Women have a right to be Selfish in Mating, but so do men


The Selfish Gene
The Selfish Gene (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


There is currently a feminist-lead attack on men which is full of double-standards and double and triple binds.

The main idea in this trend is to imply and sometimes outright promote the double-standard that men aren’t allowed to be selfish in dating, whereas this is a god-given human right for women.

On this blog it is our contention to promote the idea of equality. Either both men and women have a right to be selfish, or neither one does.

Marcotte farts at boys who ask girls out

Marcotte wrote a piece bashing boys who dare ask girls out of their league. In this piece she gives a “what seems like” quite reasonable sounding piece advice. She simply says “Oh you stupid boys, just flirt with a girl a little, and ask her out of flirting seemed to go well”.


Any discussion on “dating etiquette and gender” is AUTOMATICALLY DIS-GENUINE if it doesn’t mention these three facts of female mating arrogance:

1) Females of our species are lazy and passive, waiting for the man to take all the initiative and risk

2) Females of our species SPECIFICALLY and PURPOSEFULLY send mixed and plausibly deniable signals where it can’t be proven if she was interested, or was simply acting “friendly”. In fact being the arrogant risk-and-rejection diverters that our human females are – they specifically send both negative and positive signals EVEN WHEN they are interested. (so she can claim to not have been interested if it doesn’t work out

3) To top it off, a large percentage of females (majority) take it a step further with something called “playing hard to get” where they force the male to “prove itself” by battling through token resistance and false NOs and indifferent maybes

—–> Marcotte almost sounds like she’s giving common sense genuine advice, BUT <—–

So she says (what on the SURFACE) seems like sound advice… Hey just you know like flirt with a girl a little, assess the situation and if she’s interested, THEN ask her out.

ONE PROBLEM —> (I’ve asked feminists for 5 years to provide a list, none has obliged) —> there is no objective criteria upon which male can be 100% certain (or even much 50% certain) that a female is interested.

IN THE REAL WORLD – MALES ARE ALWAYS playing Russian roulette. ALWAYS.

Which is f$%ked up as it is. But to now BASH boys for playing the russian roulette THAT GIRLS force them into in the first place is whole new level of f$%ked up. Most boys WISH THEY DIDNT HAVE TO.

The most annoying part of the feminist frame is that it assumes BOYS are going around getting rejected ON PURPOSE “to annoy women” -> when in truth most of those boys are crying themselves to sleep over those rejections.

MOST boys WISH they could have a reasonable way of knowing which girls will say yes. MOST MEN do as well. If I could invent an app that you can point at a girl and it tells you with 90% certainty she’ll say yes or no to a move —> I’D BE A BILLIONAIRE.

—> Marcotte: “[he asks her out] knowing full well the answer will be no”

Here’s a question I’ve asked of feminists on this topic for 5 years and never got an answer to.


I have no issue with feminists trying to dictate dating rules. The issue I have is that its all vague “It’s harassment when you do it wrong, but you’re not allowed to know what wrong is, you should JUST KNOW TELEPATHICALLY”

AT WHICH point is it ok to make a move, and which point is it harassment? Where do you define it?

Is asking a girl out you believe you have a 50% chance with harassment? Does it begin below 70% odds? Or is anything less than 100% certainty she’ll say yes a form of harassment? BE SPECIFIC.

Feminists say shit like “making a move on a girl too soon” is harassment. This is even if its the first time the boy has ever made a single move on that girl. hey say he needs to have gotten “enough information” that it’ll be welcome.

I won’t even MENTION the fact about the huge percentage of women out there who are TURNED OFF by men that wait for clear signs. I won’t even have to mention the billions of women who ONLY date men that make moves without waiting for an super-duper obvious signal. MOST women like these refer to men who wait for a clear signal as “wimps” “creeps” and “spineless losers”.

(I’m not even going to tackle those women here to make the point which still stands even IF YOU DID only date by waiting for signals). Here is my point feminists – MAKE IT SPECIFIC. WHERE IS the point of “harassment”?

—from an article I wrote—

Specifically here are the facts:

For ANY PERSON to get together with another person (including forming a gay couple) you have to go through some steps such as

  • first fleeting touch
  • first decrease of physical distance
  • first more intimate eye-gazing
  • first more intimate touch
  • (or) first sexual innuendo
  • first asking the person for an intimate encounter

Feminists say that if you make a touch too soon, gaze at her too long (etc)… you are a evil, despicable proto-rapist… But you’re not allowed to know when “too soon” or how much eye-contact is “too much”. In other words, you’re supposed to “just know”.

But if you ask feminists how you are to know which woman prefers how and when and how much and under which conditions, they will shame you, ridicule you, mock you or tell you to buy blow up dolls. But they will REFUSE any CLEAR and SPECIFIC guidelines.

They will tell you that you are an evolutionary despicable crap worthy of evolutionary extinction, but they will refuse to DEFINE any CLEAR, SPECIFIC guidelines.

Why? Because they know no two women are the same. One woman expects you to make a move between 50 and 100 minutes of friendly interactions (and if you don’t she writes you off as a wimp forever). Another woman is offended if you make a move in less than 5000 minutes of being social with her.

—from an article I wrote—

Source: https://matingselfishness.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/on-feminists-refusing-to-make-sexual-harassment-specific/

Most women have met a partner through grinding or butt pinching

While most women in the survey said they preferred a man introduce himself and start a conversation when they first meet, about 30% said “grinding” is an acceptable way to pick someone up.”Grinding” is exactly what it sounds like — a man introduces himself to a strange woman by coming up behind her on the dance floor and rubbing his pelvis against her.In case you think this is a bit exaggerated, 84% of the women in the survey say this is how they have personally experienced new men introducing themselves.And to think I wasted all that money on business cards.Just in case you think this is a man thing somehow coded in our leftover male monkey DNA, 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.Back in the day, I do recall once having my butt pinched by a woman on a dance floor, but the contact was brief and to the point, and over so fast it left me wondering if I had imagined it.

The Calgary Sun – Women rubbed the right way

Oh no, sexual harassment! Lol.

