[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…

Alek,

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.

 

Romance is for losers

http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.se/2013/06/romance-is-for-losers.html

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

OR

—> 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.

How (almost all) women and all feminists selfishly try to force you into a traditional male role

In this article we will explore a very selfish and brutal strategy used by women and feminists, and that is using “creep shaming” as a way of emotionally shaming you into outdated gender roles.

Most of the general population primarily uses direct shaming such as “man up and be the man and make the move”, “I’m not attracted to a wuss who has to ask me for permission before he kisses me”. While such direct shaming is also a form of bullying and hurtful toward men, we will not focus on unraveling such direct-shaming in this article because it’s pretty obvious and straightforward. We will only use it as a way of contrasting creep-shaming off of it.

The much worse forms of shaming are those that are indirect and insidious, sneaky forms of manipulation. Most women have at one point or another used sneaky-indirect-shaming, and all feminists have. The reason all feminists have to use indirect shaming is because using direct shaming is too blatantly apparent, and shines light on feminist hypocrisy too brightly.

So what is indirect shaming?

Well, there are many forms, but I would say the primary form is the use of so-called “creep shaming”. This isn’t to say that creepy behaviour is good, or that one should set out to make people uncomfortable on purpose. Of course not.

Creep-shaming is where women claim that not-conforming to a gender role is “creepy”. Let me give you an example. Let’s say that you are not Ashton Kutcher, and that you have common human insecurities when you see a woman you’d like to talk to.

– You see her

– Your mind starts racing “Oh wow, should I look at her more or look away? Oh wow, should I smile or is smiling too strongly creepy, or wait, smiling too little is creepy right!??! omg omg omg what do I do? What if that guy next to her is her boyfriend, how do I approach her?”

or

– You have had a great conversation with a girl, and now you’re standing in private

– You realize this might be a moment to kiss her, your mind starts racing “Oh wow, do I kiss her, or wait no? Do I like crack a kissing insinuation joke, see how she reacts, and if she reacts well I THEN kiss her?! No, no no wait, maybe I should just lean in and do it anyway? My friend said men do that when they think it’s on, but this feminist online said that’s so-called kiss-rape… oh wow, what do I do”

– If this continues and you hesitate past a certain point, the women who are interested will tend to lose interest and get disappointed if you don’t “man up” and do it quickly enough (the approach or the kiss), provided again that they wanted to be kissed/approached by you. If they did not want to be approached or kissed, your wandering eyes and uncertainty makes them feel uncomfortable. Your shifting all over the place makes them feel uneasy (they feel entitled to you taking the risk and responsibility while they lazily get what they want by just existing with a vagina).

Now… let’s parse this example through direct and indirect shaming language

Women who shame you directly will say that you need to “man up” and “be the man” and “just do it” and not care about consequences. A female friend might even say “So what if she yells at you and calls you a mouth-rapist, man up and do it”. If you protest and tell your friend that you read feminists online who said this is “assault” she will shame you and tell you to listen to “real women” and not feminists. If you tell a female friend that you had asked a girl to hang out for over a dozen times and never got the courage to make the move, she (your female friend) will say you’re a wuss and you just need to do it, because girls lose interest in guys who wait so long.  If you spend all night staring at a girl, and wait so long to approach her that she loses interest, your normal female friend will say you disappointed the girl and you lost her by being such a “wuss”.

Women who shame you indirectly will say that you are “creepy” and that you’re “creeping” women out for daring to make them uncomfortable. They will describe your hesitation and not knowing when and how to make a move, or not having the courage to make the move as “rapey”. The feminist will say that you are a “rapey” “creepy” and “deceitful” man for asking to hang out with someone for over a dozen times while only “pretending to care for her non-romantically”. The feminist will say that if you stare at a woman all night and don’t approach her up to the point where the woman becomes uneasy, then you are a “creepy eye-rapist”.

Do you see what’s happening here?

1) Both strategies are designed to make you feel bad about not performing maleness

2) All of these are centered around you performing typically female behaviour

There are many more examples. For example women being lazy as they are will not approach you, but they will spend all night trying to think up ways to hover around you, accidentally brush up against you and always be in your eye-sight. If YOU did this, you would be “creepy” and “stalkerish”  or a “cowardly” “wuss” depending on the shaming mode used.

DO YOU SEE? Do you get what’s happening here? Do you understand how creep-shaming gets used as a way to shame men into a traditional male role. Study any major piece by any major feminist blogger on the subject of “nice guys tm” and actually STUDY the actual behaviours they’re protesting. You will notice that 100% of them are traditionally female behaviours (i.e. passive mating strategies). This is how feminists try to shame men into the traditional male role.

