Friday, July 13, 2012

Note to Women: If you Don't want to get Hit On, then Don't Dress in a Way that Communicates the Opposite

Some of you may be familiar with Hackernews. It's a news aggregator for stories relevant to the IT industry, with a slight bent towards the sensationalist. Some headlines would even make FARK proud. Apart from the usual success porn about startups and arousing details about new hardware or software products, stories about the alleged difficulties of women in a male centric field are another mainstay of this site. As with all sites, once they reach a certain level of popularity, quality takes a nose dive. As you can imagine, the amount of politically correct White Knights and Manginas trying to defend erroneous female reasoning is rather high nowadays.

A recent story was about a woman, calling herself "kdotcot", who attended Defcon, which is "the world's longest running and largest underground hacking conference". What would you expect if you were a woman and attended a conference that attracts a mostly male crowd? Well, plenty of attention, for starters. And what do you do if you are a woman who is going to attend such a conference, and who doesn't want to get hit on? Well, you'd of course you keep the push-up bras, high-heels and skimpy skirt at home and wear something more professional. You know, the kind of outfit you'd expect from, say, a female attorney or accountant.

However, if you are "kdotcot", you do the exact opposite and parade your tits around at Defcon. Attention is great, but if you are "kdotcot" and get attention from the "wrong" kind of guys, then you turn towards the Internet and vent your frustration. She writes:

Nothing could have prepared me for the onslaught of bad behavior I experienced. Like the man who drunkenly tried to lick my shoulder tattoo. Like the man who grabbed my hips while I was waiting for a drink at the EFF party. Like the man who tried to get me to show him my tits so he could punch a hole in a card that, when filled, would net him a favor from one of the official security staff.

OK, let me break it down for you: Was there anything that kept you from wearing a blazer and other "professional" attire? I hope it wasn't the f*cking patriarchy that forced you to show off the tattoo on your shoulder. Likewise, if you party, and your are exposing your skin, you can expect some guys to get physical. This is something every girl who has ever been to a bar or a club knows. If they don't want that kind of attention, then they either seek out different venues, or dress in a way that their mothers would approve of. This is only difficult to understand if you are a woman who wants attention but doesn't want to deal with the consequences.

I can already hear the feminists clamor that men are such pigs, but let's not forget how women act when you put too many of them in a room. They are actually much worse than we men are. If you bump into a hen-party in a club, you can expect behavior towards men you wouldn't believe. Some years ago I attended a conference in Oxford, and after the official program was over, I felt like checking out the local bar and club scene, because I had a reputation to live up to. I'm used to getting my ass pinched in clubs every once in a while, but a horde of twenty drunk women doesn't engage in such minor league activities. I won't go into much detail, because I want to spare you the horrors of having to picture overweight English "ladies" trying to grab the crotch of unsuspecting men or absurdities like fatties dipping a dildo in a pint of beer and licking or fellating it. If this is an environment that bothers you, then you'd do what I did back then in this dubious bar in Oxford: turn around and go somewhere else. What's so hard to understand about that?

But little Miss "kdotcot" just doesn't get it:
Because I am a Very Bad Adult, I finished packing my bags at a completely unreasonable hour of the morning last night. While I was deciding what clothes to take with me to New York, something dawned on me; I was already thinking about what clothes I would avoid taking to Las Vegas for Defcon. Short skirts, low cut tops, tight dresses, and anything that might be overtly attention-grabbing have (sic!) been bumped to second priority on that packing list.
Oh, the Horror! Sexism! Oppression of Wimmenz!!1 Quick, let's Put a Blog Post Up and Stir Up a Shitstorm!!!1!!

Here's a newsflash for you, lady: If you don't want attention, then don't advertise yourself. If this doesn't sound plausible to you, then let me tell you why things are like they are: The reason is simply that women normally DO NOT approach men, no matter how eager they are to have a nice big cock inside of them. Exceptions only prove the rule. We live in a society in which men have to make a move. If we all just stood around, waiting for women to come on to us, we wouldn't get laid and instead of seven billion people on this planet there would be a few tribes of nomads scattered on its surface.

This is yet another example of the twisted logic of women. On the one hand, they enjoy the attention they get for wearing short skirts, or tops that expose their tits, but if they get attention from the wrong kind of guy, it's suddenly sexism. If Brad Pitt grabs your ass, it's a sexual fantasy. Yet, if Joe the Plumber does so, he's a sexist that should be locked up immediately and get castrated.

