Sunday, July 7, 2013

Sexual Harassment vs Dating in the Real World I

After dissecting Stoya's cry for attention in What exactly is Sexual Harassment?, I asked myself whether there is a plausible definition of sexual harassment. As I have written in that article, one could probably agree on drawing a line physically aggressive maneuvers when it is clear that this is uncalled for. I do not intend to paint men in a bad light, however.

It's apparently quite popular to depict men as sexist swine who commit countless acts of "street harassment" and grope unsuspecting women. However, speaking from my perspective as a reasonably attractive slender 6'3" guy, I can tell you that I've had to endure countless acts of "sexual harassment". I can't even count how many times women have rubbed their tits against me as they were walking past me in the club. The more daring (drunk) ones have little qualms pinching the ass of men that are clearly out of their league. (Why is it almost always the absolutely plain and average if not unattractive looking women who do that?)

Sure, feminists claim that it's always men who approach women who are not interested in them but, believe it or not, any guy with options knows full well what it is like to be hit on by a woman you couldn't fuck with all the Viagra in the world. If it is true, as women claim, that men are much more visual than women, which I doubt, then it is infinitely worse to be a guy who gets hit on by an ugly chick than the other way around, but let's not shove too much logic down the collective throat of feminists.

On the other hand, in the presence of mutual physical attraction, things can move pretty quickly. I'm not going to tell one of my X-rated stories, but only want to draw attention to the fact that those women certainly appreciated my initiative. Of course I wouldn't go around grabbing the ass of some woman who doesn't seem to be interested.

Just due to the way dating and mating works in Western society, the man has to make the initiative. Women hardly ever approach you, and at best you get mixed signals. Women would rather keep the option of telling themselves that they weren't really interested in some guy who turns them down or just ignores them than clearly show their interest and deal with the not necessarily pleasant feeling of rejection. This is reality. Now, let's look at the fantasies that feminist brains develop.

As I wrote in the introduction, I did some research on definitions of sexual harassment. I thought that I should look for a country that has a reputation of being a feminist nanny state, ideally English-speaking. Australia turned out to be a prime candidate. Then there is the fact that universities are a hotbed of feminism, while sexually healthy women in the real world normally don't think that much of it. After a few minutes, I hit a gold minet: A publicly accessible "online training course" of Monash University on the topic of sexual harassment.

Look what I found:
Sexual harassment occurs when a person's behaviour is:
• unwelcome
• of a sexual nature, and
• a reasonable person would consider could offend, humiliate or intimidate.
This is all rather vague, so let's have a look at the elaborations on that website:
What constitutes UNWELCOME behaviour?
Unwelcome means that the behaviour is uninvited and unsolicited and the person subjected to it finds it undesirable, offensive, humiliating or intimidating.
I think the key word here is "undesirable". In case some feminist head case reads this and starts hyperventilating: no, I don't promote clearly invasive behavior in the face of opposition. However, because women do not give you clear signals at all (!), you can't know whether she's really interested without approaching her.

Feminists seem to picture sexual interactions as some kind of negotiation in which both sides clearly tell the other what they want, and in which perfect information is a given. But the last time I checked, women didn't have bright neon signs hovering over their head that indicated whether they were available, how old they were, how they were like in bed, or whether they were mentally stable. Feminist porn starlet Stoya thinks that a guy who compliments her on her dress is sexually harassing her --- if she doesn't find him attractive. If she does, then all is fine and dandy. I guess nothing of this strikes you as problematic if you're a woman. Of course, Virginia, you totally have a right to be indignant because the guy that just said that he likes your smile didn't look like ten million dollars. What a disgusting pig!

On the other hand, as a guy you're in quite some quandary. You know you have to approach because girls are just so incredibly passive. No, ladies, glancing at some guy for a fraction of a second and then looking down at the floor for a minute or so does not constitute "hitting on someone". That some of the women you hit on won't be interested in you is just a fact of life. Just as I quickly ignored the average-looking women who dared to hit on me in clubs or on campus, and didn't think much of it, so can a woman just move on if she doesn't like a guy. After all, it's not as if they've got dozens of Quasimodos hitting on them day after day.

Let's hand the mike to Monash University again:
Under the law, it is irrelevant if the behaviour does not offend everyone or has been an accepted feature of the work or learning environment in the past. Individuals react and perceive behaviour in different ways. A person may think their behaviour is harmless and innocent while the recipient of that behaviour may find it distasteful and hurtful.
OK, but how the f*ck is a guy supposed to know? Some days ago, Black Pill mentioned in a comment that former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain was accused of sexual harassment for remarking to some woman that she was as tall as his wife. I guess anything goes if you want to feel "sexually harassed" and make some money on the side through settlements. I hope I don't have to spell out in detail why this is problematic.

If you think that this was bad enough already, then Monash University would like to have a word with you because according to the feminists who wrote up that drivel, sexual harassment doesn't even have to be intentional:
The definition of sexual harassment does not require intent on the part of the person being accused but is based on the subjective experience of offence, humiliation or intimidation. Innocent intention cannot be used as a defence in sexual harassment cases and staff and students at Monash have an obligation to be aware of what is likely to constitute sexual harassment and to refrain from these actions. 
Sexual harassment is known to have severe consequences for those subjected to it impacting on their ability to perform at work or study and often on their personal lives. Complaints of sexual harassment at Monash must be taken seriously.
Yes, read that again! You're not guilty of sexual harassment due to clear objective criteria but simply because someone thinks some action constitutes sexual harassment, even if every sane person would only shake his head, like in the case of Michael Cain. Or think of that absurd Adria Richards case some months ago, where she first got some developers fired because she made a stink over an allegedly sexist joke that was due to her not knowing or pretending to not know that "forking" and "dongle" are technical terms. Later on she was let go herself, as a direct consequence of her bigotry and the bad light she put her employer in.

I think it's safe to say that we've established that there is a fundamental implausibility with the generous feminist interpretation of "sexual harassment". In part II of this article I will discuss more real world examples, which will further reinforce this point.

What's your opinion? Let me know in the comments below!


  1. A.S.:

    "Why is it almost always the absolutely plain and average if not unattractive looking women who do that?"

    For the same reason that "Quasimodos" are reputed to hit on, or sexually harass, women they have absolutely no chance of "pulling" or "sarging." When you feel like the legendary Greek Tantalus, forever enticed by things you can never have, it's easy to try and steal a few "crumbs" (either by copping feels or hitting on women) from the "choicest cuts."

    Are you going to address the Jezebel links I provided in the post previous to this one? I'm sure you have plenty of tales of "Ladies Nights" in Bars and Clubs to share . . .

    1. Thanks for providing links to those articles. Yes, there is a good chance that I'll address those Jezebel articles in future blog posts!

    2. In some places, there has even been pressure to stop female-centric drink discounts or the like to cut down some problems. Those problems don't include sexual harassment, but public drunkenness and the health problems caused by alcoholism instead. You can read about such an initiative in Britain here:

      Despite what you say about the PUA community dwindling down, there is still no lack of men who feel like Tantalus when it comes to women . . .

  2. Relevant.

    I have hundreds of related posts on my blog, debates with feminists on the topic, links, studies etc, I wish I had time to copy them over to MS for public reference...

  3. Aaron, you have access to the blog, see this:

    1. @AlekNovy: what do you have to do to read your blog? Where do you register?

    2. Alek,

      I just tried logging in and couldn't. Would you mind setting up a new account for me? Please use my gmail address. Thanks!

    3. Another currently very relevant topic in this battle (the attack on male sexuality) is the topic of creep-shaming.

      More guys need to start researching and writing on this:
      Creep Shaming Article by TS

  4. Ok, I quickly copied some of the most relevant ones:

    Aaron see the latest post, a study relevant to "sexual harassment vs dating in the real world" this study showed a full HALF of women admit to doing this too.

    "a little less than half the women surveyed said they, too, first introduced themselves to men at a bar by rubbing a man’s behind"!!

    I also think this is very cool. A quick trip I did through harassment blogs to prove they're BS!

  5. I've actually heard that women are starting to whine that male coworkers refuse to talk or interact with them in the workplace. women have to be the most incredibly retarded pile of stupid fucks in the history of the planet.

    1. The solipsism of the female mind is pretty funny. The inability to understand that humans outside of you are outside you - is a very pecuiliar female trait.

      Women genuinelly believe that when a man who's not her type hits on her - he's doing it on purpose. She literally BELIEVES a man should just KNOW if she's interested or not. SHE knows it, therefore HE SHOULD, without her ever having to verbalize it.

      The FACT that the signals SHE gives are UNIQUE to her, and no other woman on the planet, doesn't matter. You're supposed to telepathically know that she gives a 2.5 second eye-contact to guys she's interested in, and 1.7 second eye-contact to guys she's not. You should JUST KNOW!!!

      Conversation I had with my primary FB last night. We were out at a party and she had guys coming up to talk to her.