The more sickening part is the cognitive dissonance created by trying to shame you away from it at and toward it at the same time. While I hate traditionalists as much as feminists – those losers are at least consistent. A traditionalist will say “you should just make the move”. A feminist is saying that you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Asking for sex is creepy, not asking for it is rapey. Being too direct is creepy, not being direct enough is creepy. Being too passive is creepy, being too active is creepy.

Pretty much the only way to not be creep-shamed by feminists is to possess telepathic skills, or have tons of experience. Now, it IS possible to be so calibrated and so experienced that you know exactly when to make exactly what move and to persist exactly how much. I’m getting close to that level, and a lot of the womanizers I know are at that level.

However, no one is born with experience. It probably takes thousands of rejections (and yes creeping out thousands of women) before you get that sort of fine calibration where you know exactly what to do “as if” you had telepathy.

Why do feminists hate nice guys, and never mention “nice girls TM”?

The most important thing to point out isn’t just that feminists hate nice guys… They hate lots of trivially negative things.

The thing that doesn’t make sense is the *disproportionate* hate leveled at nice guys.

I mean sure, feminists WILL write an article listing a set of reasons why nice guys are “not-ideal”. They will actually list things that we can admit are “flaws” (when comparing someone to perfection I mean).

Now, let’s for ignore for a second the fact that most women on this planet have these same flaws, and they are never bashed and mocked as “nice girls TM”. Let’s ignore that double standard for a second…

What’s really astounding is how disproportionate the negativity, bashing and vile hatred toward nice guys is (in proportion to) the “flaws” which are claimed as the “reason” for feminist hatred toward “nice guys tm”.

It’s so obviously over the top, that anyone with two braincells to rub together can immediately gather there must be ANOTHER (un-stated) reason for the hatred of nice guys.

I believe the leading theory is that feminists hate nice guys because they speak up about, and call women out on women’s hypocrisy and lies, and that is the number one anti-female sin one can perform.

How do we know this? Feminists only hate a nice guy after he publicly voices discontent with having been lied to by women. If feminists hate Joe for applying a passive dating strategy as claimed, how come they don’t bash Joe until and only after he complains that this strategy doesn’t work for men? (not to even mention, how come they don’t bash women, who in much larger proportion apply passive dating strategies)

The research is there too

According to the paper “Courtship Behaviors, Relationship Violence, and Breakup Persistence in College Men and Women” by Stacey L. Williams and Irene Hanson Frieze…

“[M]ales perform more approach, or regular courtship behaviors, whereas females are more likely to perform acts of surveillance, that is, attempts to make indirect contact with the love interest by way of (seeming) serendipity.”

Get that? Women are the ones more likely to engage in passive mating behavior. In fact, I’d personally say that’s all women do, being the lazy spoiled daters they are. But how come when men apply this strategy they are “broken and flawed nice guys TM” whereas feminists stay silent and all you hear is crickets on the topic of female passivity (indirect mating behaviour).

Feminists say that performing passive mating strategies is a character flaw. If you as a man are continually trying to find ways to be around a woman, hinting at interest, pretending to care about her interests etc etc… well then you are “flawed” and “deceitful” for not stating your intentions clearly and making a move.

By that same logic pretty much every woman on the planet would be deemed deceitful, even if she doesn’t take it to the extent of plausible deniability, which most women DO.

Assman posted a good comment over at SWAB’s too:

Here is my theory:

Feminists have a lot of innate preferences and values that don’t accord with male/female equality. They work hard to somehow fit their prejudices into feminism and somehow explain them away. What prejudices you ask?

1) A prejudice against male weakness – this is why they hate nice guys. Its not uncommon for women to hate weak men and historically its always been true that weak men have been hated by both men and women. Feminists have no good way of justifying this prejudice…hence nice guys.
2) A protective feeling toward females – this is in large part why feminism has been so incredibly successful. It has always exploited the biological desire to protect women on the part of both men and women. Notice that no protective feeling exists on the part of men. Ask yourself a question..when was the last time you felt protective of a man?
3) The view of men as lustful sexual predators and women as dainty things that need to be protected from sex – this isn’t biological…its societal. Most Christian societies have always had a problem with sex and have generally been anti-sex. There are related beliefs here like the view that men are “using” women when they have sex wit them. This explains why feminists demonize male sexuality and often try to protect women from sex with men

Sex, porn and voluntary celibacy

http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.se/2013/05/sex-porn-and-voluntary-celibacy.html#more

Here’s the graph, taken straight from Google Trends. It shows interest in the keywords “sex” and “porn” over time, and look at the success story “porn” has become:

“sex” (red) vs. “porn” (blue)

So, why would you prefer porn over sex? I don’t want to read too much into this data, but I couldn’t help but think of the rise of the MGTOW community. A relatively prominent position in this scene is to choose voluntarily celibacy, or simply pay for sex, instead of following some made-up social conventions. You know, nonsense like that the wedding ring is supposed to cost the equivalent of half your annual income, or that fat women have a “great personality” and all that jazz.