Let me thus introduce a concept that seems rather alien to women like "kdotcot". It is called personal responsibility. This means that instead of whining to someone else after you've done something stupid, you ask yourself whether your behavior has actually contributed to the result. As anybody in Western society is aware of, a woman who dresses in "provocative" clothing advertises her sexuality and literally screams, "come, hit on me!" However, at the same time she wants to protect her fragile ego and therefore leaves the task of initiating contact to the guy. The woman just sits back and waits for Brad and Fabio and Damian and Richard to make a move. Let's better hope the woman in question is as good looking as the men she fantasizes about getting approached by, but that's another story.

If you ask yourself what all of this means, then let me spell it out more slowly for the logically challenged: If a woman doesn't approach men but instead invites men to approach her by the way she's dressing or behaving, then she has no right to complain when the "wrong" kind of guy approaches them. The alternative is simple: approach the guys you fancy yourself, and deal with the possibility of rejection. Obviously, this isn't too appealing to women either. But, hey, why not just claim that men who reject unattractive women who come on to them are "cruel" and should be persecuted for psychological violence. Maybe this would fix the situation and finally enable women to approach men, and take care of the issue. I'm sorry for sounding facetious, but I can't help it when I am confronted with arguments that sound as if they were presented by an eight-year old.

Of course, all is well if a woman goes out, showing off her tits, and eventually getting picked up by a guy who makes her gina tingle. I am sure that if the woman who wrote that feminist sob-piece had found the guy attractive who invited her to his room for a "private pillow fight party", all would have been well and we would now read some drivel like "♥♥♥♥♥ How to Meet the Hunk of Your Dreams at a Hacker Conference. :) :) :) :) ♥♥♥♥♥"

You can't have it both ways. If you dress "provocatively" and leave it up to the guy to approach you, you have to live with the fact that guys you might not find attractive will hit on you. However, you can't go out, feed off the attention of guys, and then complain if those hitting on you don't all look like Baptiste Giabiconi.

Please stay tuned for next week's blog post on a half-naked male stripper who broke out in tears after getting groped by seven women on a bachelorette party.


  1. Fantastic post, Sleazy! Good to have back and writing proper articles again!! I totally agree with what you write. It's the same old female double bind. I once was on a date with a bitch from OKcupid, took her out to dinner (yea, big mistake, i know), and when I wanted to pay the bill, she got offended, telling me for the umpeenth time that she's an attorney and making her own money and that she can take care of herself. Yeah, and had I suggested to split the bill, I would have been called a miser. Even better: had I asked her to pay for it, she would have been offended.

    I'm sick of women once again and I'm back to banging escorts. Pickup is nice and your books were great especially minimal game but women are just way more trouble than theyre worth if you only wanna fuck them. If you've got the dough, why bother with pickup? seriously, what's 200 bucks for half an hour and the bitch leaving afterwards compared to trolling dating sites once a day or wasting an entire evening in a club.

  2. What the hell is wrong with you. I'm an MRA but this is bullshit. I don't care if she went naked, looking or even staring at someone is different from actually touching them or trying to lick their tattoo.

    Looking, asking out, okay. Touching without permission, not okay. Got it?

    1. You actually mean that we have to wait for the girl to tell us "You can touch me" to start getting physical?

      Were you raised in a special insitution?

    2. So, in your world the guys has to ask whether he can talk to the woman, whether he can buy a drink for her, whether he can hold her hand, whether he can touch her arm, whether he can do x, y, z and finally he has to ask her whether he can fuck her?

      I know you are flaunting your baby in the picture, so I presume you are no stranger to sex. So, tell me, how did it work? Did you go to a bar where only chumps sat around and you went up to one and said, "do you want to put your arm around my waist?"

      She was inviting such behavior, otherwise she wouldn't have paraded her naked flesh around. Besides, all that happened in terms of physical touch was a man putting her arms around her waist. Big f*cking deal.

    3. proof that there is no such thing as a female MRA.

  3. Ah, this brings back memories of when I first went to computer science. Out of about a hundred students, only about five of them were female.

    Out of those five however, one stood out: an attractive Korean girl, all dressed up in a cute, cute dress and high heels. Amidst hordes of smelly nerds wearing thick glasses.

    Obviously, she got a lot of attention. Only in the form of looking and awkward approaches of course, since, hey, we were men... Oh yes, and she also got a group of five 'disciples': the 'toughest' guys in CS, wearing leather jackets, following her everywhere and parrotting her every word.

    Later, I found out she worked at the same (CS) company I did. Of course, she wore a regular pullover and trousers by then.