      Her: I can't believe this, this guy just won't quit, he's starting to creep me out! You were right, guys really can't read feedback!

      Me: No, you women can't GIVE feedback.

      Her: Well, but I've clearly let him know i'm not interested, this is getting out of hand. It's been weeks since I've been making it clear.

      Me: First of all, all I saw was a friendly interaction. I've hooked up with tons of women who've acted far ruder and more closed-off with me, than you act with him. Second, what CLEAR? Did you SAY or VERBALIZE anything

      Her: No, but I'm giving FEEDBACK (what she means by that word is things like physical distance to him, angle of body, how frequently and when she breaks eye-contact). He should just KNOW!

      Me: bullshit. Women don't know either. (I quote her a study I once read where they showed WOMEN couldn't read OTHER women's interest in a man either. In other words if you ask a woman and a man to watch a scene of a guy approaching a chick, the FEMALE viewer has NO BETTER ABILITY to guess whether the chick being approached has interest or not! )

      Her: But you knew, the feedback was perfect when we met and hooked up

      Me: I've approached thousands of women, and studies the subject for 10 years, as well as specifically did hundreds of experiments in eye-contact, body-language, proximity etc... etc... And still, the only reason it went smooth with us two, is coz you LIKE ME - that's why "the feedback went perfect"

      That's why women LITERALLY can't differentiate. They LITERALLY believe this insane notion that if a guy she's not interested - asks her out, he's doing it on purpose. He knows he has no chance, but does it anyway.

      Or even mere flirting. If she doesn't like a guy flirting with her, but he flirts with her, HE MUST be doing it on purpose to annoy her. Because how could he not know (solipsism).

      This is why those idiots at the workplace are going "But but but, why aren't men flirting with us anymore, all we did was make it illegal for the wrong guys to flirt". The female mind literally doesn't get that the RIGHT GUY doesn't KNOW he's the right guy. Telepathy doesn't exist, but its hard to explain to women who live in a world of privilege created by female mating passivity laziness.

    2. Sorry, but I'm just not buying it, this whole women aren't clear in their signals thing. Women are fairly clear, with few exceptions.

      Studies have shown that human beings are EXCEPTIONALLY good at picking up even the subtlest emotional cues from others. It makes sense, we would have to be and this would confer a massive evolutionary advantage. The muscles involved in a genuine smile are actually different from those involved in a fake smile.

      One of the reasons Game is so ineffective is that we humans are so good at picking up emotional cues and it almost impossible to fake yourself.

      An interested woman would have to expend enormous amounts of effort and energy to hide that fact, and it it's absurd to suggest that drunk girls are doing that, and even then it leaks out, often in the most comical ways. And a disinterested woman would have to spend a lot of effort in faking the opposite.

      And of course they can't/shouldn't verbalize disinterest! Except in the most extreme cases. We live in a society, and we are not animals - we need to be polite and let people down easy. Most kinds of disinterest in civilized society is rarely verbalized, but gently hinted it - yeah there's always the clueless person, male or female, who won't get it, but most people have no trouble. As a man, I've had other men not get that I don't want to talk to them anymore, but most do get it - and guess what? The guys who didn't get generally had trouble making friends and forming stable relationships. And yes, even the most gentle, mild verbalization of disinterest is pretty harsh, which is why even the confrontational culture of the West pretty much avoids it.

      Subtle communication is a basic feature of civilized human beings, not just something in the realm of romance or that women do. It's one of the things that make living in a society more palatable - but we should become crude and explicit because a tiny % of people, male and female, don't get it?

    3. Why don't we start with YOU linking to a couple of studies that claim that people are "exceptionally good at picking up even the subtlest emotional cues from others"? If anything, this strikes me as a bold claim that isn't backed up by anything I've experienced in real life, and the plain women who pestered me in clubs certainly didn't quite pick up my disgust either. Some of those ditzes thought that me turning away wasn't meant to be serious but just some kind of "playing hard to get".

    4. Let me add one more thing and point out to you from a logical perspective it is nonsensical that all (!) humans are exceptional at X. If everybody is amazing at reading subtle cues, then no one is. If you don't get this, then ask yourself why nobody ever says that someone is "exceptional" at breathing or taking a shit.

    5. @miss anonymous

      If you're going to pretend to be a man online, here's a tip. First of all it will be hard for people to miss when your comment is oozing with female privilege. Secondly, pro tip, don't use the phrase "as a man" when impersonating men in a comment. No actual men feel the need to say "Now, since I'm a guy"... Stop it, you suck. Now as to responding to your your massive doses of bullshit...

      1) First you PERFORMED a conflation, by conflating being social vs being interested sexually.

      Every single one of the examples and points you gave are about people's ability to tell if someone wants to socialize with them or not. If someone wants you to leave them alone or isn't interested in NOT socializing with you, ITS FAIRLY CLEAR! And anyone with even the tiniest of social skills has that skill (95% of humans have the skill you speak of, the ability to tell whether someone has any interest in being social with you)

      THIS IS TRUE! Everything you said IS TRUE.

      One mega-fucking-problem, it's also a fucking non sequitor. We were not discussing SOCIALIZING, but mating. Of course if someone makes it clear they're not interested in talking to you - its super clear.

      We were discussing women's selfish tendency to use plausible deniability where she makes it UNPROVABLE whether she JUST wants to just socialize OR she is ADDITIONALLY interested sexually or romantically.

      We specifically made the point that a woman will NOT give a man a CLEAR (even non-verbal) disengaging because she still wants to keep him around as a "friend". And she calls that politeness.

      PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY is about a woman ALWAYS being able to say "I was just being friendly" if a guy doesn't take bait or make a move on her many subtle, ambigious hints.

      2) Everyone is EXCEPTIONAL at WHAT? Another conflation you made...

      Since you only quoted fake-smile recognition, I'll assume that's how you made that stupid claim. I've actually read all the studies on recognizing romantic and sexual interest and they say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you say.

      Those studies say men and women SUCK equally BAD at reading women's interest. Not only are women's signals so mixed that a man interacting with her can't read them, in experiments FEMALE AND MALE SUBJECTS were EQUALLY bad at guessing whether the woman they evaluated interacting with a man, was interested or not. GET THAT you feminist MORON?

      The ability to read fake smiles, has nothing to do with the ability to know which of a myriad of hints a specific woman uses to say "I'm interested in more than friendship, make a move". For one woman holding 3 second eye-contact means "make a move on me, now", for another it means "back off".

      Being that the vast majority of women are super-duper lazy, and will not make a move, it leaves men with doing the move making. YOU DROWNING IN FEMALE PRIVILEGE take this crap for granted, coz you NEVER HAVE TO ACTUALLY TEST your guesses in the REAL WORLD.

      You BELIEVE you can tell who's interested how much in whom, but since you're never FORCED to make the actual move that would disprove your guess, you CAN BELIEVE the delusion you are 100% exceptional at reading.

      ... continues in point 3

    6. 3) IT IS POSSIBLE to grandmaster the ability to ESCALATE on women without EVER getting rejected and read and send signals exceptionally well, guys who have that ABILITY are CALLED players, smooth operators, suave etc

      SINCE WOMEN ARE SO FREAKING selfish and mix messages on purpose, and it's next to impossible to read their signs of interest for sure, WHAT DOES A GUY DO? Does a guy have to randomly hit on 30 women and get 29 rejections like those idiotic PUAs? NO!

      Fortunately geniuses like Aaron and 60 have come along to start teaching a model of gradual testing, to where there is never any explicit rejection, and a guy never has to make any moves that are of much risk, will never creep any woman out, and everything feels smooth nice and there is never any akwardness.. HERE's the THING HOWEVER, this is a fucking ADVANCED SKILL, only maybe 1% of the male population has this skill, and most of them got it by accident early in life. Very few have conciously learned it or taught it like Aaron...

      You being a feminist cunt, your primary perceptual filter is the APEX FALLACY. YOU VIEW THE TOP 1% of men, and PROJECT their abilities on the rest of men. Only the TOP 1% of men are called SUAVE you fucking idiot... If what you are saying is fucking true, then MOST MEN WOULD BE CALLED SUAVE and you fucking know that's not true, as Aaron pointed out, something is only exceptional if its rare. SUAVE is a fucking compliment that means a guy is SMOOTHER and better at subtle signal giving and getting than the COMMON GUY you fucking feminist brain fool.

      You're basically saying "all men are 1% ers", "all men are suave players". THE VERY FACT SUCH MEN ARE SEEN AS EXCEPTIONAL proves the point that they ARE FUCKING RARE YOU FUCKING FEMINIST IMBECILE.

      Aaron has explained the process in his minimal game book, and I've mastered the process myself. I can start interacting with a woman, and go from hello to sex, without ever having even two seconds of akward, negative moments. I am able to communicate completely non-verbally, and lead the entire process and make each move EXACTLY when/how she wants it.