My perception is that it has become more common that men openly question societal institutions. Let’s be honest: there aren’t so many women around who are worth spending time with, let alone date or marry. Given contemporary obesity rates and absurd levels of entitlement, which are present in many Western women, I can perfectly well understand when someone says that he doesn’t want to participate in that kind of game. The MGTOW community is growing, and Western society itself does a pretty good job discouraging men from getting involved with women. There are risks everywhere. Heck, in some countries you would get into serious trouble if, say, you doubted that the kid of your wife is yours, did a paternity test (that then confirms that it’s some other man’s kid). In France, you’ll risk a fine of 15,000 Euros and a year in prison, and would still have to pay alimony.

So, is it any surprise that some men prefer porn over sex, as the chart above seems to imply?

I know, I know, I’m making quite a few assumptions here, but if you look at the general tendencies, you’d have to admit that it’s no longer unusual that men not only don’t marry, but refuse to enter any kind of relationship with women.

Continue Reading

It’s not always your fault

http://lifestylejourney.blogspot.com/2009/10/its-not-always-your-fault.html

It seems very little dating advice aimed at men acknowledges the faults women have, and that is a big mistake. It’s all geared towards self-improvement, which men must undergo, which is fine, but the sin is one of omission. Why should men have to shoulder all the responsibility for making things happen? It takes two to tango right?

The typical dating advice for men consists of the girl doing something, and no matter what it is, you have to “convert” that into something positive, like a date, lay, or whatever.

Continue Reading

Asking for a date now illegal, flirting as well…

http://thefire.org/article/15768.html

the Departments of Justice and Education have mandated a breathtakingly broad definition of sexual harassment that makes virtually every student in the United States a harasser

The letter states that “sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as ‘any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature'” including “verbal conduct” (that is, speech). It then explicitly states that allegedly harassing expression need not even be offensive to an “objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation”—if the listener takes offense to sexually related speech for any reason, no matter how irrationally or unreasonably, the speaker may be punished.

Among the forms of expression now punishable on America’s campuses by order of the federal government are: Any request for dates or any flirtation that is not welcomed by the recipient of such a request or flirtation.

Defining “any” romantic overture or sexual speech as “harassment” based purely on subjective reactions has dire implications for dating. It defines a single, unrepeated, civil request to go out on a date as “sexual harassment” even if the requester never makes the request again after learning that it was “subjectively” unwelcome.

That may effectively ban dating (since no one is a mind reader, and the whole point of asking someone out on a date is because you don’t know before asking whether they would be interested without first asking).

Continue Reading

Related articles

• Federal Title IX Enforcers Effectively Define Dating and Sex Education as “Sexual Harassment” (openmarket.org)
• Say Anything Sexual That Offends Anyone on Campus, You Must Be Punished or School Can Lose Federal Funding (reason.com)

The path that leads a boy to standing in front of a bunch of insane feminists preaching about time machines

A response to Black Pill’s fine article about the “feminist time machine”:

Thanks for this great post Black Pill. I want to illustrate how a boy would progress to being faced with the feminist-time-machine accusation.

There are five steps which will lead a boy to standing in front of feminists who want to sell him on time machines

Step 1) Young boy spends his entire youth being LIED TO by women that dating success relies on him being selfless, good, honest, decent and pleasing to women. He spends his entire youth being lied to by women in society that his mating success is ONLY correlated to his decentness as a human being

Step 2) However, as time goes on, this boy starts witnessing women dating, falling in love with and pursuing abusive men, cheating men, assholes, jerks, criminals, alcoholics, and men with all sorts of flaws

==================================

Lying through omission:On how women show interest

The commonly implied notion in female advice is the following…

– If you’re a good person, you will automagically end up in a romantic dynamic with a woman, merely by being a good enough person

– If no woman is currently in a romantic dynamic with you, this is PROOF you are a defective man and NOT GOOD enough

Now, when I say this is implied, what I mean is that the language is written so as to lie through omission. Whenever a boy asks women why girls don’t show interest in him, or googles the question. He will run into feminist blogs who say something like “The ONLY reason girls don’t show you interest, is because you’re not PLEASING enough, are defective in some way, or don’t do enough for girls as a group!!”

