All posts by AlekNovy

About AlekNovy

Stop looking at me! Argggggh

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—



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.

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.