      Guess what though you privileged feminist imbecile, this is something I had to bust my ass off to get. I had to interact with hundreds of women JUST focusing on NOTHING but proximity (how close you stand) before I got attuned to that as a subtle cue. Then I had to make longer eye-contact with hundreds of women, before that got calibrated.

      This is A SKILL gotten from EXPERIENCE. And even when you're extremely good, (after creeping out hundreds of women in the process of learning) you're still guessing, you just get VERY GOOD AT GUESSING. But due to women's selfish process, you can NEVER be close to 100% certain.


      - get a little closer (she doesn't seem to get akward or fidget)
      - Make a bit deeper eye-contact (her pupils are dillating, she has angled herself more toward me)
      - Make casual touch of her shoulder (she smiled on the touch and leaned into me)
      - Crack a romantically charged joke
      - She's not moving away, still looking at me, still good closeness
      etc etc etc

      I'm describing a process which is largely intuitive once you do it hundreds of times, BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE DONE EACH step hundreds of times before it becoming intuitive, but you wouldn't know that coz you're DROWNING in female privilege and you NEVER had to get ANY SKILL or DO ANY WORK for this stuff, it's handed to you on a PLATE.

    7. I want to respond more but in the meantime just the loci involving my use of the word exceptional, since you both mentioned it. My logic is sound.

      In English, when someone is exceptionally good at something, the metric is not necessarily other people. The metric can be other skills or talents that person has - so all humans, as a class, can be exceptionally good at something compared to all other talents and skills humans possess.

      What I am saying is that compared to human abilities in general, our ability to detect emotion and attitude stands out - is exceptional compared to our other talents. Unless the other person is making a serious effort to hide their emotion, it's hard not to detect it.

      Both you and Alek are not native English speakers so you might not pick up on the subtelties of the language.

      Since we are talking about girls here who WANT to hook up with guys, just don't want to be too explicit, they are not even making a serious effort to hide their interest, so it is absurd to suggest it's impossible to tell. Basically, girls do EVERYTHING except approach guys and explicitly verbalize interest. Around 95% of human communication is non-verbal - so girls are doing about 95% of the communicating.

      Anyways I want to respond more a bit later.

    8. Alek will have a field day with you, but don't worry, I'll rip you to shreds for your apparently non-existent capacity for logical thought as well.

    9. Notice how the "Anonymous" above did not adress at all the fact the she was not a man. Alek sure has an eye!

      I love your idea of the 95%. Just something you don't seem to understand is that feminists bust our balls for trying to talk to girls without them explicitly saying yes. And you come here and say "yeah, but they look interested". Guess what, idiot, this is already our line of reasoning, and it is exactly what feminists give us shit for: trying to guess and sometimes being wrong.

      You don't give a shit because it can never happen to you. And you try to have our empathy. Why don't you just shut the fuck up.

    10. Also, communication is succesful because the other party gets what you are communicating, not because you think it's good enough.

      You have quite a few guys here, some of whom really good with girls, telling you taht your communication is BAD, and you're just going "No it's good, we do everything right, you just gotta be better". Have you just stopped one second to consider that we might already be doing everything we can?

      I'll tell you a story that happened to me. I met two girls while with a friend in a club. We actually had an okay conversation and stayed with them for a while. My buddy ended up keeping contact with one of them, whom he had a good time with. Later on, when he saw her again, he learned through her that, right after our first encounter , the other girl had been raving about how hot I was and how she wished something had happened. My friend and I were stunned: there was no way we would have guessed. She was being polite, but not too friendly either.

      And I'll tell you another story. At a party, I meet with a girl who is very friendly with me. We both drink, have fun, and both of us stay to sleep at the friend's house. I come to the bed where she is, and she lets me lie down next to her. Then, I put my hand on her stomach and start rubbing it. Everythin fine. Then, I move up to the breasts and she stops me. Okay. I kinda pass out, still with my hand on her stomach, and then retry for the breasts, denied again. At this point, I figure that I will probably stay horny and not sleep unless I move, so I go to sleep elsewhere. The next day, as I'm about to leave, I sense that the vibe is kinda odd. I take her number and leave. I then learned that she told everyone I almost tried to rape her. I stopped seeing this group of friends for that. Just like the first encounter, I kept going through my head to see where I could have known for sure in order not to escalate at all. But there was none.

      It is comfortable for you to think that everything is always men's fault and responsibility, but at some point, if you communicate stupidly, it becomes your fault if you are not understood.

    11. Hey anonymous chick: there is only one place I know where everybody is "exceptional": it's the educational system that was changed to be more accommodating to the fragile psyches of girls. Instead of, you know, actually learning something, we now have make-believe education where you get easy As for everything. There was an article on WSJ the other day about students liking maths and science when staring university --- until they figure out they have to actually work to get an A. Awesome job, girls!

      Listen, sister, your teachers may have told you that you're all special little snowflakes and that you all deserve your little As and cute little golden stars. But let me tell you what your (female) teacher failed to impart on you or quite possibly didn't figure out for herself: that if you elevate everyone to "exceptional levels" you undermine true excellence. You were not all excellent but at best mediocre and the inflated grading made it impossible to check whether someone was really smart or just average. They all had As after all. But, hey, sister, let's not bother with any of this logic and science bullshit and instead study some liberal arts at college where people like you can feel "excellent" again.

    12. Notice how the "Anonymous" above did not adress at all the fact the she was not a man. Alek sure has an eye!

      That's not the only thing miss privilege failed to adress. You will notice for example that this cunty McFeminist fountain of female privilege also FAILED to ADDRESS ANY of the points I made.

      1) For example I CHALLENGED her to get her head out of her ass and recognize the difference between SOCIALIZING and SEXUAL ESCALATION - because she conflated the two in her first imbecilic comment.

      What does she do. SHE WRITES ANOTHER COMMENT talking about how socializing is perfectly easy and normal and understandable and no big deal. SHE COMPLETELY flew past my point.

      For example look at this fucked up sentence she wrote in her drugged up stupor:

      our ability to detect emotion and attitude stands out - is exceptional compared to our other talents. Unless the other person is making a serious effort to hide their emotion, it's hard not to detect it.

      LIKE WTF?

      How is "I want to be kissed" an emotion? IS SHE STUPID, A MORON, AN IMBECILLE or just playing one in the comments to obfuscate the issues.



      - Feminists say a man is an evil proto-rapist if he (for example) attempts to kiss a woman before she's ready to be kissed

      - This fucked up female-privilege-commenter says "oh, emotions are easy to read"

      EX-FUCKING-CUSE ME?!?!?! I googled lists of emotions, and it included things like "happy", "sad" etc. I couldn't any lists that contained the emotion "ask me out on a date now".

      WEIRD THAT HUH!?!?!

      I also couldn't find any lists of emotions in any language that includes the emotion "I like you kissing me, now please go and try to take off my shirt". Funny how that emotion isn't listed anywhere on any list! PERHAPS A PATRIARCHY CONSPIRACY! They control all the dictionaries...

      Why else would there be no word for the "I'm ready to be asked out for cofee again despite saying no the first time because I wasn't ready, but I want you to ask a second time since I'm now ready" emotion in any dictionary. CONSPIRACY I TELL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      2) Let's look at the second insane bullcrap she vomitted out...

      "Since we are talking about girls here who WANT to hook up with guys, just don't want to be too explicit, they are not even making a serious effort to hide their interest, so it is absurd to suggest it's impossible to tell."

      There are multiple options here with how she's LITERALLY making shit up. She's EITHER:

      - So challenged at reading comprehension that she never graduted high-school



      Because anyone with above 2 brain cells to rub together would have READ that ON HERE we are discussing that feminists want to make it ILLEGAL to GUESS WRONG NO MATTER how slowly you move.

      Now, miss anonymous female privilege fountain is either an imbecile or she's making this stuff up on purpose.

      We're saying:

      No matter how good you get, you can never have 100% guessing accuracy

      She responds:

      Guys, stop saying it's impossible to guess at all.

      AGAIN - I have no idea if she's THAT BRAINDEAD STUPID or strawmanning on purpose. The point is this.

      THERE IS NO 100% certain way of KNOWING whether a woman wants be asked out before you ask her out.

      YET, feminists want to make it illegal to ask out a woman who didn't want to be asked out.

      And the same goes for every step in the mating process WHICH WOMEN IN THEIR PRIVILEGED SELFISH reality don't have to risk doing, because they love to see men doing all the work, and taking all the pain and suffering and rejection, which is a thankless job men have done for eons, but women have been getting more and more and more ungrateful and solipsistic in their entitled expectation that men do even more, improve even more while women get to stagnate at 5th century B.C roles...

    13. Ok Alek...

      1. I don't think it's valid to make a distinction between human emotions and attitudes. It's like saying oh, we can tell when someone likes us but not when someone hates us. The same cognitive systems are involved. Besides, sexual interest is expressed through very explicit cues that everyone knows intuitively - close body positioning, long eye contact, brush of the arm, etc. It's absurd to suggest all this is obscure. Sexual interest as distinct from mere social interest has its own set of cues and is quite clear and women express it all the time.