    1. She was obviously a smart girl and knows what's appropriate. As a male programmer, if you happen to have a great chest, you don't forget to put on a T shirt either...

  4. Hi. I am the original author. I was not "parade my tits around at Defcon." End of story.

    -KC (kdotcdot)

  5. Give me a break. You showed up in provocative clothing by your own admission. Tell me again: did anybody force you to reveal your shoulder tattoo?

    Seriously, have you ever been to a bar in your life? If so, then you know that you can control how much attention you'll get simply by modifying your outfit. The tighter, and the more revealing, the more attention you get. As I said in the article, if Brad Pitt or any other guy you might fancy had "harassed" you, all would have been well and good.

    But of course you prefer not to take on any personal responsibility. Let's just blame men, those pigs! So, let me spell it out for you once more: You went out, apparently looking for a guy (hence the provocative outfit), and were disappointed that what you could attract didn't quite live up to your expectations, however justified or unjustified those may have been.

    Just grow up already! Either you accept that men will approach you if you present yourself in a certain way, or dress down and learn to approach men yourself. It's as simple as that. However, you can't have your cake and eat it. If you invite approaches instead of actively pursuing men yourself, you have to live with the fact that not all of the men will look as if they play main roles in your wet dreams.

  6. I never admitted that I was dressed in provacative clothing. I don't think I ever even spoke about what I was wearing when I was harassed. But please, continue to use your imagination! It is quite entertaining.


    1. Look up "provocative" in the dictionary if you don't understand its meaning. If you didn't want to get any kind of attention, you would have dressed down. But you didn't. There is really nothing to argue about in this regard.

      Since you are deliberately avoiding the main issue, let me ask you again: If the man of your dream would have put his arm around your waist, would you have complained?

    2. I know the definition of provacative. I was not wearing provacative clothing. You literally have no idea how I was dressed, unless you somehow have photographs from last year's defcon that I am not aware of. I mentioned being aware of the clothing i might take. That is not the same as saying I was dressing provacatively. I do not know how many times I can beat this point into your little brain.

      And yes, I would complain if an attractive man put his arm around me without asking. As a matter of fact, I have done so in the past.


    3. nah she woulda sucked brad pitts cock or whoever her archetypal ideal male is lol

      me and my friends employ what we call --sociopath game-- i e we just grope the girls we find attractive right from the get go.... we get way more NUCLEAR REJECTION than is typical of more ''''traditional''' game but we convert somewhere between 5% and 10% of our approaches into lays and that seems to be par for the course regardless of methodology...... the distinguishing factor is the amount of time and energy invested and this is indisputably the most time efficient way to get laid..... as for energy well lets just say that ---better living through modern chemistry----- makes the mental pain of rejection recede into nothingness with just a righteous gram or two :))))))

      anywa just looking at a picture of this kc chick it spretty clear to anybody with eyes to see and experience to draw upon that she likes to get filled up by THICK COCK lol.... prolly ont a lot of that a t a defcon whatevs...... but no doubt she went home and gagged on some boy toys cock !!

      so yah engaging this ho seriously is just a waste but using her to elucidate the verisimilitudes of life as h. sapien yeah that juice might be worth eht squeeze...... but shes jus another eyebrow teweezed attention ho waiting to get stretched out by the right kinda pole~~~~

    4. KC, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, provocative means: "arousing sexual desire or interest, esp. deliberately." Please pay careful attention to "deliberately". You chose to wear skimpy clothing on a hacker conference, and then you complained about unwanted attention (from the "wrong" guys).

      Further, I was not talking of "an attractive man" but about a guy who gets your juices flowing and makes your nipples stiff. You would not refute such a guy because you know that he'd be off hitting on some other woman if you didn't play along. Men who have options aren't interested in women who play hard to get, and if you think they are then you are deluding yourself.

    5. Anonymous,

      yes, 5 to 10% sound pretty good compared to drawn-out mainstream game, but if you pick your girls a bit more wisely, you can get even better. I just don't find hitting on a lot of girls particularly fulfilling and thus advocate a method that builds upon targeting a particular niche and focusing on receptive girls. One girl out of every ten to twenty is still pretty low. Imagine you got one in 10 on a rather bad night, and below one in five on a good one!

      Just keeping those two factors in mind leads to greatly increased efficiency. If you want to learn more, check out my forum and my books.