Proof that most “sexual harassment” stories are NOT about objective harassment

I was having a discussion with Cactuar about street harassment on FM. There, she was trying to say that she (and feminism) are mainly interested in tackling real street harassment – you know, the kind we can all agree is harmful and damaging. You know, like a guy running out of nowhere and starting to talk dirty to a woman in the subway, or some dudes starting to squeeze girls boobs, or following them around and yelling taunts.

One problem… I’ve been noticing and saying for years that this is a bunch of bullshit really intellectually dishonest, and that feminists keep expanding the definition of sexual harassment to make it possible for any man to be deemed a harasser for any reason – sometimes for merely being in the same room as the woman.

I’ve been saying for a while that they want it so that if an unattractive guy checks a woman out, it can be deemed harassment, whereas if an attractive guy does it, its not. Cactuar accused of me deceit and misrepresenting them, while claiming no such thing is ever done and they have nothing against sincere guys showing sincere interest in women, even in public and semi-public spaces.

Most feminist blogs (however) continually run and publish examples of stories that are not at ALL an example of objective harassment. Sure, there are a few cases of some guy squeezing some chick’s boobs or guys yelling taunts from a distance, but most of the stories involve a woman subjectivelly deciding something is street-harassment based on mere intuition and completely subjective criteria.

In some cases they involve akward men simply being social, some cases involve men simply sincerely trying to get to know a woman. Some cases don’t involve the man even DOING OR SAYING ANYTHING (they file these under non-verbal harassment).

Cactuar however blatantly tried to lie to me seemed to say that no such thing happens, and that they (feminists) have no problem with men simply trying to be social and meet women in public or semi-public spaces when its sincere and genuine interest. Honestly, she pissed me off with the blatant dishonesty of that claim, I found that somewhat unconvincing, because all it takes is a few minutes of browsing around feminist blogs to see most stories of “street harassment” involve some woman randomly deciding something is creepy based on NO objective criteria whatsover.

So I’ve decided to compile a resource for my claims. I’ll go on feminist-blogs and collect these stories of women being cruel and labeling men with the accusation of street harassment merely based on intuition or paranoid subjective criteria.

Note: I’ve only so far done 5 minutes of browsing on only the first of these websites, and so far came up with these 6 examples of subjective harassment being run AS IF they were objective harassment. I’ll increase this list over the next few months…

I’m not denying objective harassment exists, or that they also have stories of objective harassment. I’m only focusing on the problem that feminism JUSTIFIES and openly promotes the ability for women to tar and label and demonize men on nothing but a subjective hunch – while at the same time denying they do so… What follows is the abundance of example of such stories… Right from their websites.

Example Numero Uno


-> This story involves a chick who called the police on two guys. Why? Because they yelled “come here bitch” at a female dog… How is this a crime? Apparently, she KNOWS (telepathically) that the guys were only pretending to yell at the dog, but in truth, they secretly really were yelling at her because she was in hearing distance.  No, this is not a joke…

Example Number TWWOOOO


-> This is a story submitted as being “street harassment”. Guess what its about? It says that all men who have ever said to a woman “Hey, can I see that beautiful smile” are really VIOLENT ASSHOLES STREET-HARASSING HER in the name of evil patriachy par-taking in “street harassment”. Is she talking about groups of guys yelling that to a chick from across the street? Nope…

She even includes guys saying this to a woman when they’re simply seated next to her, or in the same checkout line. As we (the sane part of the population) know, this is, and very often can be a genuine and sincere form of flirting. But this website puts this under street-harassment… And let me remind you again, Cactuar showed an emotion of disbelief when I mentioned this website not being about objective-harassment.

Example Number TRESSS


->This is a story of a woman who witnessed TWO EVIL ASSHOLIC PATRIARCHS men beeping their car, and then later looking in the GENERAL direction of some women checking out some women who happened to be jogging on the side of the road (the men didn’t say or yell anything) – The site files the story under “non-verbal-harassment”.

FIRST she has no proof the beeping is related to the women jogging on the side of the road. Second, how does she KNOW what they were looking at? Third, being checked out is NOT objective-harassment and depends on whether the woman likes it or not, and who the checker-out is… Most female friends I know are flattered by being checked out.

And what PROOF does she have that they’re not friends with the women jogging by? How does she KNOW they’re not their boyfriends just saying “hey, how’s the exercise going?” to their girlfriends on the side of the road? Why does this website allow anyone to submit a story in other people’s names? Wasn’t it supposed to be only about objective-street-harassment?

The author of the story even whines complains about why the women aren’t offended enough. And how pissed off displeased she is that “society teaches women” to take being checked out as a compliment. How much does THIS fly in the face of the claim that these organizations are only interested in OBJECTIVE harassment!?

Let me summarize for you… Here’s a story of some chick who a) is pissed off that some guys might or might not have checked out some joggers b) she knows nothing about the women or the checker outters and their relationship c) she uses her subjective feeling about men checking women out, and DECIDES in the name of the potentially checked out women to deem this STREET HARASSMENT. d) The leading website on the subject ran this story on their frontpage.



-> Here’s another case that’s filed under “non-verbal harassment”. It’s basically a story of a woman ranting how THESE EVIL MEN DARE some men choose to seat next to her on buses when picking a seat. She further rants about how some of these men sometimes DARE CHECK HER OUT look at her, or SOME OF THEM EVEN DARE TALK TO THE QUEEN try to engage her in conversation. Note, she mentions nothing about the conversations being, lewd, or sexual in nature. Considering this is whiney-rant-central a website dedicated to the topic, I’m confident she’d have taken the opportunity to mention that they were lewd or rude conversations. Since she didn’t, we can safely assume she’s only had people engage in normal, everyday social chit-chat.

===These men stare at you====


As you can see from her story, you can notice she provides no objective proof of any of the actions being “street harassment”. She uses vague, subjective terms like “stare”. The same eye-contact that one woman perceives as a neighborly “flirting” or assessing of romantic interest, another will deem to be staring and third will call it “ogling”.

====undress you with their eyes====


I’ve many times in my life found out that a woman I had been interacting with, had thought I was “undressing her with my eyes”, and these were women I had absolutely no sexual interest in. Many gay guys say they too have many times been accused or assumed to be ogling or undressing a woman, when they, obviously weren’t. Paranoid and insecure women can read into any type of eye-contact as being undressing, since its completely subjective.