      Then there is common sense. One, if it's in a bar between strangers any expression of interest is sexual in nature. No, the girl across the bar smiling and holding eye contact is not just expressing social interest.

      2. Good God, gradual escalation is an advanced skill? I can't even believe such basic common sense has to be articulated and made into a principle. Yes, just because that girl gave you eye contact doesn't mean you go and shove your hands in her pants. Caution, prudence, testing the waters, gradual escalation are common sense not some super-duper advances skill and guess what - they obtain in non-sexual encounters too. If you want to make friends with someone of your own sex, you proceed with caution and gradually. You don't immediately become massively enthusiastic and intimate.

      I don't think Aaron regards his advice to proceed gradually as genius level advice and I think he wrote that for the small percentage of guys who are genuinely socially challenged. And that's the thing - for the guys who are genuinely socially challenged, intuitive common sense has to be made explicit, but the sad thing is it won't help aside from making the guy understand why he's failing. If someone needs so basic a thing as proceed gradually to be explained to him, something is wrong with his social-processing unit that mere words cannot repair. I've seen it time and time again and I myself had an incredible belief in the power of words to help people socially, but it can only help talking a guy out of some retarded social system he has talked himself into (usually game) as a result of not being willing to accept the finality of his low level of attractiveness to women. But the advice is precisely to abandon words and re-activate his innate social common sense which he has turned off - it isn't about actually giving him proper social instincts, which sadly cannot be done.

      If the principle of gradual escalation needs to be explained to you, then you cannot be helped - you can gain perspective on your own failures, but you will find yourself repeating them to your endless frustration - unless you have talked yourself into some crazy belief like Game and you simply need to be reminded of the common sense you've always known.

    14. The situation I see around me in the clubs (I live in New York) simply isn't the world described here.

      In my world - yeah, I'm a man - I see girls approach guys fairly frequently. Sure, guys approach way more, but girls approach all the time. Second, girls are incredibly obvious about interest - it's almost impossible to miss. They simply are not the lazy, mixed signal sending women you make them out to be.

      And finally, feminism is pretty awful but I'm talking about ordinary girls - sure, they don't approach guys as much as guys do girls, but why call it laziness or a sense of privelege?

      Let me defend the female viewpoint for a bit - not because I feel sorry for women, because I feel the picture painted here is unfair and un-objective.

      The way society is set up, women have little choice - they are punished for being too sexually proactive. I'm sure there are hundreds of girls out there who suffer from not feeling comfortable approaching guys.

      We all know as men that approaching members of the opposite sex is hard - you have to be educated and trained to it. Not only are girls not educated to do it, but they are actively persuaded not to. Despite this, they still do it all the time (if not as much as men)! and they still show a ton of interest in other ways.

      Granted, the way society is set up right now is fucked up - that's a valid point. But the average woman is not to "blame" - it's not simple laziness. Nor do (most) women try and make it hard for men - they have a very peculiar set of challenges which are different from those that men face but just as psychologically exhausting and requiring mastery of just as much social finesse - in knowing which men to encourage and which not, in knowing how to be open without being too open and friendly so all the creeps approach, how to be friendly and let a guy down easy but not give him false hope, all the while by knowing to calibrate their interest in men they really ARE interested in so as not to alienate him or look ridiculous if he's not that interested.

      None of this is to deny that men face a social challenge, but women also face a daunting balancing act requiring a great deal of finesse. Is it any wonder not all women are great at this? I think most are pretty decent at it.

    15. Let me ask you one more thing, sister: are you fucking retarded? I don't know where you got the "95% of all communication is nonverbal stuff" but if this is true, it's surely true for both parties. Yet, of course you lazy bitches want to take complete credit for it. "Oohhhh, Jessica, I totally pulled that guy yesterday. I just looked pretty and three hours later I had his cock in me. That's all he did. And I did, like, almost all the, like, uh, work. He just did the, like, last two or three percent, like, putting his cock up my you know. hihi. I did, like, 95 or 98 or 127 or however many percentz there are. Well, I guess that since he couldn't have fucked me if I hadn't let him, I did that too, so I totally did like 120 % of all the pulling!"

      Just GTFO!


      - Alek: 2+2 = 4
      - Anynomous Retard Of The Day: Alek, it's not true that 5 is a sum of 3+3

      LIKE WTF ARE these motherfuckers EVEN READING? Are they illiterate or strawmanning on purpose?!?! Let's take one of these anonymous retards for example, look:

      " Besides, sexual interest is expressed through very explicit cues that everyone knows intuitively - close body positioning, long eye contact, brush of the arm, etc. It's absurd to suggest all this is obscure. "

      LIKE WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK IS this all about? Like it doesn't matter how many times you clarify it, these retards LITERALLY read things that were NEVER WRITTEN.

      Neither Aaron nor me has ever suggested the "sexual cues are obscure", and I had to clarify it to a previous strawmanning retard


      - STRAWMANNING FEMINIST CUNT: Oh aaron/alek, stop saying there is 0% readability


      The TOPIC DISCUSSED HERE is that feminists want to make it ILLEGAL to GUESS WRONG. The feminist claim is that ALL SEXUAL COMMUNICATION is 100% FOOLPROOF, and any man who makes a false guess is a "harasser".

      Let's look at a specific example from anynomous cunt above

      "everyone knows intuitively - close body positioning, long eye contact, brush of the arm"

      I ASK THE MEN READING THIS... HOW MANY OF YOU HAD A WOMAN CLOSELY POSITION HERSELF TO YOU, BRUSH YOU ON THE ARM, STARE YOU IN THE EYES... and then you ASKED HER OUT, and she said NO! Some of them even offended or like "huh wtf, I thought we were just friend".

      Tons right? I've had it happen an infinite amount of times, and so has any man on here with any experience. I've even had dozens of cases of a chick holding my hand publically, resting her her other hand on my crotch, letting me play with her hair, one leg over my other leg, and then I've tried to kiss her and she be like "wtf, I was just being friendly". WHEREAS ANOTHER woman, thinks the mere act of FLICKING HER HAIR with a stone-cold face is a "clear sign" she wants you to kiss her.




      Is this complex for you?
      Too subtle of a point?
      Want me to slow down or use less complex words?

      This is what feminist cunt in her infinite female privilege doesn't get. While there are GENERALITIES and PATTERNS of cues, there's no SPECIFIC CONCRETE CUES that MEAN EXACT THINGS, they're nothing more than GENERALITIES and PATTERNS.

      Yet, MOST WOMEN (and this isn't just anonymous feminist commenters online) this is MOST solipsistic female brains, BELIEVE that their OWN UNIQUE set of cues NEEDS to be universally understood by ALL MEN.

      - Jane does 5 second eye-contact to mean "ask me out" and she believes ALL MEN SHOULD KNOW THAT.

      - Jennifer does 5 second eye-contact to mean "be my friend" and she believes all men should KNOW THAT.

      "One, if it's in a bar between strangers any expression of interest is sexual in nature.

      EXCEPT YOU MOTHERFUCKING CUNT, MEN CANT USE THAT AS DEFENSE IN SEX-HARASSMENT CHARGES. "Oh your your honor, she was talking to me in a bar, therefore, I found it ok to try to kiss her, since its common sense that all communication in a bar is sexual in nature".

      It's easy for you to talk about what's common sense, since you as a woman ARE NEVER FORCED TO CHALLENGE your ASSUMPTIONS. YOU NEVER get publicly humiliated or rejected for guessing wrong the way men do. You can BELIEVE things are obvious or common sense, SINCE YOU NEVER ARE FORCED TO TEST your guesses.

    17. Anonymous chick, let's talk about your "logic" again:

      In English, when someone is exceptionally good at something, the metric is not necessarily other people. The metric can be other skills or talents that person has - so all humans, as a class, can be exceptionally good at something compared to all other talents and skills humans possess.

      The metric is always other people.

      A word equivalent to "exceptional" is to be found in arguably every language. It's because it is a common concept and it relates to experiences that are shared among all humans. In short, exceptional means something along the lines of "highly unusual", "rare" or "outstanding", but normally with a positive connotation. Of course, one can be exceptionally bad at picking up women, like Roosh V, or exceptionally bad at bullshitting, like you.

      Again, if your relativistic liberal arts interpretation of a common concept was true, then why on earth does nobody say that humans are exceptional at breathing? Just imagine the absurdity that Obama said on TV, "Americans, be proud of yourself. I know these are hard times --- but you are all exceptional. You are all exceptional at breathing! Compared to all other talents you may have, you are exceptionally good at it!"

      Come on, it's bad enough that you were raised in a society that allowed you to bullshit your way through high school and college, but now it's time for a reality check.

    18. Now, look at the next strawman this bitch wrote from a reading-comprehension-retardation angle.

      Or perhaps this is the "ALL MEN ARE SECRETLY SUAVE PLAYERS, THEY just CHOOSE TO PRETEND THEY'RE NOT" angle, which is part of apex fallacy which most feminist brains function on.

