How women feel being chatted up

Picture the bus or train creep.

They act like you engaged them in a conversation. That, or you owe them in their mind because forming a sentence is the new standard of bravery for numales. 0-60 or you’re a “bitch”, or, ironically a “whore”, which is who they should be soliciting for that. (Why don’t women like modern men? Maybe because you won’t stop insulting us for having human boundaries?)
Like a dog with a chew toy, they refuse to let you politely leave.
Nothing is more inane than how much they supposedly lift, how much they supposedly make, how good a ____ they supposedly are…

Inwardly:

This applies even if we fancy you at first. The interest level drops. Modern men are more vapid than the average woman in any previous time period. We’re instinctively repulsed by this. Men needed courting so we could slowly care about your bullshit.
What do you think the common whine ‘but he’s different!’ is referring to?

You’re insulting us. We aren’t shallow. You clearly are (with men, it’s science and porn doesn’t help). You get rejected. You call us shallow, despite turning down someone superficially a good catch. You brought it up?

Do you cuss out companies if they don’t select you for a job?

No, that would be stupid. Women talk, so this isn’t any less stupid.

Related to the deceptive guy who claims to be friendzoned (you said you just wanted to be friends, you said you didn’t want to date, you invited hang-outs…) mixed messages weirdos, becoming an ogre that totally justifies your rapedar instinct in .5 milliseconds – you were never in the running because women cannot think with a penis we do not have

At least they can’t complain of something else like strangerzoned. Entitled prissy bitches. It has never been socially acceptable to solicit people in the street. You aren’t arrested, that doesn’t make it normal or acceptable. You’re signalling that you lack social connections or skills to get any woman to pay social attention to you without chasing her. Literally, physically stalking her down a street and yes, it is stalking. At most, they offer you their number, you don’t have to ask. This is how socializing works and you don’t automatically assume it’s a sexual thing. Not everyone is desperate or looking.

OR

this, the apex of the loser pyramid

No means no but no also means fuck off when you have to repeat it.

You can’t change it. It’s biologically impossible. In thinking you can change it, there’s something wrong with you or you’re a rapist who doesn’t actually care what the lady thinks.

Inwardly:

We have a phrase “…who are you?” trans. for Americans: you are nothing to me, leave me alone.

It’s the original stay in your lane. Bosses use it too, it isn’t sexual. It can also mean stop talking if a person must be in a meeting room. It works by the power of awkward silence and body language, like …women.

Then after intruding on personal space in public (every society has rules), being rude repeatedly and trying to force interactions (up to physical contact, unwanted, unsolicited, technically illegal*), you present us with a choice to accept this hostile takeover bid or reject you.

Yes, I wonder why the rejection rate for cold approaches is almost 100%.

It’s a mystery for all of time.

I have witnessed women troll men who come up to them. Wastehistime was a response to wastehertime, if you look it up. As in, if you want to play emotional head games, women will win. I don’t advocate talking to anyone this desperate because as well as verbal hostility (ugly) they are probably literally violent.

Ask yourself, since male upper body strength is twice that of women, approximately the same divide as regular men to NFL players;

Why should we have to let down gently an entitled stranger who wasn’t smacked as a child?

…Exactly, they’re not our problem. We escape the situation.

The men complaining about women who complain about harassment is like playing spot the vegan but reducing your rape odds. They could go to a gay bar for a month and report on what it’s like…..? They never do.

What to do?

Don’t approach strangers randomly. We can see the stink lines of desperation. We’re embarrassed for you. Think: do they talk to me like a child? Well, you don’t know this is something humans don’t do. So yeah. Valid.

*you can’t just go up grabbing people, that’s assault
if it’s only friendly, you’d do it with men as often

You want a connection, expand your friend groups. Yes, hard work, like all relationships. This also controls for people on your own level who will respond to you.

Note:

Bitch is now a compliment solely because these losers have changed the accepted definition of it.

Friendzoning man still feels entitlement

It isn’t just men, it isn’t just women, people suck!

http://elitedaily.com/dating/say-to-girl-benched/1725357/

“I mean, granted, I was never ready mentally, emotionally, or financially, but all I needed was time. I’m still not all the way there yet, but I’m ready to work.”