======try to start a conversation with you=======


Notice, she has no proof of these conversations all being romantic in nature, and even if they were, they still fit what I say. Even if the guy was romantically interested, there is no proof it wasn’t simply genuine and sincere interest. Notice how she mentions no groping, no stalking, no lewd language… Merely guys on a bus who make conversation. Yet, this is filed under “street harassment” on the website.

their attention is totally unwanted. The trolley and bus is not a great ave place to meet men, usually these men have criminal records, do not drive because they owe back child support, are extremely unattractive, unintelligent and do not have legitimate income.

The FBI should TOTALEEEE hire her. She can tell all these things about an entire bus through mere telepathy. Omg, she’s so amazing. And notice, even if these things were true, how does this make it “harassment”. It sounds like “I feel harassed because low status MALES dare to be in the same space as I” “Some of these low-status males DARE sit next to me when PICKING A SEAT!!!!” “some of these low-status males even sometimes DARE treat me like an equal and chit-chat with me, HOW DARE THEY, do they know I AM A QUEEN ABOVE THEM – you don’t TALK to the QUEEN!!!”

Notice how at the end of the story she gives up what I believe and theorize to be the real motive behind her rant? It fits what I’m saying – that many women want to use “harassment” as a way of punishing and demonizing low-status males. None of what she said or the examples she gave, would she rant about, if it were Denzel Washington performing them. Imagine Denzel seating next to her on the bus, and starting a friendly conversation. Would she call it “street harassment”? You be the judge…

Her rant at the end (in my mind) betrays her true motives… She seems pissed off displease that men of a lower-social-status are being in the same space as her, and some even treat her as an equal. I’m sensing her feeling some sort of superiority and classist tendencies. She wants to distance herself from “the lower castes” by labeling them as harassers. A desire to put herself above the “low class” she doesn’t want to feel part of.

This story is a good example of how the label “harassment” can be used not just to distance yourself from men you subjectively deem unattractive, but also as a way to distance yourself from a “caste” you do not want to be associated with.

Example Number FIVVVEEE


-> This a story of a woman who had a fight with a cab driver over CAB-FARE. From the story you can tell he’s an asshole, but she has NO proof its gender-specific and the cab driver wouldn’t have had this fight with any customer of any gender.

How does she tie it into “sreeet harassment”? Because after a big, long and arduous fight (OVER CAB FARE) that had nothing to do with sex, the cab driver at the end yelled a rape insult that was the equivalent of telling a guy “I hope you get robbed and stabbed to death”. Again, this was a fight between A CUSTOMER and a CAB-driver over FINANCES.

She has 1) no proof he wouldn’t have insulted a guy the same, and 2) it still has nothing to do with street harassment. How did this story end up on the website compiling stories of street harassment again? Let me remind you, it was suggested to me I was exaggerating or making up my observation that “anti-street-harassment” campaigns allow for subjective experiences to be deemed “sexual harassment”.

Example Number SIXXX


-> This is a story of some paranoid bitter harpy woman who decided that a man was a pervert who was secretly taking pictures of their butts, and then wrote down his licence plates. What proof does she have of this? Apparently telepathy.

Basically, these women were walking down the same street as a guy who had a camera. After they passed him, they heard (or however they noticed) him taking a picture. They concluded he must be taking a picture of their butts, and now published the story as “street harassment”.

I (alek) have worked as a professional photographer, and I will tell you this confidently -> EVEN IF I Was looking at a photographer DIRECTLY I couldn’t tell what he was taking a photograph of, their butts or the street. Yet these women KNOW this telepathically with their backs turned to him while passing him. And then they decide to tar him a “pervert”The leading website on the subject of street-harassment readily runs this story.


Again, I gotta be honest – I was infuriated when it was suggested to me that these people only care about objective and widely-agreed-upon forms of harassment. This flies in the face of everything I’ve ever seen from even mere, casual browsing of those organizations. I swear to you that I found the above 6 stories in JUST 5 minutes of browsing the first website that I opened on the subject. I’ll keep adding examples to this post over time..

Sexual Hysteria (avfm article) Comment Response

My only issues here are female laziness and vagueness.

We live in a screwed up society where the system says:

1) You as a boy have to be persistent, bold and courageous and make all the risky initiatives (because women/girls are still lazy as fuck and refuse to make any moves despite it being 2012)

2) You have to make these moves without the women letting you know they want to be made a move upon first (you’re expected to mind-read and risk rejection)

3) Different women like different things, and you’re not allowed to know what sort of move or approach a particular woman likes (more direct, less direct, more touch sooner, less touch etc)

4) But if you get it wrong and break the rule you didn’t even know existed we will punish you.

I WOULD ACTUALLY support a LAW that bans men from ever asking women out, touching women first, kissing women first or initiating sex.

Why? AT LEAST we would know and have it spelled out what we can’t and can do. The current VAGUENESS is what’s mind-blowingly misandric. Feminists refuse to set a CLEAR LIST of “here’s what you CAN do, and here’s what you can’t do”.

The current policies say:

“You can’t do what the woman/girls dislikes”

And how are you supposed to know what she likes? Ask? “Hey, how many seconds do I need to look into your eyes before I attempt a longer-than 3 seconds fleeting touch, and then how many seconds and times of friendly touches do you prefer before I attempt my first more intimate touch? And how many seconds should it last?”

Well asking is itself a form of making a move and IT can also be disliked by one woman and be deemed sexual harassment too :D

So I WOULD EVEN support an outright ban on men doing ANYTHING – at least it wouldn’t be this idiotic vagueness we have right now.

On feminists refusing to make sexual harassment SPECIFIC

Specifically here are the facts:

For ANY PERSON to get together with another person (including forming a gay couple) you have to go through some steps such as

– first fleeting touch
– first decrease of physical distance
– first more intimate eye-gazing
– first more intimate touch
– (or) first sexual innuendo
– first asking the person for an intimate encounter

Feminists REFUSE to define what is the right way or time or place or way to do these things. In other words they refuse to write a list that says:

“If you have interacted with a woman for more than 250 minutes and she has shown no discomfort in interacting with you, you may attempt an increase in eye-contact duration, increasing it from 5 to 15 seconds”

“If a woman is fine with the increased eye-contact for more than 5 interactions, you may now attempt an innocuous friendly touch”

“If you have had more than 5 innocuous touches with a woman and she has responded to each one of them favorably, you may attempt to make a distance decreasing move”.