      Look at this strawman. First she does a half-strawman

      Good God, gradual escalation is an advanced skill?

      then later in her comment she shifts it into a full on upside-down strawman like this

      I don't think Aaron regards his advice to proceed gradually as genius level advice


      If someone needs so basic a thing as proceed gradually to be explained to him

      Look how she completely twisted my words. She makes it seem like I said "boooga booga, we men don't know things move in steps, we just think like u walk up to woman, say hi, and then cram finngers up her vagiaaaneeeee, then genius aaron came along and told us interactions are in steps and gradual, aaron mega genius, booga, booga!! we finally leave our cavves thanks to genius aaron, booga booga"

      People who have argued with feminists are used to this. In fact this is the primary mode of communication that feminists use - word twisting strawmanning.

      Any sane reader would know I was talking about a James Bond - level amount of suave smoothness and butter-silk quick testing-based escalation to where you can be so proficient at quickly reading cues with certainty and speed that you can go from hello to handjob in 5 minutes, a feat 99% of men EVER BORN on this planet would consider IMPOSSIBLE (but miss anonymous commenter believes it to be a basic social skill).

      Before guys like aaron/60 came along, most men were stuck believing that "you're either a natural" or "rejection is just a normal part of the process, you make lots of moves, gets lots of rejections, and the chick who doesn't reject you, then you take that one home. Or that you have to court a chick for weeks before you know for sure when to make what move. Five minute escalations were not even thought possible, let alone "a basic social skill".

      Now, this cunt is basically saying that being a suave player is common, not advanced, and everyone is secretly James Bond

      IN FACT, if you don't have james-bond type SMOOTHNESS, you're really a fucked up asocial oddity who doesn't have the most basic of civilizational skills.

      This is known as the Apex Fallacy. Most absurd feminist theory is based on the apex fallacy where women look to the top 1% of men, and project their abilities/privilege/power as being typical of the typical man.

      "Hey, james bond can go from hello to sex in 5 minutes, therefore, it must be normal, and guys who can't do that are 'socially challenged' "

      JamesBond-Delusion angle continued in next comment

    19. Let's look at some basic pointers which make it apparent how absurd this cunt's worldview is:

      - HAS ANYONE looked at how APPALINGLY LOW the average partner counts are for the average man!? Most of the more experienced commenters on this blog have banged more chicks in a WEEK than the average guy does in a LIFETIME. Really, look up the stats guys, they're incredibly low.

      This is because the average guy ussually takes weeks/months to escalate and fears rejections and spends weeks wondering "does she or doesn't she like me, should or shouldn't I ask her out" "should or shouldn't I go for the kiss"... Apparently according to feminist shill above, the average guy is "socially challenged", because it should be NORMAL that everyone have James Bond's (or aaron's) 5 minute pull abilities.

      Prostitution and escorting - Apparently, All men are secretly super-suave players who have the ability to walk into any club and get laid BUT for some unexplained reasons, they waste trillions on paying for sex

      Again, according to feminist cunt above, this is the MOST BASIC OF SOCIAL SKILLS (only asocial socially challenged men don't have it), everyone secretly has James Bond abilities to read and send subtle cues proficiently and quickly.

      - In fact, men get women throwing themselves and showing desire to have sex ALL THE TIME (and it's so obvious, the women can barely hide it) - really you must be an idiot if you're not getting approached and have women throwing sex at you

      - YET, for SOME MYSTERIOUS REASON, billions of men go and risk jail time, to have sex with often unattractive women (in the case of streeters) or pay a TON OF MONEY to for just an hour with a 7 (the average escort is like a 7, and charges 300$/euros).

      In fact, for SOME MYSTERIOUS REASON, despite

      - MOST MEN being horny PIGS obsessed with sex
      - MOST MEN Having James Bond/Aaron like ability to escalate
      - MOST MEN having women approaching them and throwing sex at them

      -> Still somehow, these horny capable pigs ONLY have sex with 4-7 women in their LIFETIME (not per year, IN A LIFETIME).

      Something here just doesn't add up. Can you figure out WHAT? Can YOU SMELL the bullshit?

    20. Again, if your relativistic liberal arts interpretation of a common concept was true, then why on earth does nobody say that humans are exceptional at breathing?

      And apparently, when we watch movies, where people are super suave, smooth charismatic and good-looking, this is actually normal. Movies are about representing normal everyday abilities and traits...

      When people fawn over James Bond's suaveness and smoothness with women, its apparently because this is the most everyday thing (95% of non-socially challenged men are apparently just as exceptional as james bond). Apparently, I read that in the thesaurus they're going to introduce "men" as being a synonym for "suave", because according to Feminist cunt Shill above, this is the most normal thing on the planet, any man who's not a fucked up social challenged weirdo will be sauve, it's nothing special AT ALL. Most men are exceptional, in fact, James Bond represents the common man...

    21. @Anonymous: "In my world - yeah, I'm a man - I see girls approach guys fairly frequently. Sure, guys approach way more, but girls approach all the time."

      Where's your world and how did you get there?

      "Second, girls are incredibly obvious about interest - it's almost impossible to miss. They simply are not the lazy, mixed signal sending women you make them out to be."

      No, you're good at reading their signals. I know some guys that are, too. I also know many that aren't.

  6. Just look at the voluminous writings by feminists about Mad Men.

    When "creepy" Pete Cashmore does it, it's assault. When "sexy" Don Draper does it, it's not.

    There's some hand-wringing about this from the smarter writers, but the takeaway is clear.

    1. Thanks for the pointer! This sounds like a topic worth looking into. If you've got some links to share, then please let me know.

  7. The Real PetermanJuly 8, 2013 at 9:43 AM

    Am I banned from here for some reason? None of my comments are showing up.

    1. No, you're not banned. All comments are placed on a moderation queue first. Sometimes, comments wrongly end up in the spam folder, but I have a look there frequently as well. If there is ever a comment missing, then feel free to email me to alert me of it, and I'll look into it straight away.

    2. Okay sorry, I guess I'm just a little paranoid. I've been banned from commenting on so many sites :) I just wanted to say, great post, but it wasn't Black Pill who talked about Herman Cain, it was me, and I only point that out because Black Pill has been (wrongly) accused of pretending to be other people in order to agree with himself.

  8. Just a random article I came across seconds ago, to make most men here furious:

    A man knows when a lady is interested. (Er hello… check out my over-exaggerated hair flicking and lots of giggling over nothing-at-all.) So why shouldn't they do the gentlemanly thing by letting us know the feeling is mutual?

    Now, most men on here with experience will feel like punching a wall in frustration at this idiotic cunt's solipsism (typical of most women).

    HOW MANY of you had a woman who giggled like crazy around you, flicked her hair like crazy, YOU DID ask her out, and she said no? TONS, right?

    But here's this cunt, who like the typical female lazy dater BELIEVES WITH 100% certainty, THAT SHE IS ENTITLED to you asking her out, just coz she fucking FLICKED HER FUCKING HAIR.

    This solipsism to where SHE CANT EVEN FANTHOM that THERE ARE BILLIONS OF WOMEN who show the same CUE when they're JUST FRIENDLY, completely escapes her. Apparently HER SIGNAL is CLEAR TO HER, therefore it must be THE SAME FOR all other 7 billion humans on earth.



  9. You're fantasizing, dude. This shit doesn't happen. If a girl gigggles a ton and flicks her hair a ton, you ask her out 90% will say yes. It's possible a few really liked you but said no for other reasons.

    You're just not describing reality. Like the fems who consider normal socializing sexual harrasment without realizing it, I bet you're conflating things here yourself - you are blatantly misreading girls, they are NOT flicking their hair and giggling or doing anything obvious, and you are acting like they ARE, because it helps you construct this fantasy world of yours where women are these mixed-signal sending monsters of ambiguity, lol.

    I go out every weekend and signals of interest are obvious, everywhere, and easy to spot. And every weekend I either receive approaches from girls on my level(and I'm not that good looking, just open and social. It seems like Aaron also gets approaches. It's not the rare thing you pretent) or see other guys get approached. And if there's any doubt, proceed with caution - common sense, really. I suppose it'd be nice if we lived in a world that dictated women should approach as much as men, but until we do, we can't blame the average woman for doing her best with the social script that is handed to her, with all its challenges of precisely calibrating her level of oppnenness and the downside of being severely limited by having to only select from who approaches her.

    1. Did Alek quantify a woman's signals like flicking her hair and giggling by "a ton"? You're talking about extreme cases and not the kind of ambiguous signal women typically give off. Also, your line of "not good-looking but get approached by girls your level" is bogus. As a run-of-the-mill guy girls will simply ignore you. But apparently it's wishful thinking of feminists that guys approach exactly the "level" of girl they are deemed appropriate for, and judging by those inane "man up" articles, the average guy better allow for plenty of homeliness.