>When men in their thirties claim to be ‘figuring stuff out’ like an immature teenage girl…
Is he going on a juice cleanse? Backpacking round India? Converting to Buddhism? New gym membership? Read a great self-help book about Positive Thinking TM? Starting an online store for supplements?

You’re supposed to have figured out how to adult as a teenager.

When you’re double that age, it’s frankly humiliating.

“One day, I was going to take things seriously. I just wasn’t ready. I’m still not ready, but please don’t move on. I had it all planned out in my head. The timing just wasn’t right, I promise.”

Emotional abuse for $200 aka Let me gaslight you into doubting your own, accurate impression of me and treat you like shit because I wanna get away with being a terrible person.


R-types believe they can have their cake and eat it aka the Have it All lifestyle.
Life is all about timing, either you snatch up the good while it’s there or it will go. Life isn’t a dress rehearsal.

People pair up very quickly by around thirty. It’s like musical chairs in reverse. There are chairs but they’re kinda sticky.

“You knew that one day it would be you and me. So you waited patiently.”

That’s called friendship.
Women don’t wait around like that unless they’re crazy, like creepy men.

Sane people have personal boundaries and don’t allowed themselves to be used.

He thought he was playing her for emotional companionship and later, sex and wifing up, but that friendship was all she wanted. Classic!

“You seem happy. I hope you are because I’m not. I mean I’m happy for you. But I feel like sh*t. That gorgeous smile I see is the product of someone else’s doing.”

Narcissism. Furious that others are having fun without them.

“I can make your smile wider, though! I’m the only one who literally has you dying laughing, adding the extra O’s to your LMAO.”

That is the most 21st century male thing I have ever heard.
Men used to promise to conquer empires, dammit. That is plain pathetic.

He’s not even offering to cook her dinner.

SOME-THING.

I think this is why she was relieved he kept it at a friendship level.
She dodged 7 bullets out of a 6-chamber gun.

Women notice how you treat us, I covered this in detail. If we’re your friend and see other women being treated like shit, the sexual attraction DIES. RIP. NEVER COMING BACK. This is why we have the higher EQ.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/women-notice-how-you-treat-the-rest-of-us/

“It’s my bad. I waited too long. I played around. I thought you would always be there. I took you for granted. I’m sorry.”

False remorse, yep. *checks off list*

https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/shame-guilt-regret-remorse-and-contrition/
“By definition, character-impaired folks have deficient or sometimes even absent consciences. So, genuine remorse is usually not in their vocabulary when they do things that hurt others. They might well have some regret for the practical consequences of their actions, but that’s not at all the same as being remorseful. And, because they are predisposed to use their typical ways of coping (e.g., denying, lying, “justifying,”blaming, etc.) to deal with situational stressors, while they might experience momentary regret over an adverse consequence of their behavior, they usually only dig in their heels and become more determined than ever to have their way, primarily because they lack remorse. That’s precisely why they don’t seem to learn from experience. They actually do learn, and learn plenty. They just don’t learn the lessons we’d like them to learn. It’s because of their lack of remorse that they don’t re-assess their general approach to things and seriously consider modifying their style…”

They learn to fuck you over better next time.

Guilt is feeling bad about something you’ve done, whereas shame is feeling bad about who you are. The popular wisdom for some time has been that guilt is both essential and often helpful to moral functioning but shame is to be avoided because it’s counterproductive at best or outright toxic at worst. Some folks have extended the meaning of shame to include feelings of humiliation, embarrassment, or disgrace. But shame is not synonymous with any of these things (Words have to have meanings and it’s important to distinguish terms). And only recently have some researchers bucked the long popular trend by presenting evidence that some shame can indeed be good.”

He’d love to claim she cheated – on what, is the question begged.

To get this straight as a ruler;

guilt > for actions

shame > for persons

embarrassment > temporary, minor

humiliation > major, self-involved

disgraced > permanent, major, social damage to reputation

e.g. If you cheat on your spouse they are humiliated, if the neighbours find out they are also disgraced.