    6. aaron you are obvi spot on and i have loads of respect for you i already read minimal game and its ''the gospel'' lol.....i think on seduction myth somebody said that real game boils down to either---

      ## gettin real good at talking to TONS of girls
      ## gettin real good at SNIFFING OUT girls who r dtf-U

      ....and i admit that the first approach is tough as hell mentally.....thats why i called it sociopath game lol....but to put it in perspective i roll w scotty from good looking loser and i know you know who that is hahahaha.....but i would DEFINITELY NOT recommend this game for the average guy.....the average guy would meltdown and catch fire if he tried this and even i usually have to be fucked up on somethin to rly do ~~quality work~~......i rly believe youd have to be a full on sociopath to be able to constantly do this shit with zero chemical assistance........but it works and is a ~~supreme rush~~ when youre doing it.......and its germane to this topic cuz that girl would not whine if her kind of guy just straight up grabbed her.......ive banged all kinds of girlies this way from hood trash to medical doctors.....its all just animal and if a girl finds you hot enough its just crazy what you can do..........but i obviously dont need to tell u that!!!!

    7. Again, this argument relies on the assumption that I was wearing skimpy clothing, which is not based in any truth. While in a way I'm flattered that you have spent so much time inventing outfits that I was wearing in your mind, I was not wearing "skimpy" clothing at Defcon.

      I am not deluding myself. My nipples would not "get stiff" over any man who violated my boundaries and consent. Again, any man who behaves in that way is exactly the opposite of a man who "gets my juices flowing." This is not me "deluding myself." This is actual fact (something that you clearly cannot be bothered to consider).


    8. KC,

      you were exposing your tattoo, which happens to be on your shoulder. This logically entails that you were exposing your shoulder. As a woman who is as socially aware of her behavior as you thus undoubtedly knows this means that you wanted to attract male attention. Or do you really want to tell me that in all those years on this planet you never figured out this simple principle of female behavior? If you have an issue with it, then blame all the women who expose skin in order to attract men.

      Regarding you second point, I have to refer to what I wrote above. Tell me, how do you actually get laid? If you don't want anything to do with guys who show initiative while you also don't want to approach guys yourself this must mean that, gosh, you are a virgin. Are you, or are you just bullshitting online, and conveniently forgetting your $randomnumber encounters. You know, you were a bit tipsy so it "doesn't count".

  7. I've just started to read "Daughter of Smoke and Bone" by Laini Taylor. And what a surprise in the very first chapter: The story begins with a girl whining about her ex-boyfriend. Eventually, she get's approached by him in the streets of Prague and she just starts to bark at him for doing so. Why is it that as a man starting a conversation after you two broke up is labeled by women as "stalking" (as her friend did in the book) and the same behaviour initiated by a women as just being nice? I can't get the logic here.

    1. This is called a "double standard", and there are many examples. It's a serious issue. For instance, studies have found that for the same crime, women get punished less severely than men, or not at all. Imagine you are a guy and lie to the court. This normally has severe repercussions. On the other hand, false rape allegations by women, which severely affect the life of the accused man, are normally seen as absolutely excusable.

      Colloquially, this concept is called "pussy pass."

  8. I can hardly stand it anymore! It get's even worse when you imagine that people don't change unless they had an accident that affects their brains (like Phineas Gage), get the right medicine or drugs (e.g. Prozac), get the right computer chip inside their brain (see José Delgado) or get the right surgery (see Roger Sperry). Everything else (like cognitive behaviour therapy) results in minor personality changes that are restricted by people's dns: An introverted person won't reach the same level of extroversion than an extroverted person. He/She can become close, but there will be a noticeable difference. To cut a long story short: Stay away from women with (major) issues. Her issues won't go away that easy. And before she tries to change her behaviour, she eventually starts to change your's...

    1. I think changing oneself fundamentally requires a lot of consistent effort over a very long period of time. Even then, it's very hard. People don't change that easily.

      Some guys give this piece of advice for women - difficult women stay difficult. So don't think that going the extra mile against your wishes is going to help as in, later she will be easier.

  9. Hey KC!

    Why don't we (women) hit the streets and show off some reactance [1] and prove to the world that we possess basically no self-monitoring [2], like women all over the world did before us (e.g. SlutWalk [3])? Let me know ;-)

    For reference:

  10. On a side note,hey Aaron,I plugged your product "Minimal Game" on the latest podcast episode posted on my blog.Be glad that you got a positive review.

    1. Thanks, man. I appreciate it! But please refer to Minimal Game as a book and not a "product". ;)

    2. I did refer to it as a book(on the podcast show).But why's wrong with product anyway?Sounds like a diabolical sales pitch?