      Lastly, I find it nothing but amusing that you claim that women do "the best with the social script that has been handed to them". Like, really, dude? Women want as little accountability as possible and their social script seems to boil down to "do something random and if things don't work out, just blame the guy".

    2. Here's an article written by a feminist mancunt known as "doctor nerdlove":

      Notice the women in the comments who say that they flick their hair all the time and it has NOTHING to do with men. (and they're right btw).

      The point is this you douche... THE AUTHORESS ABOVE considers men WIMPS or idiots if they DONT MAKE A MOVE (just coz she flicked her hair), AS IF it were a universal signal that applied to all women everywhere, but there are NO SUCH UNIVERSAL hints/signals.

      MOST women in this world hold the solipsistic view that a stranger should know HER PERSONAL alphabet, even though it varies from woman to woman.

    3. "If a girl gigggles a ton and flicks her hair a ton, you ask her out 90% will say yes."

      And flake on you.

  10. Aaron, please believe me when I tell you I'm not very good looking in NYC. For one thing, I'm 5"10 in a city where most guys are taller. I get approached very frequently, not by super attractive girls, but by many girls who are on the level I would approach (5s-7s). I'm certainly not ugly, I'm above average, but not by a whole lot.

    Thing is, run of the mill average guys won't get approached unless they are relaxed, open, and social. The stiff, closed off guy with the serious look on his face will not get approached, nor will the guy trying to "force" it, which is off-putting to most people. Unfortunately many guys become stiff and closed off in clubs, and naturally their social chances are hurt, or come out with an attitude that they will "force" it and impose themselves socially (this is particularly bad in America) in a way that is obnoxius and off putting to most people.

    I have friends as good looking as me or better who never get approached, becauese they make themselves unapproachable, or because they ooze a trying to "force" it vibe - which is off putting to guys as well as girls. But NORMALLY social, open guys frequently get approached by girls at their own level. I have friends worse looking than who get approached because they are open.

    Fact is, as I've been saying, people can TELL what your social attitude is - if you're open or hostile, if you're relaxed and ready to reciprocate socially in a calibrated manner or if you're likely to "force" the pace of the encounter on the other person in a way that would be obnoxious and make it hard to get away from if you want to. People pick this up - When making friends with men at social events, I too avoid the intense, over social guy who looks like he might try and socially "impose" himself on me and crudely force the pace of the encounter, even if he otherwise seem cool. That's human nature - and people can TELL this stuff about you.

    It's pointless discussing this, because the intense guy who imposes himself socially and doesn't calibrate his pace CANNOT change through words - he might one day "snap" out of it after intuitively noticing again and again that he messes up socially with people when he doesn't respect their signals and their pacing and energy level - this is a sign of a healthy social processing unit, this all happens intuitively and on its own - but just as likely something is wrong with his social processing unit.

    As for women, I don't believe they DO want minimum accountability - that's not what I SEE with my own eyes. I, a mildly good looking, relaxed, socially open dude, has to regularly turn down girls who went out on a limb and approached me, and I ignore lots of girls who could not have made it more obvious they were into me.

    1. If this isn't straight from Cosmopolitan...

      By the way, homely women approach guys because they've learnt that guys normally won't walk up to them. Better looking girls normally are much more passive. Of course, if you think that looking at a guy for 0.8 seconds is a sign of proactive dating behavior, then I don't think we should invest much more energy in this conversation.

    2. "Of course, if you think that looking at a guy for 0.8 seconds is a sign of proactive dating behavior"

      I flicked my hair at a guy, while angling my feet toward him, OMG being a woman is so hard, I did all the work. All he had to do was risk public humiliation by making a move.

      Do you know how hard hair flicking is, gosh? My neck hurts from all this hair flicking...

    3. He/she is just digressing at this point.

    4. Average looking girls get approached all the time, even ugly girls get approached all the time. We all know that. And 6s and 7s certainly get approached all the time I have never been approached by girls above a 7, but I have SEEN such girls approach guys - frequently. Guys who were cooler/better looking than me. Happens. All the time. At least in NYC.

      OR maybe I'm really just much better looking than I thought? Funny, I've never been told by friends or anyone that I'm so very good looking. I don't see that when I look in the mirror.

      Or maybe there is something unique about NYC? Well, Aaron was in NYC and didn't notice anything weird about it.

    5. What's up with this "girls get approached all the time" bullshit? Are you now in full-on PUA shill mode or what?

      As I said, it's normally the plainer girls that have to approach guys...

      Speaking of NYC: there is a significant surplus of women, and I certainly had the impression that the girls were more "proactive" than in other places of the world, like London, which is a sausagefest all day, every day.

  11. The funny thing is like 98% of the problems people have - perhaps in all areas of life? - come from simply "doing too much". An attitude of genuine passivity, receptivity - so anathema to the action-oriented Western psyche - would eliminate so many behaviors that interfere with natural processes that if allowed to function undisturbed would work fine. I don't mean passivity in the sense of not approaching or being social, but passivity in the sense that when you approach, you don't try and "force" the pace of the encounter, or conversely don't try and expend energy being "serious". Both are examples of doing too much. And have a passive and receptive attitude in the club - if something happens, great, and you should even approach (that's consistent with the kind of passivity I am talking about) but don't "force" it to happen by coming in, not relaxing, and speaking to 20 people within 30 minutes of being there with an intense, off putting vibe, and not let things develop naturally Sounds very Taoist, but I firmly believe that 98% of the social ills of the West can be cured by simply learning t be more passive (in the right way, I don't mean not approaching). Anyways to return from that digression.

    1. At first this anonymous came off as an entitled feminist, now as a PUA shill. He/she just won't give up.

    2. Since PUA is just pussy-begging and buying into feminist ideologies, both actually go hand in hand. PUAs make excuses for female behaviors and gladly take bullshit from women (viz. plowing, shit tests etc), and they likewise espouse an ideology according to which women are immature 14-year-olds that can't take on any responsibility. Feminists do the same.

  12. Hey look, the brent smith bullshitters are in town.

    These are the "just adjust your attitude and bitches come approach you and beg you for sex" morons. "Oh I walk into clubs and just manifest the right chi, and women do all the work"

    One problem you bozos, I was part of your cult for years, I even lived with one of the most infamous gurus in the whole thing(a guy who sells books on how just changing your attitude to some taoist bullshit gets you approached by women and things happen naturally and you don't have to do shit.

    I lived with the guy for FOUR MONTHS, AND NEVER WITNESSED HIM GET APPROACHED NOT ONCE, IN FOUR months, but online he's this fucking guru (one of brent smith's top ex students) and he coaches guys on this shit and lies online about getting approached all the time, and manifesting shit, and affirmations and what not.

    So really, stop bullshiting you motherfuckers. You're worse than PUAs, those guys are at least exaggerating, you motherfuckers literally invent shit.

  13. I found a great article by Alan Roger Currie that explains why women so selfishly love ambiguity

    An excerpt follows...

    I am going to share a secret about women that most women do not like to admit publicly. Most women - and particularly those women with highly manipulative tendencies - do not like to reject men. They absolutely hate it. Men, pay attention: The number one time you can tell you are dealing with a woman who is looking to engage in 'manipulative head games' with you is when a woman is reluctant to both a) fully reciprocate your desires and interests, and b) fully reject your desires and interests. (alek: i.e. engage in non-ambigious communication)

    Non-manipulative women have no problem doing one or the other. For example, once you let a non-manipulative woman know that you want to have sex with her, she is either going to say, "Yes, I am interested in having sex with you too....," or she's going to say, "I'm sorry, but I am not interested in sharing your company in any sort of sexual manner." Either, or.

    Women with manipulative tendencies do not like such specific, straightforward talk (which is why many of these types of women do not care for my Mode One Approach). I had an attractive Black woman from Las Vegas admit that to me earlier this year. I'll call her 'Janice.'

    Janice told me in one conversation, "Alan ... I'm going to confess something to you that many women won't. Most women do not like to reject men. I hate rejecting men. The only time I have no problem rejecting a man is if I find him totally unattractive, his personality is totally boring, and he is unemployed and has no money. I have no problem rejecting a guy like that. But if a guy is fun to be around and he has a great sense of humor, or he has money and is generous with it? Why would I want to burn bridges with a guy like that? I'm not saying that I want to just 'use' the guy, but in a way, I guess that is what I am saying. Women like me love having a lot of platonic male friends and 'just-for-fun' buddies. They come in handy when you are bored, depressed, in-between relationships, or your finances are tight and you need a favor. For that reason alone, I do not like to just flat-out reject guys. They can always prove to be of some use to me in the future."

    Bottom line, I will always look to put a woman in a position where she either has to fully reciprocate my sexual desires, interests and intentions .... or blatantly reject my sexual desires, interests, and intentions. I do not want a woman operating in what I commonly refer to as "The Ambiguous Zone." I am not looking to be any woman's "Just-for-Fun" buddy (i.e., platonic social companion). In the same way many women hate being thought of as nothing more than a "booty call," the vast majority of men feel the same way about being categorized as a "Just-for-Fun" buddy.