Feminists say that if you make a touch too soon, gaze at her too long (etc)… you are a evil, despicable proto-rapist… But you’re not allowed to know when “too soon” or how much eye-contact is “too much”. In other words, you’re supposed to “just know”.

But if you ask feminists how you are to know which woman prefers how and when and how much and under which conditions, they will shame you, ridicule you, mock you or tell you to buy blow up dolls. But they will REFUSE any CLEAR and SPECIFIC guidelines.

They will tell you that you are an evolutionary despicable crap worthy of evolutionary extinction, but they will refuse to DEFINE any CLEAR, SPECIFIC guidelines.

Why? Because they know no two women are the same. One woman expects you to make a move between 50 and 100 minutes of knowing her (and if you don’t she writes you off as a wimp forever). Another woman is offended if you make a move in less than 5000 minutes of knowing her.

And that is FINE – diversity is cool. Of course different women will have different preferences!!! So of course feminists can’t write a list that says “you’re allowed to attempt a decrease in physical distance by 1 inch after 250 minutes of knowing her”. BECAUSE DIFFERENT WOMEN PREFER DIFFERENT THINGS.

– One woman (Jane) is offended that despite her being “super-flirty” (in actuality just friendly) for 2 hours you still haven’t decreased physical distance and you still stand away from her to a formal distance, in fact JANE thinks you are an ARROGANT prick and feels rejected for it

– ANOTHER woman (Susan) is offended that despite her merely friend behavior, you DARED come EVEN TRY to lean in closer to her, heck she’s only known you for a week!!!!

But here’s the issue then. If women PREFER different things, how is a man supposed to know what a PARTICULAR woman prefers? I and any sane human would argue that it is impossible to know without asking/testing.

And if a man can’t know a woman’s preferences in advance, how can he be punished for breaking them? Do note that the very act of asking/testing is ITSELF a move. Asking a woman if she’s interested IS a come on. Asking a woman if she wants to be kissed IS a move (which many women are offended by ironically enough, even if they like you, they get offended you asked).

Feminists say “err on the side of caution” – as in, “sure some women prefer you get touchy feely after just giving you a dozen or so signals on the first date – but to protect the discomfort of the women who prefer no touching until 10 dates have passed, you as a man need err on the side of waiting till the 10th”.

Ok fine, but “caution” is an infinite amount. Some woman somewhere prefers a man get to know her as a friend for a minimum of 5 years before he even attempts a decrease in physical space or increase in eye-contact depth. Sure, she might be one in a million, but where do we define “caution”. Is it to the level of accomodating for the 1 in 100 woman? Is it accomodating for the 1 in 1000 woman? Is it accommodating for the 1 in billion woman?


I honestly don’t care if feminists say “err on the side of caution to where you must make sure a woman passes 675 tests of interest before you attempt to kiss her” AS LONG AS THEY DEFINE IT – put a NUMBER ON IT. Make it SPECIFIC.

Attraction Sex Vs. Transactional Sex

Male and female sexuality is different. A man will only have sex with a woman to whom he is physically attracted. She must at least turn him on enough to give him an erection. A woman will also have sex with a guy who turns her on; call this attraction-based sex. However, unlike a man she also has the capacity to have transactional sex, which is sex in exchange for some benefit from the man. Things women will exchange for sex include: money, status, listening to her shit, doing things for her, buying her gifts, etc.

The two modes are not mutually exclusive. Most sex that takes place is some mixture of attraction-based and transactional. With escorts it’s typically purely transactional, though an escort may sometimes be attracted to her client, it’s a rare bonus for her. Fucking a stranger in the bathroom within 10 minutes of meeting her is purely attraction-based. An actress who fucks a producer to get a role – transactional. Fuck buddy sex – mostly attraction based.

Marriage and relationship sex is partly attraction-based, but with a hefty dose of transactional mixed in. Think of the boyfriend who picks up his girlfriend from work, or takes her out to a fancy restaurant. And think of the husband who financially supports the wife and children, while the wife stays at home or works an easier, lower paying job.

A lot of guys are uneasy about transactional sex. They see it clearly with prostitution, but are hesitant to admit it with relationships and marriage. Even with prostitution many johns like to be told by the prostitute how much they turn her on. The prostitute usually obliges as she caters to her client’s wishes. I’m sorry to burst your bubble fellas, but escorts typically bang you in exchange for cash and not for any other reason. Your girlfriend too, while she is likely attracted to you, she is also partly in it for the benefits.

We are much better off letting go of our egos and accepting female sexuality as it is rather than how we’d like it to be. This explicit distinction between transactional and attraction-based sex can help us make better decisions about our sex lives. There is nothing wrong with transactional sex in principle. Unfortunately the terms of the transaction tend to be unfavorable for men.

Let’s look at the different modes of transactional sex available to a man. First there are escorts, which I view as a mutually beneficial transaction. The advantages of escorts are:
1)    They are pros and usually good in bed and they are there to please you.
2)    The exact price is known upfront.
3)    It’s a sure thing.

Sex with a sugar mama is similar. It’s like hiring an escort on retainer, an intermediate step between prostitution and dating. Taking on a sugar mama still allows you to explicitly negotiate the terms, so I consider it a viable option.

Contrast this with dating. While dating is not the same thing as prostitution, there are clear parallels. Dating is a transactional system rigged against the man. You don’t know how many dates it’s going to take, you don’t know how much you’re going to end up spending, and you’re not guaranteed a lay at the end. She may simply drop you after a few dates. And if you do end up in a sexual relationship, she may suck in bed, and you’ll have to keep paying uncertain costs. Within casual relationships (i.e. fuck buddies) the quality of sex is also uncertain, but at least you don’t invest much.

Marriage is even worse. A wife is kind of like a prostitute with government protection. As is the case with all government protection, the protected group benefits at the expense of the consumer. Witness countless guys for whom sex dries up immediately after the wedding. In some instances your newlywed wife will even say that she need not have sex anymore since you’re married now. Then there is divorce, where you stand to lose half your assets and pay alimony, sometimes for life. Imagine how much hot escort pussy you could indulge in with all that money!