  11. PART ONE:

    We have a social contract in society. The social contract states that we will spare women the emotional risk and emotional toll that comes with risky initiatives. In turn, women are to invite these risky initiatives by displaying signals of approach-ability. If they want us to make especially bold sexual moves, they display sexually more upfront cues (signalling that they're "in heat")

    There are studies which specifically link the menstrual cycle and a woman's fertility peaks and libido to how women dress, which parts they uncover, and which gait (walk) they use to attract male attention and sexual offers from men at some periods, and then at other periods they might be more interested in romantic offers and give off the according signals.

    Risky initiatives is the formal term in academia, reffering to the moves during courtship where one has to make a bold move, with which one displays unequivical and irrevocable interest. This means that the move can only mean one thing. This would be things like saying "I love you", asking someone out on a date, or leaning in to kiss someone.

    Proceptive behavior on the other hand is behavior which is free of risk because it can be interpreted in many ways. It is behavior that could signal friendship, or it might signal romantic or perhaps sexual interest. It might include things like always trying to be near the person like, hinting you share their interests, twirling your hair around them, looking in their general direction, standing closer to them, laughing at their jokes more than usual, smiling at them in a "special way" with a "special smile", looking at them with a "special look" in your eyes... etc... etc.

    When a person leans in and tries to kiss you, and you refuse them, they can't then backtrack and pretend they only wanted to be friends. They tried to kiss you, and you know now they havemade a move on you. There's no two ways about it. On the other hand if someone applies proceptive behavior on you, but nothing happens, this person can always claim they were just being friendly. They can save face because there is no way to prove if their proceptive behavior was driven by lust, romance or friendly feelings.

    In our society we allow women to get away with only employing proceptive behavior, while we task men with the risky initiatives. This was a social contract which was designed to spare women the risk, pain and humiliation that comes with risky initiatives.

  12. PART TWO
    In return with this social contract, women were to realize that making a risky initiative always involves some level of guess work. By its definition, unless the partner doing the proceptive behaviour has telepathic abilities, if they are making a move upon a proceptively acting-target there is always guesswork involved. It's kind of like playing russian roullete. Women were to realize that if men were tasked with taking all the rejections, and all the risk, that the least women could do was soften the rejections, and make men feel less pain when rejected. Women also were to accept that sometimes men might get it wrong and confuse romantic interest for casual sexual sex interest and vice-versa. This is the price women pay for being proceptive. If women refuse to clearly and verbally ask for what they want, the man has to always be doing some level of guesswork, which guarantees men will guess wrong a lot of them time.

    So women were tasked with two things based on this social contract - to give men clear and encouraging signals, and to soften the rejection when a man guesses wrong.

    But then things got compounded by "slut shaming". This is the peculiar problem where if women show interest too boldly, they will be judged for being too obtainable, which would lower the price of pussy in society. And who is it that will judge them specifically? Well the "pussy cartel" will judge them of course.

    And the "pussy cartel" is nothing more than a collective group mechanism where the group female is trying to keep the price of pussy up. (Its like OPEC for pussy).

    The pussy cartel would ideally like to see that females only offer pussy in a deeply committed monogamous bond, after the male has paid a high price for securing the goods. The pussy cartel has a complete dislike for casual sex. Yet the individual woman can gain lots of evolutionary benefits from crossing the pussy cartel and banging more desirable males in casual sex encounters. She can generally procure men of much higher genetic quality with casual sex. This is because men's criteria is much lower for casual sex, and much higher for commitment sex. The individual female would therefore ideally be able to cross the cartel in an attempt to proccur higher quality genes through casual sex.

    Therefore individual women had to adapt and strike a balance. A woman's double bind rests between these two dilemmas. 1) If she doesn't show interest clearly enough, the male might not take the risky initiative upon her 2) If she displays interest in that man too boldly, she will be judged as threatening the price of pussy and ostracized by the pussy cartel. This is EVEN IF she's only showing direct interest towards a man she wants to secure a committed monogamous relationship with. The cartel's penalty for a woman showing direct interest in CASUAL sex with a male is EVEN higher.

    Therefore some females in our species have evolved a strategy whereby they display general sexual availability, without directing it to the actual man they're interested in cumming with. The idea is that such a woman can no longer be accused of "throwing herself" and being "desperately needy" towards a given man. She is now sending out general sexual signals with no man specifically targeted. This would include dressing provocatively, dancing seductively to songs with suggestive lyrics and other such actions. This makes it easier for such a female to deny offering pussy to males. In other words the woman applying this strategy can protest in front of the pussy cartel that she is not offering the pussy to any one man, and therefore not lowering the price of pussy.