  14. Research says women send ambigious signals as a manipulative strategy

    Another way to respond to the laziness defenders above who are defending this SHITTY strategy by women as being some sort of "polite" virtue. It's not, it is entirely selfish... See this:

    Deceptive females
    More recent research has, however, revealed another reason why men may overestimate female sexual interest. A study published in the journal Evolution and Human Behaviour found that women send highly ambiguous, deceptive signals, particularly in the first minute of an encounter with a male. This is described by the researchers as a form of 'Protean' behaviour – named after the mythical Greek river-god Proteus, who evaded capture by his enemies by constantly and unpredictably changing his physical form, disguising himself as an animal, plant, cloud or tree. Women, albeit unconsciously, send unpredictable, misleading signals to 'trick' men into revealing more of their real intentions than they would
    otherwise do. This is because women (historically, genetically) have more to lose from making a poor choice of sexual partner than men, as they have a higher investment of time, energy and resources in the offspring of such matings. Women, according to the researchers, have evolved subliminal control strategies to manipulate men into revealing information about their mating interests and intentions, without the men
    being consciously aware of the signals involved. By sending erratic and ambiguous 'Protean' signals in the early stages of an encounter, women manipulate men into 'showing their hand' – expressing their interests and intentions verbally – allowing the female to evaluate the male's suitability as a potential mate. It is perhaps not entirely surprising, given the levels of ambiguity and deception to which they are subjected, that males of the species tend to become confused. The researchers
    conclude that female 'Protean' behaviour "may result in men's
    overestimation of female sexual interest."

    Now some of you apologists might say crap like "oh well, it's just biology, its how women are wired", and then I'd be like OK, BUT THEN DONT FUCKING PASS LAWS THAT PUNISH MEN FOR SHIT WOMEN REFUSE TO STOP DOING AND CAN BLAME ON "biology".

    You can't mix and match your arguments. If you accept that

    - YOU ARE ADMITTING it's impossible for men to tell for CERTAIN if he should or shouldn't make a move


    1. Wait, men need to show interest (tip their hand) before women can evaluate them as potential partners? That, of course, makes no kind of sense whatsoever.

      So women trick men into showing interest because for some reason, women have no way of evaluating men as potential partners until those men show interest.

      Alek, come on, where is that hyper-logical mind of yours that is so good at shredding positions you disagree with into tiny bits? If this was something that supported Game, you would never let such silly reasoning and logic apply.

      Only Western men overestimate female interest, because we live in a culture that emphasizes ego and "you can be anything". No need to come up with convoluted "reasoning" for why in the West men frequently overestimate sexual interest.

      Surely you are aware that most social science research has questionable validity since nearly all of it is done on Western test samples? Some people suggest that social science research has nearly zero validity - either way, the absurd logic here should have been easy to spot.

  15. Great relevant link:

    1. Alek, you're starting to lose the plot when the thing you cite in your defense don't support your position. That's more typical of gamers who are so solipsistic about Game that they literally don't notice that a study destroys their position.

      The article in this link makes clear that a MINORITY of women display confusing body language by using language that in MOST women is a clear sign of interest, but for these few women is merely friendliness. To quote -

      "Should the existence of a minority of women with flirty-looking-but-actually-just-friendly body language destroy the use of those nonverbal channels for the majority of women who need to use those signals to attract lovers and boyfriends?"

      So there you have it. Most women are clear, a minority are not.

      What I've been saying all along.

    2. That article also exemplifies well the challenges faced by women in how to precisely tune their signals to eliminate unwanted suitors or at least minimize attention from them while still being hit on by men they like - an extremely tough challenge - while also illustrating the severe disadvantage women suffer of only being able to chose from men who approach them, i.e having a severely limited dating pool.

      Of course, I am not saying the challenges men face are easy, but the flipside of the stupid feminist script that shows no sympathy for me is the stupid script advocated by guys like Alek, where women have it incredibly easy and men have no advantages and upsides to their role.

      Fact is, in a "free range" dating system like our own, unlike what obtained in more traditiona times with very clear and strict etiquette and sex roles, both sexes have a hard time of it, just differently.

      Of course for guys like Alek, only the male challenges count, and for feminists, only the female challenges. In some ways they are worthy of each other.

    3. Do you even want to realize that all this nonsense would go away IF women would clearly communicate a "no", and that the burden of the approach actually, for real, lies on men!? If I weren't so patient, I would not throw a couple of expletives at you since I don't believe that you're interested in having a discussion. Instead, you only want to defend feminist privilege. You know, the "have your cake and eat it" thingy...

    4. As aaron said, ALL sob stories you tell about women WOULD GO AWAY, IF WOMEN SIMPLY STARTED COMMUNICATING

      Let me demonstrate motherfucker....


      It's fucking two words. Fucking two year olds can say them, but not adult women!?!?!? Again all the "difficulties" you least as a supposed sob-story for women are CAUSED BY WOMEN REFUSING To act like an adult and use these two SIMPLE WORDS


      What's so COMPLEX? Women wouldn't have to spend 500 factor-thought-process analyses over how to hint so the right guy comes and not "the creep", IF THEY FUCKING LEARNED TO COMMUNICATE LIKE FUCKING ADULTS






      If women simply started acted like fucking adults and stopped being selfish (have your cake and eat it too). THERE WOULD BE NO MORE worrying about how to hint in just the right way so the right guy makes a move and the wrong guy doesn't.

      THE WHOLE CLUSTERFUCK (you list as being hard on the poor wimminz) WAS CREATED by women in the FIRST PLACE, by them wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

      THIS IS THE CAUSE of women's "sob story" you described, right here, the following line:

      "I want the right guy to make a move on me, without the wrong guy making a move on me, WHILE I also never have to take ANY responsibility, agency, or have to experience any rejection ever and I ALSO get to keep the wrong guy around in case I need a favor, so I don't want to lose him from my social circle"





      SIMPLE!!! Fucking two year olds can do it, why can't adult women? Oh that's right, have your cake and eat it too shit.

    5. I don't know how the anonymous fella/chick will rebut that. They must think we want them to express their interest an all "happy go lucky" way, which might indeed turn some men down and produce some unpleasant rejections. We just want them to be clear and transparent, is that too much to ask?

      By all means, it's not every day that i get asked out by a woman. But there was this occasion when a classmate just dropped the proposal in an indirect but obvious fashion. Not the best way to handle it, but when she told me i kind of froze emotionally, put a stern face, didn't say a word to her for a couple of minutes and got my hands around the work we were supposed to do at the copy machines. Of course she felt rejected and it wasn't pleasant or the best way to handle it, but taking into account that her declaration was not direct either, my behavior was pretty transparent toward her. I wish all women who have rejected me had had the same courtesy instead of plying fucking games.

    6. When asked straight out, most women say yes or no. When approached through nonverbal signals, women respond with nonverbal signals. Do you expect women to say yes or no when they were never asked directly?

      The Alan Roger Currie quote reflects what SOME women do, not the majority, and men who allow women to lead them on in that fashion share a big portion of the responsibility. It's not hard to avoid being led on - you can easily force a decision, but such men secretly like maintaining the illusion that the girl might like him and would rather not truly know.

    7. Anonymous,

      are you a man or a woman? Women claim they make it clear, but we've discussed this point and what to think of it to very great detail already. Yes, you can force a decision, which is one of the corner stones of Minimal Game. However, this is not part of mainstream dating advice. Giving ambiguous feedback, for women, is mainstream dating advice for them, though.

    8. Aaron, I am a man. It might be mainstream advice for women, but women quickly switch to a policy of being clear as they find being unclear has too many drawbacks, I believe. What Manuel quotes above as a rejection that is rare for women in its clarity, is in fact common, and as Manuel notes, it is unnecessarily harsh - we should be thankful most women develop, over time, a gentler way without sacrificing clarity. Yet it is curious that when faced with the same challenges women face, Manuel found it hard to respond with grace and finesse under pressure, and found him unable to satisfy the various claims of the situation - the need to be civilized, polite, and sympathetic, while being clear and unambgiuous - through fine tuning his response.

      I find that this idea that women give unclear signals is dangerously confusing to men. If men begin to believe that, then it undermines the core strategy of Minimal Game of intelligently looking for signs of interest before approaching, and is a belief which if accepted leads logically to the Game conclusion that you shouldn't bother looking for interest but just approach randomly, since seemingly uninterested women, as Alek says, can really be just as interested as the ones who seem interested, who indeed are probably not interested.

    9. Beside what Aaron last said, there's another major difference. When we call women, text them , take them to dinner, spend time with them, it's fucking obvious we're sexually interested in them, unless we had previously established some sort of friendship (in which case, it's the man's fault for not coming out clear and early in his intentions, if any, of having more than a friendship). On the other hand, women act this way with men to get favors from them or just to be goddamn social, and it's not a minority as you claim out of thin air.