Of course, most women don’t view relationships and marriage as transactional sex. They believe that they’re allowing romance to develop and love to blossom. This is just self-delusion that keeps her from facing the unpalatable reality. Most civilian chicks don’t like to think of themselves as anything resembling a prostitute. There are women who see things clearly. With rare exception they refuse to admit it and compromise their bargaining position.

All things considered, most times it doesn’t make sense to have transactional sex with civilian chicks because the terms of the transaction suck. Only with escorts and sugar mamas does it make sense, if their services are worth the price to you and you can afford it. Admittedly I have never actually paid for sex, so I don’t have direct experience, but consider that Hollywood celebrities and rock stars, who are not lacking in civilian pussy options, still often choose to go to escorts.

Since I am aiming primarily for attraction-based sex with civilian chicks I go for it quickly and I don’t waste time and money dating. When she is sufficiently physically attracted to you, she won’t require much before giving it up, so long as she feels reasonably safe and comfortable with you and so long as you are discreet. On the other hand, dating is a great way to overpay for sex. A chick may be attracted and down to fuck, but if you ask her on a date she’ll accept and see just how much you’re willing to invest. She just hit pay dirt: a guy who she’d fuck without much investment willing to invest!

Unfortunately chicks don’t typically let on when they’re attracted to you and often proactively hide the fact. See: The Tiger Analogy. So we’re stuck with escalating physically and finding out that way. I dealt with this in detail in She’s Just Not That Into You.

So we have transactional sex via socially approved routes (dating and marriage), which tend to greatly benefit women at men’s expense. We have the players who “use women for sex,” never mind that women have agency and repeatedly choose to have sex with the players. And then we have various forms of prostitution (escorts, sugar mamas), which are mutually beneficial arrangements, but are frowned upon by society.

If you’re like me you don’t put much value on societal approval and you’re free and happy as a result. This is especially cogent in light of the fact that society cares little for you as a man. I don’t care to be “respectable,” a “gentleman,” a “real man,” etc. I am just out there looking for the best deal for me regardless of anyone’s opinion. Personally if I’m going to be banging civilian chicks I prefer for it to be mostly attraction-based. This limits me to one-night stands and casual relationships. If I ever go the transactional route it will likely be with escorts. Here are the various methods of acquiring sex in rough order of my personal preference:

1)    Attraction-based sex via one-night stands and casual relationships, so long as it does not take much effort.

2)    Sex with escorts or sugar mamas.

3)    About equal standing: Celibacy or an unusually hot and easy-going girlfriend.

4)    “Serious” dating with your average chick, even if hot.

5)    Marriage or anything resembling it, like living together.

What about love and companionship? First of all, for most men, companionship is of secondary priority as compared with sex. Men are taught to value companionship over sex, but male biology is setup in the opposite manner. It’s instructive to ask yourself how much you desire her companionship the moment after you’ve just ejaculated inside her. Another thing to reflect on: how much of a typical chick’s companionship consists of her nagging and being moody?

It is not at all clear whether wives and girlfriends, on average, are better company than escorts or sugar mamas. Loveless marriages and relationships are not at all uncommon, while escorts are known for being great company. I noticed in my own relationships that it’s not so much her company that I enjoy, but rather touching her and being in physical contact with her.

I hate to be so pragmatic and unromantic, but fake love and true companionship are services that can be obtained from a quality escort or a sugar mama. So the only thing left is “real love,” which consists of a chick missing you, wanting to spend a lot of time with you, getting jealous, feeling possessive. On the positive side it includes: her caring for you, greater intimacy within the relationship, better sex. In my opinion real love can be a good thing on balance, when you can get it from a great woman who is compatible with you, but in most cases a chick who is in love with you is more of a liability.

If you’re very lucky and you have a girlfriend with whom you have great intimacy, who doesn’t ask too much and who is sexually available and eager to please, that’s great for you. But this is rare. My point is to that we need to perform a conscious cost-benefit analysis of the various ways of obtaining sex and decide which approach works best for us. We can perform this analysis much better when we have a more realistic view of female sexuality.

[myth] Dateless men are only bitter because they shot out of their league?

A female commenter over at BP’s place posted a big rant about the “whiny, bitter guys online”. She made the claim that if a man is bitter or criticizes the dating script in western culture, it’s because he’s experienced a ton of rejections, and the only reason he has experienced those rejections is because he went “out of his league” and kept trying to get chicks that were “too hot” for him.

Apparently if bitter men (critics of the fucked up dating dynamics) only lowered their sights and stopped chasing the “hotties” (her words), these men would have no issue with the unfairness of the way dating works for men.

She says that such a guy has tons of “average women” who are interested in him, and would love to date him – its just that he’s too busy chasing the supermodels, so he doesn’t notice all the average women around him clamoring for his attention…

AlekNovy posted this response:

Let me answer the “guys only chase hot babes, and ignore the average/uggo women” point you brought up…

You are correct that many of the bitter men around the net are average guys who went around only hitting on the hottest women, ignored the average ones, and then went to complain no women like them.

It is true that when a guy complains that no women like him, it’s because he has experienced tons of rejections. However, the main reason he’s bitter is because NO WOMEN HAVE EVER SHOWN HIM INTEREST. That’s the point. EVER, in his entire life!

Your point that there’s a ton of average women who WOULD be interested if he asked them out, is irrelevant, because these lazy women are PROACTIVELY HIDING their interest. I don’t count subtle signals as hair flicks, accidental bumps and subtle hinting as “clamoring for his attention”, because that shit is only visible to women. On the actual surface-level, obvious communication level, these womeen PROACTIVELY DO HIDE their interest and act cool, uninterested and indifferent.

THEIR THEORETICAL INTEREST is IRRELEVANT when they don’t show it in CLEAR UNAMBIGIOUS ways, and when they proactively hide interest and play games. Women FORCE this SADISTIC ritual onto men where the man is forced to gather massive amounts of rejection before he gets a woman who finally admits interest back.

All of this could end TOMMOROW if women stopped playing the plausible deniability, interest-hiding game.

