Category Archives: Uncategorized

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.

…the pursuer is disposable…

Originally published at Stonerwithaboner

Is this ad sexist?

I originally saw this at Femdelusion.

Perhaps some find the ad sexist because the women are in bikini’s.  I live near the beach and women in bikini’s are just business as usual.  These women are wearing maybe a few inches less of fabric than perfectly respectable athletes in the Olympics.  The man is sans shirt.  Likely the advertisers did this to not offend censors rather than some social cometary on the double standard between male toplessness and female toplessness.  While we’re on that topic ladies, I’ll sign the petition to allow you to take off your shirt anywhere a man can if you sign the petition to end my obligation to sign up for  Selective Service.

What is it that makes this ad potentially offensive or potentially powerful?  To me it is the fact that the gender script has been flipped.  Many men might see this as a fantasy.  The man doesn’t have the pressure of being the one to pursue, he is the one to select.  He is smiling and continues to spray almost as if a wizard invoking an incantation.  The women have maddened, frenzied looks on their faces, he appears joyous.

I don’t think these women can be considered “objectified.”  They aren’t showing the passive, coy looks of Playboy Playmates.   It shows the disposability of the pursuer role. A few fall , this seems to show a relentless pursuit where they worry not of injury. It also shows athleticism and ferociousness but I don’t think anyone would label these women as “empowered.” Most of the women will not succeed–perhaps they get to try this event many more times or perhaps it is their one chance in life–we are left to speculate.

Now, here’s the parody ad…

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?”


– 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

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