    10. Anonymous, if we agree that my rejection was harsh, why can't women be just as clear without being rude? Aren't they more mature emotionally (at least according to most feminists)?

      Besides, we're diverting too much from the subject, which is sexual harassment. Long-term, it's easier to get hints constantly being thrown at you, even if such hints are unnecessarily ambiguous (friendzone situations). Short-term, when you're trying to hook up with strangers or semi-strangers, women just can be 2 ways: either clear or playing fucking mind games to save face (for whatever reason, be it ego-protection or a warped sense of politeness). If they choose the second, as most do, they can't complain about guys being persistent.

    11. When asked straight out, most women say yes or no.

      1) Bullshit, not on planet earth.

      2) You're missing the main point (the context of this debate/conversation)

      LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD, it's about sex harassment.

      The whole fucking point is that FEMINISTS want to make it ILLEGAL to make a mistake AS IF every man CLEARLY could know which move is WANTED before making it!

      In other words (you ADD-brain, follow along) if you ask Jane out, and she feels she hinted she's not interested in being asked out, you are GUILTY of sexual harassment.


      You might say shit like "oh well, most women aren't that extreme, they don't want you legally penalized merely for asking for their number", and you would be right EXCEPT...

      Most women DO engage in creep-shaming. Feminism is just taking the idiosyncracies of the female and taking them to an extreme. MOST AVERAGE WOMEN ARE CONSTANTLY whining, complaining and berating guys for having asked them out, or attempted to kiss them (or anything at all).

      This is "creep shaming", AND THE VAST MAJORITY of women engage in it. It's where a woman will EQUATE YOU TO A SEXUAL DEVIANT for the crime of not knowing HER OWN set of hints.

      OF HINTS
      AND MOST
      "hard to get" ploy

      That's not a minority of women, it's MOST WOMEN. And MOST WOMEN have setup a system where the ONLY way to untangle the CLUSTERFUCK of mixed signals is to make a move and risk rejection, to persist if you will.


      It found a full 39% of women OUTRIGHT LIE and say no in bed when they mean yes, A FULL 39%! FULLY ADMIT TO SAYING THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what they mean

      I probably imagined that study you feminist-cunt-pretending-to-be-an-anonymous-male-commenter. It's all in my imagination, ain't it?!?!

      OH, AND YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT ITS ABOUT EACH OF THE 50-100 moves between hello and intimacy.... not just "asking out"

      Women deem you CREEPY if you move in TOO close to them, but it's a catch 22, since the ONLY WAY to know for SURE if she likes you closer or not, IS IF YOU DO IT.

      Are YOU SERIOUSLY telling me that women tell guys "btw, if you're going to perform a proximity test later, know that with guys I just met I'm comfortable 5,6 inch distance", what the fuck no, the only way to fidn out is to do it.

      WITH EXPERIENCE (applying aaron's gradual testing) YOU CAN GET GOOD AT GUESSING the likelihood of each next step being welcome, BUT YOU CAN'T EVER know for fucking sure, EVER if it will be welcome. Yet if you do it when unwelcome, you're a "creep". IS that SO complex for you to get?

    12. Cunt said: When approached through nonverbal signals, women respond with nonverbal signals. Do you expect women to say yes or no when they were never asked directly?



      1 Man shows interest non-verbally
      2 Woman shows disinterest non-verbally
      3 WOMAN CREEPS SHAMES THE GUY for having shown interest.

      DO YOU GET IT?

      You look at number 1 and 2 and go "well, his communication wasn't explicit, therefore her communication not being explicit is fine", AND YOU WOULD BE RIGHT, if it weren't for POINT 3, WHERE SHE CREEP SHAMES HIM AS IF THERE WAS explicit communication going on.


      MOST women have this conversation going "Oh, jack at work is such a creep, he just won't give up, its becoming borderline stalkerish, what a creepy loser, but I'm just not interested, can't he get a clue!!" ---> SEE THE POINT? APPARENTLY a woman has a RIGHT to decide a man's persistent EVEN IF NEITHER of them made explicit moves or showed EXPLICIT interest/disinterest.

      WOMEN ALSO CREEP-SHAME a guy for making an explicit move, EVEN IF she didn't make it EXPLICITLY known she's not interested. DO YOU GET IT FINALLY?

      "He's a creep because he asked me out". NOT BECAUSE HE ASKED HER OUT AFTER SHE told him explicitly she's not interested... no, a guy who dared ask her out despite her clusterfuck of mixed signals which are no different than ANOTHER chick WHO DOES want to be asked out.

      Do you finally get the context of the conversation!?!?

      "what SOME women do, not the majority, and men who allow women to lead them on in that fashion share a big portion of the responsibility. It's not hard to avoid being led on - you can easily force a decision, but such men secretly like maintaining the illusion that the girl might like him and would rather not truly know."

      That's how we know you're a woman you cunt, this is what women say:

      "Well MEN SHOULD TAKE ALL THE RISK, ALL THE REJECTION AND MAKE IT CLEAR for themselves" "It's not our fault that he had no balls to ask for explicit clarity"



      A MAN TRYING TO MAKE IT EXPLICIT AND FORCING AN UNAMBIGIOUS ANSWER IS A "creep" and "sexual pervert" according to sexual harassment law.


      You're PROVING OUR POINT. Women put men in this double bind.

      -> If you don't make an explicit move on a woman who desires it, you're a wimp loser creep (it's also deemed creepy if you don't make a move in time and wait too long btw, hesitation and indecisevness is also called creepy)

      -> BUT if you DO make an explicit move, on a woman who didn't desire it, THEN YOU'RE A CREEP/harasser

      DO YOU GET IT? Do YOU GET THE CONTEXT and the FUCKED UP SADISTIC double-bind women place men in?

      WomanAmbiguityLogic: I'm going to give you a code, and the algorithm changes from moment to moment using a random number generator. If you gess the code wrong you get zapped. But if you ask me to tell you what the code is, you get zapped, not trying to guess the code on time also gets you zapped, in fact you should JUST KNOW what the code is.

      Now, there are PATTERNS and general trends in which most vagina-code-generators operate in, but the point is, THERE IS ALWAYS randomness, YET ALMOST ALL WOMEN PUNISH YOU for not guessing correctly, and feminists take it a notch up and increase the punishment further.

  16. But is it really controversial to say that if you are hostile and off-putting girls will avoid you? It's just social common sense. Being hostile won't get you any guy friends either.

    I never realized that being non-hostile and socially receptive will make it easier for interested girls to approach you is equivalent to PUA stuff that says that you can actually generate that sexual interest through attitude - something I never said.

    Alek and Aaron - you guys do good work, but you are too sensitive, and too committed to a very rigid ideology, to the point where you are seeing bogeymen under the bed where none exist and began saying silly things. I agree with the key elements of your position but disagree with some elements.

    1. But is it really controversial to say that if you are hostile and off-putting girls will avoid you?

      That's not what the motherfucking KJs above said. They posted shit that amounted to

      "Oh I just taoized my attitude and chicks approach me ALL THE TIME"

      Truth is, chicks HIDE their interest from the AVERAGE GUY. Either average in looks or average in status, UNTIL he shows and makes enough moves. It's literally a process of getting to admit interest back.

      Changing your attitude merely eases and smoothes the process, but the process still exists unless you're a male model or of high-status.

      And don't you motherfuckers bullshit me, coz I've met a ton of you in real life, you're not getting approached by chicks no matter how many attitude-changing affirmations you make. Period.

    2. Alek, are you seriously telling me you don't regularly see other guys getting approached in bars? If so, then I don't know what to say - can it really be that different cities have such different female behavior? I suppose its possible. The funny thing is my guy friends who don't get approached find it impossible to believe that it happens to some of us either.

      Truth is, I have no idea why, really, I and some of my friends get approached. The attitude theory is just something I came up with to explain it, because I am certainly not exceptionally good looking. But that could be wrong. But it is a fact I get approached, and some of my friends do, on a regular basis, and I SEE other guys getting approached to.

      Who knows why, really? You're probably right that it won't necessarily happen to other guys just by becoming more socially "open". There is probably some kind of mysterious "X factor" that we can't pin down that makes it happen to some guys and not others.

      We like to think we can analyse everything the shit out of everything and understand everything but at the end of the day there are limits to logical analysis and we just might not be able to find out why some guys whoa re not great looking or have obvious high status get approached and others who are not obviously worse off don't.

  17. If your relaxed and are enjoying yourself girls will approach you. That does not mean that there interested in you. Same applies to guys. It is hard for allot of people to tell if a girl is interested in you or just being friendly and enjoys socializing with you. That is why you have to try and advance sexually.Then you will know. Its very simple. Allot of girls wont go home with you and just dance or make out with you.For the vast majority of guys they should not go out to get laid. Its very rare. Instead go out only if you enjoy going out.


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