Basically, there is a MASSIVE thing you’re not seeing here…

You say the average guys were not hitting on the average women… BUT WHAT YOU ARE MISSING IS THAT… Those average women were ALSO not hitting on those average guys either! In other words, those average women were sitting around with an ENTITLED attitude of FEMALE PRIVILEGE, sitting around going “Guys need to approach me, kiss me first, ask me out first etc, show first clear sign of interest etc”.

See, the thing is. Being male is this massive pool of doing all the work, taking tons of rejections and seeing little gratitude for it. That changes little depending on whom you are pursuing.

– If an average guy goes out and hits on a 100 hotties, 97 will reject him.
– If an average guy goes out and hits on a 100 average women, 94 will reject him.

DO YOU SEE? While it is true that He’d have DOUBLE the success if he went for average women (3 women vs 6 women), the big picture is both involve tons of pain, tons of unreciprocicated effort etc (97 rejections vs 94 rejections).

The main issue is women’s laziness and passivity and plausible deniability. Those 6 average women will not hit on him, ask him out, etc etc. They are just as lazy as entitled as the 3 hot ones. Make sense?

If average women were less lazy, your point would hold more value, but as it stands, with women’s laziness, there’s little incentive for men to go for entitled average women.

The REASON these men are bitter is NOT because they shot out of their league. The reason they’re bitter is that they’re SICK of the system women have created and upkeep, a system that forces men to endure pain, humiliation, rejection and have to do all the work.

See “Dungone’s tiger analogy”.

Stoner with a boner added this great point…


this is something hard to articulate, but…

In my limited attempts trying to pick up women…

(well I hate the PUA # system but I’ll use it to simply illustrate this point)

I’d attempt a so-called 9, she’d let me down easy, “I have a BF.”

I’d attempt a so-called 7.5, she wouldn’t be as nice in her rejection, perhaps downright sarcastic.

I’d attempt a so-called 6 (who should probably be in my “league”)–those were some of the most humiliating experiences. Sometimes those women would go out of their way to be viscious. They’d even make fun of me to their friends and be all, “yeah, right.” They’d make sure I was humiliated.

This is a point everyone of us at mating-selfishness can vouch for. Our team ranges from lifetime celibates to guys with triple-digit-partner counts, and we come from a dozen countries. We can all vouch for this point. When you pursue less-attractive women, you not only get a very tiny relative benefit in terms of number of rejections, but the rejections are actually harasher, and more soul-destroying. They tend to be much ruder and meaner than the attractive ones. So the table should probably be updated like this…

– If an average guy goes out and hits on a 100 hotties, 97 will reject him, mostly in a polite way.
– If an average guy goes out and hits on a 100 average women, 94 will reject him, mostly in a rude way.
– If an average guy goes out and hits on a 100 below-average women, 90 will reject him, mostly in a humiliating and harsh way.

I ask the female reader: If you were a man, would you choose 97 polite rejections or 90 humiliating ones? Be honest…

Dungone elaborates:

Strategy A) If an average guy goes out and hits on a 100 hotties, 97 will reject him.
Strategy B) If an average guy goes out and hits on a 100 average women, 94 will reject him.

This is hugely important. Whether a guy chooses strategy A or B, a rejection will likely be conveyed and interpreted as these girls being “out of his league.” That includes the outright rejections as well as any subsequent breakups, getting cheated on, passive aggressive mind games, etc. The worst place for a guy to be, mentally, is to allow himself to think that he can’t even find something from the bottom of the barrel. And men absolutely do need impressive amounts of self-confidence to go through with the 100 or so rejections they will face before finding someone of girlfriend material.

This whole thing is a double bind that passive women create for themselves. When they adopt a passive dating strategy, they are by definition asking men to hit on hotter women than themselves. They want these super-confident men to give all the attention to them, but they end up bitching about those men hitting on hotter women than themselves, instead. It actually makes no rational sense for anyone but the hottest women to be passive, just like it makes no rational sense for all but the hottest men to expect women to hit on them.

Editorial Note:

It actually makes no rational sense for anyone but the hottest women to be passive, just like it makes no rational sense for all but the hottest men to expect women to hit on them.

If this sentence by Dungone seems contradictory, let me clear up the confusion. It seems like on the one hand he’s saying average women should hit on average men, but then he says only the hottest men should be hit on.

Those are the extremes. What he means is that only the hottest men/women can expect a less-attractive pursuer to do all the work. When it comes to equals, it makes sense for the effort to be equal. Average women should expect to do 50% of the work if they want to get together with an average man.

As it stands currently in western culture, average women expect average men to do 100% of the work and 100% of the effort and pursuing. Which as dungone points out, will only result in them screwing themselves over. If a man has to put in the same effort to get an average woman as he does a hottie, why would he bother with average women?

Dr. Mangina Love Posted some similar bullshit

P.S – DoctorManginaLove – a highly trafficked feminist PUA that all the major feminists endorse and love also keeps promoting this same myth-nonsense. He says that men and women have the same power and privilege in dating and ability to get laid on a whim. Its just that men keep chasing after supermodels. If the average man simply lowered his standards, he’d be able to get laid on a whim too! To quote the lying asshole…

Of course the idea that women have it easy and men have to fight for their right to paaaaaaaahrtay requires some willful blindness; yes, women can get laid with minimal effort… but so can men. It’s very simple: men just have to lower their standards… just as women would have to if they wanted sex on demand.”

Except there is absolutely no evidence of this in real life. You can lower your standards as much as you want (and many men have tried this idiotic advice and tested it deeply) -> the required work is still almost the same. You never reach anything near woman’s “I just have to leave the house to get laid” effort-level no matter how many standards you drop.


Amanda Marcotte: All Single Men Are Worse Than Hitler

This was written in response to a TheRealPeterman comment

She’s said that to me: “if you can’t get dates, you MUST suck as a human, no ifs ands or buts about it. No other alternative is possible

She’s basically saying that you are worse than hitler and most serial killers. I mean this is easily demonstrated by logic.

-> Some X can’t do Y because it has too much Z
—-> Then it logically follows that
-> Any X that can do Y has less Z than those who can’t do Y

This is basic logic 101 right? Well serial killers, mass-murderers, serial rapists and wall-street brokers who destroy millions of lives all have girlfriends.

For Amanda’s claim to be true, then you have to be more evil than hitler.

Notice, I’m not even disagreeing with her claim that all single men are worse than hitler. I’m just proving logically that this is what her statements amount to on a logical level.