“Deep down, I’m hoping it doesn’t work out. I’m hoping he messes up — not to the point that he hurts you or to the point that you become bitter and maybe even take it out on me.”

translation:

me me me me me me me me me
but I care about you

This is why women have such concepts as toxic people and frenemies.
They hurt and sabotage you.

“But even worse than all of that is the fact that I’m old, lonely, and full of regret.”

Not her fault.

Come home when you get a chance. I’ll be here.”

Oh, fuck off.

Maybe.”

Kill yourself.

Please.

I didn’t edit that either, it really is that shallow. Check.

Easy men are not hard to get, they don’t get to play hard to get. Coyness is not attractive in a man, it’s commitment phobia. That’s the feminine role.

His earlier article:

http://elitedaily.com/dating/real-reason-guys-bench-girls/1542893/

“Benching”-when men friendzone wife material to pursue slags on the Pussy Parade but don’t want to admit to friendzoning.

“Some girls might call this a fuckboy activity or whatever.”
r-types.

#shudder

Don’t describe me as I am.

“There was never any pressure. Whenever we did link up, we had a non-sexual good time.”

They feel sexually entitled to everything – including platonic friends.
It’s like the so-called alpha widow or a retired porn star.
‘I’m damaged but you should want me even more because blah blah blah magic cheat code word experience.’
Mental damage is certainly an experience.
Bad relationships teach you bad lessons, abusive ones.

To continue seeking out other shitty people (his level) shows he learnt nothing after the first one.

Fool me once…

Once is a mistake, twice, a choice.

“…………….Bench carefully.”

He doesn’t tell men not to, he says not to keep stringing good women along for too long.
What an absolute POS.
Yes, he deserves to be alone.

I’ve seen too many good women lap this bullshit up and wonder why they get cheated on, married.

You can’t change him, you haven’t changed him, this isn’t a fairytale.

These posts are a PSA in avoiding crazy.

Evolutionary imperative makes men desperate

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/10/men-are-more-likely-to-be-sexually-attracted-to-friends.html

Yet what do the horndogs do? Blame the women. Reminds me of Eve Teasing.
We aren’t oversensitive to view friendly socializing as flirting! She make me think things on purpose!

Yes, it’s a subtle claim to mind control via feminine wiles.

Yet if an ugly woman, for example, fancied them? They have a right to say No, to have that right respected and to have standards.

If you don’t treat women like equal humans, don’t be shocked when they refuse to stick around.

https://www.quora.com/Should-I-end-a-friendship-with-a-girl-who-friendzoned-me-after-I-told-her-that-I-had-a-crush-on-her

Depends. Are you the sort of guy who believes a woman owes you something merely because you fancy her, and she’s done something wrong to you because she doesn’t fancy you back?

If so, yes, you should end the friendship…for her sake. You were never her friend to begin with. You were only playing the role of a friend in order to try to get something from her. Do her a favor and drop the pretense.

Are you the sort of person who is genuine about friendships and who values his friends? If so, no, keep the friendships, because real friendship rocks.

Instrumental relationships are not true. Some of the lower quality of either sex try to wiggle their way into a higher league’s affections via friendship. They did this from the beginning. It’s a deception. It is insulting. It is fake as fake tans, false nails and weaves.

Fake emotions are a million times worse than fake hair colours (the preening which men can do too). Those are the clinical actions of a sociopath.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/valley-girl-brain/201004/why-friends-first-doesnt-work

And it doesn’t work.

Take responsibility for a failed con? Nope. When in doubt, blame the bitch. Is it a man, who can never take responsibility for his own actions? Really, is anyone socially attracted to that?

Not to mention, physical attraction can wane in both sexes over time, making them seem more like a sibling. There is a window of opportunity where intentions must be made known, verbally. This isn’t anyone’s fault. The petulant boys who blame girls for not fancying them are displaying an ugly entitlement. Entitlement is ugly. Arrogance is ugly. Status is attractive. Confidence is always an act, but attractive when based on real character traits.
You don’t buy sexual favours with kindness. Gentlemanly behaviour is extended to everyone, even animals. It is the right thing to do and quite noble, it is about the person themselves, merely exposed in how they treat others. It is unconditional, the opposite of instrumental.