The part being OMMITED is that on planet earth, human females PRE-require that the MALE show interest FIRST. It doesn’t matter how attracted a woman is to you, she will not admit interest UNTIL you have invested a certain amount of risk in her. ANY advice a boy might run into FAILS to mention this and is therefore LYING through omission.

The other IMPLIED LIE in all feminist writing and most dating advice by women (again achieved through manipulative languaging) is that you should expect hyper-expressive super-enthusiastic invitations and super-expressive and super-clear signs of interest from women. In fact it’s either outright said or at least implied that you DARING to flirt or make a move on a woman who has shown anything LESS than screaming “take me now” enthusiasm effectivelly would make you a DIRTY ROTTEN CREEP. This form of advice often uses language which IMPLIES that if you’re simply GOOD ENOUGH (not evil and disgusting) you should have a life full of women giving you these HUGE FLASHING NEON SIGNS OF “kiss me now” or “have sex with me now”… which never actually happens in the real life, where female mating plausible deniability reigns supreme.

These LIES by women are what will often lead a PERFECTLY NORMAL boy who has PLENTY of girls interested in him feeling like a complete unlovable loser, perhaps even in some cases leading to depression and suicide. Because again, the end conclusion of the IMPLIED assertions and feminine dating advice and feminist writings is “If women aren’t begging you for sex, you are a FLAWED and broken in some way dirty rotten creep”…

HE WAS NEVER TOLD that women on this planet ONLY show interest back after you show it first, risking rejection, ridicule and creep-shaming. (justin bieber excluded)

==================================

Step 3) So here is this boy who’s been told that ONLY character and personality matters in having a romantic live, yet he sees tons of men with OBJECTIVELY shitty characters and personalities dumping their 25th girlfriend. This causes cognitive dissonance. Here he is, he can’t get a a woman to “show him interest” to save his life (or at least he mistakenly believes girls are uninterested in him due to the implied lying explained above). And he is constantly working on becoming a more moral person, a better person, a harder working person, contributing more value to women’s lives. Yet he keeps witnessing men who are FAR worse in character dumping and pumping women left and right. He witnesses, what from his perspective seems like women being a lot more interested in a bunch of defective guys, and not in him (again, due to the omission-based-lie about how women show interest).

===============

The big secret no woman dares speak of is that women as a group, only put character traits as perhaps the 4th or 5th on their list of criteria, despite lying that it’s the ONLY criteria. This is a bold-faced despicable lie. Women are just as shallow as men when it comes to the initial stages of mating… This is why a woman can spend an entire life claiming to be looking for honest, sincere, hard-working, pleasant men who don’t cheat, yet continually go from one cheating alcoholic to another. Those cheating alcoholics hit the first 4 criteria on the list, which women never speak of, they only list off their criteria starting from criterion number 5 downards… THIS IS LYING BY OMISSION.

This isn’t to say women date or prefer defective men. This is to say that a man’s character traits are a very distant criteria, despite women’s bold-faced (ommision-based) lies about it. This is why if a man of perfect character doesn’t make a move on a woman, but a more defective man does make a move, she will go with the more defective man. This is the big elephant nobody speaks of. Heck, a man of perfect character might ask a woman out, but she’d say no despite being interested, and go for the more defective man, she doesn’t even like so much SIMPLY because he was persistent and asked more than once, while the “good boy”, having been taught shameful lies, had quit on the first no.

The other elephant in the room that goes unspoken is women’s laziness in dating. They will not make a move, they will not express interest first, and they sure as heck won’t lean toward your head to initiate a kiss. And so here is this boy who has been LIED TO his entire life that all you need to do is “be good” and women will auto-magically become your girlfriends. Nobody told him that he’d have to battle female plausible deniability, and be sexually persistent and aggressive. All female-written and spoken advice is INHERENTLY dishonest because it IMPLIES that things “happen on their own”. It’s like you meet a woman, you’re a good man, and somehow it auto-magically becomes romantic if your CHARACTER is good enough.
The typical woman advice-giver DOES NOT DARE speak of the fact you have to MAKE A MOVE and get rejected a gazillion times by women to separate romantically interested women from women who are just being friendly/polite/using you for attention/unsure. No woman DARES tell you that the road to a woman ADMITTING romantic interest in you is paved with you getting rejected a ton of times until you get one that admits interest back. (please see dungone’s tiger analogy).