-> If lack of goodness is what prevents bob from having a date
-> That all men who have dates are better human beings than all men who do not have dates.

This is just basic logic. I’ve just basically demonstrated that Amanda is making the following claim:

“All dateless men are worse than hitler”


If the above geeky explanation doesn’t suffice, let me say it another way. Amanda Marcotte is a big fucking bully preying on shy men. She is LITERALLY bullying shy people and harassing them and tormening them emotionally.

To say that someone is dateless due to lack of humanity is to imply that this person is worse than all people who have ever had a date (or at least regular dates). Note, hitler banged a lot, so did a lot of serial killers, so do most corrupt politicians and so do slimy criminals and pimps. People who build pyramid schemes and scam millions of people of their savings have dates. Nazi soldiers had love lifes and sex lives. So do most criminals, and so do most of the people on the Jerry Springer show. Most drug dealers and drug users have girlfriends.

And if YOU can’t get a date, it means you are less human than all of these groups of people… according to the vile-evil-idiotic-human-feces-known-as-feminist-shamers. Note, this isn’t a tactic used by Just Marcotte. I’ve seen it used by thousands of feminists. “You can’t get a date? THEN you must be a despicable human being !”

And that’s precisely what motivated me to write the previous post:

Why is it possible to have a good man dateless and have a serial killer who’s been in 30 relationships? How is this even POSSIBLE if GOODNESS was the reason one did or did not get dates? Obviously it can’t logically hold up.

Simple – women place the dating script higher up on the ladder than goodness. And I’m not saying it’s wrong or bad for them to do this. I just want it to be made clear.

A male volunteer that runs charities to feed children, but doesn’t ask women out will have less dates than a serial killer* who  hits on new women daily and asks them out. 

That sentence is TRUE and undeniably true. And that sentence should TELL YOU everything that’s fucked up about the traditional dating script.

*-> I’m obviously talking about a serial killer who hasn’t been caught yet. And I’m using these extreme examples to prove that “a man’s goodness” is not “the factor” why one has or doesn’t have dates. Obviously between two men of equal dating confidence, the one who is a more decent human being will get more dates. OBVIOUSLY… but the point is that the FIRST criteria, the FIRST barrier women employ is filtering for “ability to play the sexist dating script”. Goodness is NOT the first criteria, nor is THE criteria as despicable filth shamers like to imply.

Romance is for losers


A big mistake inexperienced men make is that they believe mainstream dating advice, and then there are of course those who believe the equally nonsensical advice of PUAs. It is not true, as PUAs claim it, that you can get any woman you want if you just used the right technique. However, following mainstream advice by being courteous, and not too pushy, taking girls out on dates, and waiting for at least two weeks before attempting to have sex with her will also guarantee that you won’t get much action.

Plenty of girls don’t mind if you waste your time or money on them, though. Why time? Well, it equals attention, and a plain average girl would rather have some average guy drooling over her than none. It doesn’t mean that she can’t wait to rip his clothes off, though. What guys who take girls out on dates don’t realize is that there is a much faster route. It’s just not necessarily available to them. Based on my experience, I am tempted to say that girls make the decision to have sex with you very quickly — if they are attracted to you. Then there are guys that just don’t do it for them at all. However, there is an unfortunate third category that can be exploited for material gains. This is where dating and diamond rings come in.

Continue reading…

What should a selfish-man (MGTOW) do in his sex life and love life? Proposal…

This is an initial draft proposal as a sort of a recommendation to MGTOWs (selfish men), on behalf of the MS crew. It’s yet to be reviewed and filled out by all of our contributors, but here is what the second draft stands as currently

Let’s face it, most women on this planet use plausible deniability or play hard to get strategies. Most women selfishly and unapologetically use mixed-signalling and don’t give a fuck if such actions on her part put you at greater risk and make you shoulder a higher responsibility in the process. And if that isn’t enough, female laziness in dating is rampant and worrying as well.

As an MGTOW man, or anyone pissed off about the increasingly shitty deal men are given in the mating arena – you most likely want to avoid rewarding such shitty behaviour on the part of women, not just because it hurts you on a personal level, but because you would be enabling a shitty gender-dynamic on the macro level as well.

As long as most men reward shitty behaviour on the part of women, most women will engage in it. Therefore, it is a moral imperative on your part to punish or at least not reward such shitty behaviour.

Most mating, sex, love and relationships happen as such:

– Woman sends mixed signals and will not readily admit either interest or disinterest

– Man persists, and keeps giving woman attention, keeps trying to impress her and show interest and make moves

– Until Woman Either

—> Humiliates him in a shitty rejection and often risks creep shaming, and in worst case he risks sex-harassment


—> She admits her interest back, and he “catches” her

Women basically will not inform you or let you know in which group you belong, and generally force you to risk hurt, pain and humiliation. If you ask the average woman out, and she IS interested, when she says no to the date request she will NOT say “I am actually romantically interested in you TOO! I just can’t make it today, ask me out again?”. The only way for you to find out is ask again. If she’s interested, then you will be deemed persistent, if she’s not interested, you will be deemed a creep. Same if you for example try to make a physical move. She will not inform you that she’s interested TOO but wishes you try making the move again at another time. She expects that you risk being a creep in order to find out.

To top it all off, female laziness is intervowen through this whole process, where she expects you to make all these first moves and first explicit actions every step along the progression, all the way to first intercourse.

Women wilfully force this russian roulette situation onto men. They could end the game any time, any day by being overt, unambigious and clearly stating their intentions, but women at large, don’t. They also see female laziness as an entitlement, one that they get pissed off if it isn’t being handed to them (google for topics where women are whining why men don’t approach them or ask them out, as if this is something having a vagina entitles you to).