    The pussy cartel however catches up with this ploy and slut-shames any woman who dresses provocatively as undercutting the pussy cartel.

    The individual woman then may evolve a step further in its ploy, by claiming it dresses sexily and shows uncovered shoulders "for itself" and not men. She might even go so far as to claim that her clothing and skin display have nothing to do with sex, despite the fact that we can plug it into a machine and show a direct perfect correlation between styles of clothing, skin shown and its fertility and horniness levels. Such a female will then have to go out of its way to exaggerate non-interest in males. Think of females walking around in skimpy provocative clothing while acting extremely hostile and with extremely closed off body-language. This is to negate the idea that it is "offering pussy" which the skimpy clothing might initially suggest. "I can't possibly be offering pussy, look at how I put on this 'don't talk to me you losers' face! The cartel can't accuse me of offering easy pussy!"

    However, increasingly this is not enough. A female can't bluff the cartel by just acting unapproachable (in skimpy clothes) if it then responds enthusiastically to men approaching it (even though this was part of the initial social contract. Remember that initially women had the responsibility to treat nicely all men who make a risky initiative, for the sake of encouraging men to keep doing it).

    However, since the cartel became stronger, this strategy was no longer enough to fool the cartel. To prove its bluff and cover its tracks in front of the pussy cartel, the female has to exaggerate the negativity with which it responds when a risky initiative is performed by a male. It has to feign and act out false exaggerated displeasure. So that it is not accused of being too easy and lowering the price of pussy too much. And even though the female may enjoy offers from both attractive and unattractive males, it had to start showing disinterest, so as to not be accused of being too easy or lower the price of pussy.

    Initially the ploy might have involved mild negativity toward only the men she is not interested in. However today this has reached the point whereby such a female might even act negative, hostile and closed-off EVEN to the man SHE IS interested in fucking and cumming with. This covers all of her tracks. She doesn't have to take any responsibility and the cartel is pleased. She can say that she actively resisted giving the pussy, and that the male simply "seduced it" through his incessant persistence. She can say she didn't "give the pussy away", but that it was "taken from it".

    As any experienced player who has ever laid club hotties will tell you, they might act outright hostile when you first approach them, but they're sucking your dick and screaming your name hours later.

    This is a new strategy whereby the pussy cartel is satisfied (pussy price has been kept up), the individual woman is pleased that she can advertise sex without being ostracized, and she can (theoretically) still bang the right guy in the conference or club bathroom, when he finally approaches and persists past her fake displeasure.

    One problem... this breaks the initial social contract between male and female. An increasing number of women are adopting such strategies to please the pussy cartel and this is radically changing the landscape.


    We don't know what the future holds, but if this trend continues I foresee increases in celibacy and late-life virginity. Data is already showing such a trend. In the past decade university virginity rates have been exploding (despite the fact that people are less religious and more liberal than ever)

    TL:DR - miss KC is merely doing what is in its selfish short term interested as one individual organism. It is trying to cross the pussy cartel while getting the highest male specimen it can get. The long term implications might not benefit the KC organism however, for even the right men might (will) stop making risky initiatives upon it, if it raises the faux exaggerated displeasure too high.

    It (the KC organism) will then be left with the option of having to pursue males itself more directly, that is apply risky initiatives itself, thereby pissing off the same cartel it tried to cross initially. Or it would have to settle for lesser male specimens than her initial strategy was attempted to filter out.

    1. Those are fantastic comments, Alek! Do you mind if I repost them as a guest post on my blog to give them move visibility? You'll get all credit of course.

      Also, is PART FOUR missing or was there simply a typo?

    2. PART FOUR

      We are increasingly seeing a situation in the west where women are giving less and less clear signals to the men they're interested in (forcing men to take a higher level of guessing and risk) - all the while increasing the penalty for guessing wrong. The double bind keeps getting more severe. Men are increasingly facing a situation where they have to push past fake displeasure, and it's getting harder and harder to tell what is fake displeasure, and which is reality. The penalty for guessing wrong and trying to move past TRUE displeasure is also getting increasingly harsher. So men face both a penalty for approaching the wrong woman AND then for persisting upon her. (the UK passed sexual harassment laws which apply to any location at any time, so now risky initiatives are effectively illegal anywhere, not just at the workplace).