On the topic of another impossible situation, there is no such thing as a non-shallow choice for a woman, when viewed by a hostile man. If she chooses the poor boy, she’s dumb and he must be a bad boy underdog. If he’s rich, she only wants his money and resources, but the evolved needs of her sex is also her fault? If she chooses based on looks, what about smarts? If she chooses based on smarts, what about appearance? If she wants someone who can make her laugh, what about security? If she wants multiple traits because she can command them, what a shallow bitch!

There is no correct answer when you are dealing with an immature boy. 

You cannot win. They will rationalize whatever you have done because their feelings Uber Alles.

Women are not the enemy. They are the prize. You must earn and win them. That is called romance. You do not need to play.
Men are the enemy. Other men are the competition. You need to keep them away from your wife and your wife happy, even if you get one, it never really stops, the need to prove yourself. However, you’d never see these bitter brats mouthing off to other men, for fear of a fight. And that’s the problem. Men do not self-govern within their own sex anymore, forcing women to behave in masculine ways to protect ourselves. They’re cowards, bullying women for having agency, then gaslighting us for ‘having none’ (overtly false claims of hypoagency) because we didn’t make the ‘right choice’… They are terrible prospects for any woman, absolute losers that will never reproduce short of rape. But they feel entitled to a woman, like a piece of property (the term side piece springs to mind), because aside from the sex they presume to deserve too, and be amazing at (or called such), they want to boost their status among other men.

Yep, it’s all homoerotic.

The natural solution is to go gay.

Please, just go.

stop don't come back sarcasm no please go leave wonka

Thankfully many of them go fake MGTOW (trailing around after women telling them how much they avoid and never needed women).

If you want a woman with a man’s mind and sex drive, you want a man. Stop kidding yourself.

Either you want women for being womanly, or you don’t want us at all. Those deluding themselves on the last self-sabotage in relationships they do get. They need the Right Woman to ‘fix’ them… nobody can do the work you refuse. Self-improvement originates from the Self.

Previously, women would have been protected from exactly these sort of socially dangerous men.
Two types of sexual harassment, the obvious kind – swiping, petting, groping, lewd remarks etc.
Then the nagging. The whining. The guilt-tripping. Begging like a dog. The rape law calls it coercion. Consent must be freely given or it is not consent, similar to signing a contract under duress brings it into dispute. Simple contract law, applies to the verbal kind too. It isn’t even about the sex, legally. It’s about the emotional arm-twisting, the passive-aggression under the various guises of faux innocence. They know exactly what they’re doing. You know, male borderlines are under-diagnosed?

Sexual harassment isn’t really a male problem. Should we scream about it? Say the nature of crime data itself is sexist? Of course not, that would be futile.

Doesn’t mean we should tolerate criminal behaviours either, because the criminals belong to a certain group or sexual culture is normalized.

At this point, these whiners have constructed a narrative so twisted as a logic pretzel, it is impossible to make a ‘correct choice’. On one hand, we must protect ourselves against rapists. On the other, any man, no matters how much he bothers us or politely we refuse or let him know he is making us uncomfortable, any man should be treated kindly, because it takes a lot of ‘courage’ to talk to us, fellow humans in heels.

Pick a correct answer to agree upon before you bitch among yourselves that we don’t select it.

Counter-signalling only works if you have status to signal in the first place.
Otherwise, the error counts as beneath those who signal normally, and those who don’t signal at all aka the bottom of the shit heap.

Tying in to the emotional incontinence point firstly, if women are the more emotional and default oversensitive sex, why don’t we harass men in public?

Where does lust count in the hysterical hormonal stakes? They can’t plead special exception because aside from being a fallacy, and we know men love to be logical, women have lust too and we manage to treat men with dignity in public so much so, they complain about the most trivial things as if they’re comparable e.g. did you see the way she looked at me after I said I wanted her to ‘sit on my face’? What’s that bitch’s problem?

In context, those males make MEN, real, good men, look terrible, and at the very least, you need to sort out the conduct of your peers socially, get some new sexual etiquette into society, before starting on the people re-acting to the chaos.

Immature men are not the responsibility of stranger women. They do not make us look bad.