On the surface it seems like you don’t have many options if you want to punish the female population for this crap:

It seems like you only have 3 options in life…

A) Become voluntarily celibate, getting laid very rarely in the rare exceptions a non-lazy overt woman shows up and asks you out, kisses you etc

B) Resign yourself to accepting this shitty dynamic, go pursue women and play their shitty game to get laid

C) Become a rockstar or a hollywood celebrity and have women throw themselves at you

These are not the only options however!! There are multiple options and ways to not rewarding shitty female behaviour

0) Going voluntarily celibate

This is a perfectly valid option. Don’t let anyone, be it Puas or feminists or your mom shame you away from it. Pussy is way overrated, and this is coming from people who’ve spent tons of time and effort in getting it. The only people who will shame you for not having sex, are people who haven’t gotten much of it. People who’ve had and gotten lots of pussy will be the first to tell you that your pussy-getting ability doesn’t define you in ANY WAY shape or form – no more than you would be defined by your ability to win chess tournaments. Winning chess tournaments isn’t a sign whether you’re a good or bad person, nor if you’re worthy or valuable. That’s societal brainwashing designed to get you to pursue women. Porn is a perfectly fine substitute.

1) Escorts and sugar-daddy-ing 

If you can afford it. None of us have any real experience with this option, we just support it from a moral standpoint. If someone has lots of experience with this, feel free to submit a guide.

2) If you want to be a father, consider surrogate mothers

3) Using social popularity to get laid a lot, while not rewarding female dating laziness or plausible deniability in ANY WAY, and restricting yourself to non-verbal persistence ONLY

As tripleG recommends, you can use physical persistence, but refuse to accept any sort of plausible deniability and always put women on the spot. This means blatantly call them out when they’re sending mixed signals and CALL THEM ON IT. Tell them they’re doing it. Our contributors do this in real life, it’s not some concocted KJ theory. Yes you can out loud call women on their bullshit and still fuck them. Tell them they’re playing plausible deniability and you don’t accept such crap.

You have standards and principles. Your standard says that you will only show non-physical interest in a woman if she INVESTS some effort (isn’t lazy) and is clear and overt about her intentions. If she’s ambigious, sends mixed signals and is lazy, and you DO want to fuck her, you can and will make PHYSICAL moves and show PHYSICAL interest.

This means you never ask her out, you never ask for her number, you never try to make sure she comes to the location where you’re at (or at most give her once chance by asking her out ONCE). After that, if she’s not CLEAR in her intentions and OVERT – she ONLY gets the right to being PHYSICALLY hit on. This means you can persist without rewarding female laziness.

Again, you might at most you might ask her out or show interest ONCE (admit your interest in her), but if she doesn’t immediately return the interest back and keeps it vague, she’s lost all rights to being directly pursued. From that point you ONLY treat her like a sex object, unless she earns the right to a higher treatment by HER caling you, her asking you out, and her overtly showing interest. Until then she only gets the right to be physically flirted with and propositioned on sight. That’s it. Now this strategy again, assumes you live a very rich lifestyle where you are likely to bump into these women many times over the year since you move in the same social scene – so you can be physically persistent and hit on them each time you see them, just don’t pursue (call them, ask them out, etc etc).

Note: You can still get laid a ton using this strategy, and a few of our contributors do just that. It does require having a rich and popular social circle and lots of social status so you always have dozens of women you can be physically flirting with and propositioning to on any given night. If you can’t be super social and have hundreds of female acquintances for some reason… then you would have to accept a much diminished sex life or look at the compromise in strategy number 4.

4) A non-social compromise where you get laid a lot by pursuing a lot, but still punishes female laziness and plausible deniability

If you can’t or won’t invest the energy and time to build the social popularity that allows you to use strategy number one, but still want to get laid a ton, while not rewarding female laziness and plausible deniability, you will have to compromise a little to still hold onto MGTOW values (boycotting female laziness etc). If your only source of meeting lots of women is by approaching strangers for example, you can’t really use strategy 1 above. That strategy works with women who you will run into and bump into repeatedly as part of a scene where you’re popular, so you can consistently hit on them without ever getting their number or asking them out in a romantic fashion.

If you’re dealing with strangers, and you refuse to get a more social lifestyle, I guess you will have to do some pursuing. You will have to ask women for their contacts, battle through their shitty deniability and do SOME pursuing. Yes, you will have to engage in all that shitty unearned stuff women get simply for being born. So, you will have to punish them another way.

Specifically, remember that the one thing most women seek and look for in dating is affection and commitment. As a true MGHOW, you should seek to withold all affection from lazy or game-playing women. In other words, if you have to play the pursuing game where a woman pretends to be disinterested, gives mixed signals and you have to ask her out 5 times, then just vow to do the pump & dump. The only way we men can bring about a better world is by not rewarding female laziness. Simply make it as a guideline for yourself that unless a woman invests at LEAST 50% of the effort in the courtship, she only gets the right to be pursued UP UNTIL FIRST SEX. That’s it. Never call her again, never talk to her again, even if you happen to like her in other ways. If she played plausible deniability, all she gets is the persistent offering of dick, once. That’s it.

Of course, if she calls you and asks you to come over and fuck her a second time, that’s fine. But if she made you jump through hoops, wasn’t overt and made you risk-creepiness to get her, all she gets the right to after first sex, is she gets the right to ask you to fuck her again. Refuse any non-sexual messages or communication from her.

5) Refusing to pursue and only using non-verbal persistence to occasionally get laid without being social

If you can’t or won’t build social popularity (where you have hundreds of female acquintances and can practice strategy 3 above) – AND you refuse to pursue women, you can basically settle with getting laid less often. You may either hit on strangers, or just hit on the few female acquintances who naturally are a part of your life or women you meet at job seminars or what not. And you can just restrict yourself to waiting for non-lazy overt women, or doing non-verbal pursuing of the lazy ones.

This means you would basically approach women in a very physically direct way like Aaron Sleazy or Good Looking loser. The only exception is you would only go for the women you can lay the same night. This means no asking for phone numbers (unless she enthusiastically hands it to you), no calling and asking women out (unless she asked you to call her and hang out sometime). In other words, since most women are lazy and expect to be pursued (get her number, convince her to go out as she pretends she needs to be convinced etc) – you will in most cases have to settle only for women you can take home the same night you meet them.

Now, the thing is, only a small percentage of women are not lazy. Also, a small percentage of women whom you approach (if approaching strangers) will be sexually liberated enough or on the right day of the cycle or the right phase of her life TO accept a same-night lay. This is why this strategy would produce less lays than strategies 3 and 4. The majority of women you meet (strangers) need to see you once more to sleep with you, and they expect to be pursued while they play the lazy “impress me and convince me” game.