    3. Part Four-and-a-Half

      Feminism introduced an interesting scam when it comes to casual sex

      1 The pussy cartel first forces women to feign disinterest and never show interest in a man too blatantly (this is true when the woman is romantically interested in a man, but even more so if she just wants to get fucked), and it makes women never show interest first, never make a bold move first, never give blatant direct permission first, and almost never verbally admit they want sex (unless inside of a commited casual relationship)

      2 But that was not enough for the pussy cartel. It was still not pleased with women having casual sex, so it started demonizing and punishing women who have casual sex even further. This has driven women to adopt even more cartel-pleasing techniques. Women have HAD to adopt a strategy whereby it's no longer enough to simply be lazy, cold-looking and unapproachable-looking in the presence of a man they like. They have kicked things up a notch to EVEN WHEN the man DOES make the risky initiative, the woman will give him false resistance and sometimes even verbally lie that she's not interested (so that the male is forced to try again a few more times, and she says yes the third or fourth or fifth time). This allows the female to claim that it had been conquered, and overtaken by the man. This way it can completely let go of any responsibility for giving pussy, and claim pussy was "taken" from it. At the extreme of this dynamic are false-rape accusations.

      3 Logically, arising out of this situation, on planet earth a man can only make casual sex happen if he doesn't wait for signals, permission and simply goes ahead makes those bold moves anyway. A man has only one of two choices, take all the blame and risk for making casual sex happen, or only have sex within committed relationships.

      4 The feminist wing of the pussy cartel however has also deemed that a man must wait for signals, verbally ask for permission at every step of the way... and if any man anywhere makes a bold risky move upon a woman (offering casual sex), it's perfectly rational to completely rip that man to shreds and accuse him of being a proto-rapist-scumbag-creep. Today this is reaching such insanely absurd levels where laws are being passed around the world which effectively ban risky initiatives. It seems the only sort of mating that is still fully legal is if a man spends months slowly and gradually courting a woman, verbally asking for permission at each step of the way. It's nothing but a clever way to make casual sex too risky for men to even attempt, considering that women don't make risky initiatives or verbally give permissions for casual sex... Women do however (studies have shown for a while, and there's a new study this week) make moves once they have secured commitment and investment from the man. In other words, women do make moves on men, once the man has been secured into commitment. So effectively and indirectly feminists are saying that you must only have sex in slowly-built committed relationships, because again, outside of these, women almost never make risky initiatives, give verbal permission or show interest.

      So the cartel does a very clever thing. On one hand it instructs women to not show interest, be lazy, never make moves and wait for the men to make the moves in the short and medium term. But if a man makes quick casual-sex-offering moves, he is to be deemed a proto-rapist scumbag harasser. This is how feminists are very cleverly anti-casual sex, while claiming to be defending women's rights to casual sex. They're saying "women love casual sex, just as much as men, go out out and fuck all the penises you want without strings attached", while at the same time trying to make initiating the practice illegal for men, and preventing the female from initiating. Unless men and women are to somehow trip over branches and land on each other's genitals, feminists are effectively anti-casual sex.

    4. Seldom seen more wisdom condensed on one webpage.

      This is gold.

      THANK YOU !

    5. @Aaron about reposting

      I actually am spending most of my time in bed due to injury, and I happened to visit your blog after months of not being around. Your post inspired me into a stream of consciousness writing, and that whole thing came from my cellphone in one continuous stream involving no thought. Had to get out of bed to sit on the computer and split it into 5 parts, but didn't do much editing which this piece deserves.

      I'll have to edit it first before you run it. Can do that when done with recovery, But knowing me, it'll be a while before I get around to it. Hate to brag, but my life is freaking amazing at the moment.

    6. Congratulations! Are you drowning in cash/pussy, fame/pussy or just pussy?

      Your piece seemed fine as it was I had already added an intro, put part IV.2 into a separate addendum and fixed a very small number of typos. But feel free to polish it some more.

    7. I'm not "drowning" in either of the three, but I am getting showered by all three.

      You know how in your book you say that picking up strangers is faster because building status in circles takes time?

      I'm in a niche where I am constantly meeting, traveling with and surrounded by models, dancers and tv personalities. I often meet celebrities too. And I built up this "status" where everyone knows me in maybe 4-5 months of deciding to. I'm now known in these circles across a dozen countries.

      (through all of this I have quadrupled my income, while halving my work time)... So I spend most of my time traveling.

    8. I'm happy to hear that! In what niche are you working in?

      Your success doesn't invalidate the general statement in Minimal Game, though, as not everyone can break into such circles. So, don't discount factors such as a fortunate starting position in life and others, by which I of course don't want to discount all the effort you put in. In the end, whenever money and fame is involved, it's essentially a zero sum game. If everyone is famous, then no one is.