Evolution isn’t an excuse, or women would have the right to kill any man who flirts with them, on the grounds that he could have raped them, he had the physical strength, so all she could do was defend herself from the unprovoked interaction.

The rare times feminists hit on the truth

I wanted to give them a fair hearing. It’s like a tiny grain of sand within the pearl of lies. This refreshing collection took a while to add up.
I like to think of these as Original Feminists, back when they had standards that everyone held to.

12549027_1020301234682070_4174465352468957216_n

THANK YOU.
Honestly folks, it’s that simple. The person committing the crime is the criminal! The innocent person is the victim!
FINALLY.
940931_1022204501158410_829242774044190240_n

The term comes from a guy who wanted to fuck his own mother so badly he assumed every other man in the world must too. Mummy Issues is a thing as much as Daddy Issues. Same for penis envy and womb envy, it’s two sides of the same coin. If one is valid, so is the other.

12509509_1288432604641267_2059716406532880195_n

What often goes unmentioned is the reason for being gradual about it. The pure vitriol women get for putting down a gamma or lower upfront. Another aspect is how romantic relationships are not owed to anyone, and the bitchy type often lie in the beginning about their intentions (like some FWB women), amping up the friend element and leading into “we’re such good friends” and trying to segue into a girlfriend situation. As if we’re stupid.

cuntword

Irony that it took a man to point this out.

assaultanddrinks

It’s never ‘just a drink’. They think they’re buying you. Like a sex slave.
And they think you’re cheap.

At least whores are paid in cash, market rate, based on time and services rendered.
Hook-up culture is just hooker culture, fooling itself.

catcalling

The intended purpose is to make you feel bad because they know you’re out of their league. They know they don’t have a realistic chance so it’s like long-distance negging to prop up their delusions of alpha maleness. Those aren’t men, they act like teenagers. As if feeling SMV-inferior around someone is an excuse to verbally abuse them, they don’t dare pull that on other blokes at the bar or start on women walking with men, weaklings. It came from black culture and it’s hostile there too.
On the flipside, sex attackers often start with a catcall to test the intended victim, to get her to stop, come over here out of public sight, tell him your name so he can stalk you or they get a simple thrill from making a woman fear them, however temporary. The best thing you can do is ignore them or laugh, and that’s why so many women wear headphones nowadays. You don’t give strangers compliments, ever. Women aren’t dumb enough on the whole to try but desperate men think it’s fair game to judge while they’re standing in the street like losers and in addition, they think it makes them look less desperate for any female attention (no).

Solution? If you must express appreciation, a simple, single wolf-whistle.
That’s it. No words. No words are needed and you’ll screw it up.

12541115_1032880563445449_1806870584443679452_n

Literally me. Turns out they still blamed it on white men. For letting them in?

12573962_1020757527969774_4469542575472964008_n

There is no continuum or scale. It’s have or have not.
Sex is consensual. Without it, that’s the crime of rape. Whatever the sex of the initiator, I might add.

12615548_1021155484596645_2617871818339386548_o

There is a responsibility on men to know the difference between assertive and aggressive.
Former is romantic, latter is illegal (test: would you try those actions on a man who could physically equal you?).

12646809_1021597047885822_4040475063028680711_o

They rape women in hijabs. They raped women in petticoats. That’s like saying never buy anything nice and expensive in case you get mugged or burgled, it’s no way to live. This is the First World and we all have the right to show skin (including topless men) without being stoned to death. The responsibility for self-control lies with the tempted party. Feral males need to stop blaming women for their own weaknesses. Note: women groping stranger men is also wrong, the other side of Eve Teasing.

