking with her because you're sexually interested. Otherwise, you'd chat up the obese divorcee at your local 7-11 and the granny next door, and enjoy "being social".
DeleteMystery and his ginger friend is a scammer
ReplyDeleteA.S:
ReplyDeleteSo, Jezebel and other feminists hate sites, before you try shitting on PUA again, think about what you've done to enable this trend in the first place. If you women would have learnt to say "yes" and "no", we wouldn't had have to witness grown guys walking around with feather-boas and plateau boots, we wouldn't have guys in their 50s like Vince Kelvin making a complete fool out of themselves, and we wouldn't have Jeffy from RSD with his "rape van."
According to another blog on a related subject, at least some women string men along because they have "weak boundaries," not because they revel in the attention and do the female equivalent of "spinning plates."
http://www.therulesrevisited.com/2013/07/the-importance-of-personal-boundaries_18.html
As for feather boas and platform boots, how exactly are men supposed to distinguish themselves in a nightclub crowd again at a glance?
As for "many of those guys are afraid of their own sexuality", what do you mean by that? Did you actually mean to say "afraid of outright rejection"? I'm sure plenty of PUAs would love to brag about actually "sarging two HB10s in one night."
I think it's pretty easy to set yourself apart from other guys in clubs. Just have a look around: most guys look like complete bores and have spent basically zero thought on their outfit. There is no need to be overly flamboyant. I did fine with black skinny jeans, black pointy leather shoes, some flashy T shirt, and a tight jacket.
DeleteBy writing that guys are afraid of their own sexuality I mean that they are afraid to get sexual at all. Yes, fear of rejection can be part of it.
You don't have to spend your money.Your time is enjoyable. Talking with pretty girl is fun for allot of guys. Yes its more fun to talk with a very attractive girl then ugly or average girl.Yes if there was no shot in hell that you will get with the girl you probably wont talk with her. As long as their is a small chance of getting with her and your enjoying talking with her why not.If the only reason to talk with her is to get laid and you don't enjoy talking with her then it can be waste of time . you can tell quickly if its waste of time. Try make move after 4 min. If your time is that valuable that you cant wait 4 min. Then just get a high priced hooker. Now i can see your point about going out. I always say if you don't enjoy going out just for the sake of going out. Don't go out. Don't go out just to get laid.If your out already you might as well approach girls.
ReplyDeleteOh boy... Do you realize that some girls are just friendly towards you? There is zero chance in that case, but your PUA gurus apparently didn't tell you this.
DeleteHey Aaron, I agree with your posts as they seem to reflect my own experiences, but I remember you posted about how the PUA scene isn't in a healthy state at all right now. If women were promoting PUA through their behaviour, wouldn't we expect more guys to turn to be googling PUA?
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean that women wave signs that say, "Guys, learn game!". Instead, the point was that PUAs can address fickle female dating behavior and sell guys some alleged solution, which means that female indecisiveness and misguided PUA advice can go hand in hand.
DeleteHey Aaron love your material but can you do a post on why women stay friends with their exes while in a relationship with a guy? I run into this problem quite a bit once I'm in a relationship and its pretty annoying.
ReplyDeleteHey man! Thanks for the feedback and the suggestion. I've made a note. Short answer: it's a bad sign, and there is a good chance she's still fucking her ex. Long answer when I find the time.
Deleteoff topic: what i dont get aaron: you say that game cant be taught but you offer phone consultations for 180 euro. how can that be?
ReplyDeleteThis is taken out of context. The issue is that your "foundations" ensure most of your success and what I call "game" only comes through experience. Of course, you can't teach that. However, you can teach how you'll get there.
DeleteSeems you have abandoned th idea to crush roissy. Sadly nobody s bulshitter career has been not destroyed for a long time. It's time for a BOOM , again.
ReplyDeleteIt's still on my list.
DeleteOne of the three big R (Roissy Roosh Rollo ) recently farted out the most disgusting brain fart I read in a year http://therationalmale.com/2013/08/05/dominance/
ReplyDeleteThe tone is that Castro the abuser who held three girls hostage and raping them for 11 years is an dominant alpha. (yes it is the message altough the piece of shit human being of the writer tries his best to pay customs to the public moralS , supplicatingly stating that IN NO WAY I AM SUPPORTING THIS MAN , B-U-T ... I am so done with the manosphere.
At this point in stupidity, is it even necessary that Aaron take on that guy? Seriously what is wrong with these dudes...
DeleteALEK NOVY.
ReplyDeleteRecently browsing the blog archive I came across his brilliant posts. At one point , I believe it was 2012 he promised to make a guide.
How-to-rise-to-the-top-of-a-social-cirle.
I wounld love to see it. Alek Have you abandoned the idea or what.
Heck I would even pay for it. Please consider holding onto your promise , you will help a lot of guys.