    9. I'm not working in the niche.

      When I said I quadrupled my income, it's not from my involvement with this industry. I mean that at the same time I had an explosion of success in both areas of life. I actually spend tons of money on this niche (I make some, but that's accidental, I always planned to throw lots of cache into this niche, not to earn any back).

      I'm not "famous", I'm just a "recognizable face" in these circles, meaning I have the equivalent of an expanded social circle that spans a dozen countries, and there are thousands of people I can go to and hang out with easily.

      As for zero-sum, if every guy on the planet applied club-mininal-game they way you practice it, then club-minimal-game would stop working too.

      I'm doing minimal-status-building. I've found the most efficient way to break into niches and quickly become recognized, known and get to hang out with all the top people in that niche. And I did that within 4-5 months.

      That's all I can post for now... I might post an analogy-paralel of how someone can do it, using another similar niche as an example (not my own, which I won't reveal).

    10. Apologies for the quick hit and runs and committing out incoherent pieces of content after months of not being around.

      I promise that when I get some time off I'll come to your (aaron's) forum contribute a nice guide on what I've learned about how to quickly, efficiently enter a niche and become popular and well known in it.

      I've basically found how to take a process that usually takes years and cut it down to months.

    11. Please do, I always find your posts on social dynamics interesting.

  15. Stupid fucking blogspot, I had to post my comment in 5 parts, and I don't even know if part 2 came through. This is stupid.

    All of my comments are going into moderation, so it makes knowing what has gone through a headache.

    I just posted it here:

    1. Every comment is now automatically put on moderation queue. Unfortunately, blogger doesn't have fine-tuned settings where you can automatically approve certain posters and ban others.

      The main reason for moderating the blog was that I was getting too much spam, and also I was sick of PUA shills who kept flocking to this blog. Having battled them on two or three posts that ran up more than 100 comments, I decided to keep my sanity and nip those debates in the bud.

  16. BTW who wrote this article?I don't see any name nor author attached to it,nor the writer's name mentioned in it.

    1. I did. You know, the subtitle of this blog is "the blog of Aaron Sleazy".

  17. I get that,but you usually have guest postings from your forum featured on the blog

    1. Whenever there is a guest post, the author is clearly indicated.

  18. Dude, Sleazebag, stop writing trumped up indictments of feminists and women. Get over yourself and stop writing gender warfare bullshit.

    Showing off shoulder is hardly provocative and certainly does not warrant grabby attention from men. This women can hardly be called into error.

    Your meager anecdote does nothing to prove that women are worse in this regard. Any reasonable person would naturally suspect men being worse when it comes annoying sexual attention. Do I really need to explain why?

    In past you mentioned on your forum the retarded piece propaganda conceived of by a AVFM mocking the metaphorical 'war against women' by comparing it to a literal war. Both you and those idiots missed the point and appranently don't understand what a metaphor is.

    You whine on your blog against a tiny minority of feminists who happen to hate men. How about you focus on something less offensive? How hard is that?

    Ironically, you yourself could easily be called out for misogyny, with your nonsense canards about women lacking the faculty of logic or having an inferior sexuality.

    1. It seems that no matter how much time you spend presenting your argument, there will always be some people coming out of the woodwork and writing little more than, "Not true. Not true!! Oh, wait, have some ad hominems, too!"

      I perfectly well understand what a metaphor is. The topic of the article on my forum you mention was therefore "misuse of language". There are good and bad metaphors. Yet, no matter how you want to turn it, the government not paying for contraceptives cannot be called a "war on women." This is nonsense that ranks about at the same level as "death tax" and other right-wing propaganda phrases. This stuff hardly passes the laughter test, buddy.

    2. @Anonymous: "Showing off shoulder is hardly provocative" Clearly you've never been to a conference with mainly nerdy men as an audience.

    3. Sleazy have you seen this?

      It contains great claims like you will get playmate's without working out, earning money or looking good.

      I think you'll enjoy it.

      I got it through my email from Mark Manson, appearently he's an affiliate for the guy.

    4. Thanks! That one was good for a laugh. It's funny how predictable this stuff is once you're familiar with the basic structure. It seems as if they all follow the same blueprint (pun intended). Also, the PUA scammers have apparently stepped up their game and now hire voice actors to read their sales pitch. I wonder how long it will take to until we see some real actors in those videos.

      So, Mark Manson sent this one out? Nice. Some years ago Formhandle was sending out emails promoting pills that supposedly make your cock grow bigger, in a last attempt to cash in on mASF. That didn't work out so well either...


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.