===============

Step 4) So after many years of this boy witnessing that women’s words don’t match their deeds, he might actually have the audacity to (gasp) dare mention it in public. He might even dare point out that (gasp) he’s dateless doing what women told him to do. He’s spent his entire life working on the things women said are the ONLY criteria in whether you get romantic interest from women or not… and yet here he is “forever alone”, while men of far worse character are dumping their 25th girlfriend

Step 5) At this point, the now-man gets accused of being a bitter entitled asshole. HOW DARE YOU THINK you’re owed dates for merely existing! YOU ENTITLED PRICK! See the REASON you don’t get dates is because women can TELEPATHICALLY SENSE you’re entitled you fucking woman-hating scum!!!! It’s all this whining you’re performing that repels women! That’s it! THE FACT that you DARE state women’s words don’t match their deeds is the REASON they don’t want to date you, you fucking entitled asshole!!!

There’s just one problem with this claim. This man was dateless for many years before he finally realized he’s being lied to by women at large. If he’s here in 2013 FOR THE FIRST TIME asking why women lie, having FIRST realized that women lie their assess off in mating, and he FIRST realized it in 2013… how can it be the reason he was dateless in 2005, back in high school?

Did the girls in his class have a time-machine? Did they dislike him in 2005, because they knew that many years later he’d dare notice women lie their fucking assess off? Obviously this is impossible. The actual truth is that he was NOT DISLIKED by girls in 2005, nor is he disliked now in 2013. In fact, he’s probably liked more than the jerks he wonders about being datefull. The actual truth is that those girls were proactively HIDING their interest from him because of a very selfish-trait of the female gender called plausible deniability. This is something the female of our species does to make sure the man invests a lot, so she can fully test his intentions before she admits her interest back.

But this boy was never told this. He was never told the only way to find out if a girl is interested in you is to continually make moves on her until she finally caves in and ADMITS she likes you romantically too. The most you can expect are hints. In fact, he spent his youth BEING LIED TO that girls will automagically fall in his lap if he’s merely a good enough person and that mating “happens on its own”. He wasn’t told that women proactivelly lie, and will go out of their way to mislead you, perhaps saying no, despite being interested, to test and see if you like them enough to ask a second time.

WARNING MISINTERPRETATION CLARIFICATION: We are not claiming nor saying that a man should persist or continue hitting on a clearly uninterested woman. When a woman DOES display clear and obvious disinterest, she is DEFINETELY honest about it, and the man should stop immediately. However, this is exceptionally rare, think the woman who folds her arms, pouts her face and turns her body away from the man.

What we do mean however, is that a woman who IS romantically interested in you, will for example sometimes turn down a first kiss attempt. She will for example say no to asking her out, despite BEING FULLY interested in you romantically BEING FREE at that time.  Most often the woman does NOT do this consciously or for a MALICIOUS reason. She’s not maliciously strategizing like “Hmmm, I’ll turn him down for his first date offer to see if he asks a second time”.

She might just not “feel” “ready” for the kiss at the exact time you attempted it, or she might not feel confident going for dinner on the specific night you asked. THE CONCIOUS PART comes in second. SHE WILL however not clarify it. SHE WILL NOT actually explain and say “Oh thank you for asking me out, I am actually romantically interested in you TOO, and am only saying no on this offer, but I’d love if you asked a second time”. THIS IS where the concious deceit part begins. She will PURPOSEFULLY leave it vague, and engage in plausible deniability. The only way to find out the truth is risk rejection.

When you GIVE HER A ROMANTIC COMPLIMENT, and she brushes it off, it MIGHT be because she’s not interested in you as more than a friend, or it might be because she got fluttered and shy she didnt’ know how to respond. The point is SHE WILL NOT tell you. She will leave everything down to plausible deniability limbo.

SHE WILL NOT come to you the next day and say “You know, the reason I didn’t respond to the compliment the other day is because I am interested too and just afraid of getting hurt. I’m actually interested in you and waiting for you to kiss me”. SHE WILL NOT DO THIS. IN FACT, she will WAIT for you to plant that kiss, BUT SHE WILL NEVER state her intentions. And the only way for you to FIND OUT for sure is by risking rejection and risk being wrong.The actual truth is that women lie in mating for many different reasons, the major one being plausible deniability. This is something we at this blog support. WE fully support women’s right to plausible deniability and mating deceit as a way to maximize their benefits in mating. Women have every right to be selfish. But so do men. And this is why we’re here. We want to point out that either both men and women have a right to be selfish, or neither one does. It’s only fair

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

 

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.