12647221_1022203891158471_6579726465610768773_n

Happened a lot during those days. Happens to this day when people have the excuse of alcohol (in studies, people act drunk with placebo drinks). They retain responsibility for their actions (including drinking within their limits) if they’re sober enough to enact them in the first place. Sober enough to do it? Sober enough to know better. Grabbing and kissing someone who isn’t interested ain’t right. Being in a club isn’t an excuse either, you wouldn’t be able to behave like that in a brothel ffs.

maleentitlement

Men can handle rejection as time saved. Boys take it personally.
Men have more experience of interpersonal rejection than women, usually. However, they also have more interpersonal opportunities as the approaching party.

means out of your league

I’ve heard some lower status men dispute the existence of leagues.
The veiled term men use for a woman out of their league is ‘high maintenance’, among others.

myreligion

Includes all belief, including political.
from the “You can’t call her Bruce!” pronoun people

objecticatoninmedia

Men say they’d be totally fine about male objectification until it happens.
Then they point and shriek like banshees because it makes them feel insecure…..
….. and how do you think we feel?

Get over it, like we do. Woman up. Stop taking it so personally. We probably aren’t comparing you to underwear models, because let’s face it, you’d lose.

takingitpersonal

Another stellar example of “You’re proving our point for us.”

We predict you’ll do XYZ when we use the male trigger word ‘misogyny’ in any context.

*XYZ happens*

Told ya so. 

Quit being so bloody predictable, if you didn’t feed them with instances of trolling or insults, they’d fizzle out and get real jobs.

Misogyny has recently made otherwise sensible men a laughing stock in the public eye, it practically makes them foam at the mouth whatever the bones of the argument being discussed. They lose it. Aren’t they meant to be the rational ones, as they claim?

Women notice how you treat the rest of us

My best friend confessed his love for me but I can't love him back because of the way he's treated other girls.  

https://whisper.sh/js/embed.js

This is very common and often a hidden factor in women supposedly ‘leading men on’ with polite affection or ‘friendzoning’ that doesn’t seem to make sense. She’s seen how you behave in a romantic context and she doesn’t know that person. She doesn’t even like that person. One of the few times 2 ladders theory comes in. She ignores it when you’re just friends but when you try to herd her into that other pen, where, as she sees it, you’re mistreating women like animals or treating them as less than human, she’s smart to say no thanks. Probably one of the things you like about her is her self-respect.

We aren’t lemmings and we aren’t as stupid as (some of) you seem to think we are. At least on social matters. If a woman lets on though, or tries to explain, she gets accused of being manipulative, when it’s social intelligence. It’s the way most women are, it’s our thing, in fact we’re being honest and a deceptive person never would be. The guys who get defensive like that are digging their own social live’s graves. Since again, all the other women are watching him react and wonder why he doesn’t get it.

Men do not appreciate this fact (that women note down all the ways you’ve treated her sex in the past, like a man noting which of his female friends is the easiest lay or the most feminist) and can be quite shocked when it comes back to bite them later, when she based a decision based on this supposedly ‘unfair’ information. Women are social creatures. It’s like seeing if a man is good with children, animals or the waiter. Or whether he has nice shoes. All of these seemingly random things are trying to infer future treatment. 

It’s easy to fake being decent now, but in a week? In a month? In a year? She’s sorting out the time wasters.

A good friend can be a bad boyfriend. The men themselves object to this as shallow (nothing to do with looks) when it’s simply an acknowledgement that they’re better in one social role than another. Better behaved. It can seem like, when the standards are higher (relationship) and the situation more intimate, they can regress and become brattish and even the parents of toddlers find them high-maintenance. The adult men do this because they figure they’re always in control and the woman can never leave (like their own mother) despite how it’s a tester for a marriage and they’re failing badly. It should be the other way around and the person should get better to know the more intimate you are, this is mature. A person should be the best at their core. If they never mature, you get middle-aged men who still think they should be able to get away with the same callous behavior of a 15-year old. When his relationships keep failing, he’ll always blame the women, especially the bitches who dared to leave him (when they gave him a chance, tried to correct him and realized he’s a hopeless case).

I think this is what women used to mean they spoke of ‘nice guys’ but the wires got crossed and came to mean indecisive pushover (it doesn’t) when used. If he isn’t nice (as a non-sexual person in any context) after he has no further use for you, he isn’t nice. He was never nice. He was probably the inverse, totally fake and manipulative. And I bet he hates children and animals and waiters and others who can see through him.

A lot of men seem to think they have a free pass on their single actions because future women or other female prospects will just discount it. Nope, that’s what men do (boys will be boys is spoken by patient men who matured out of that stage). If you treat other women badly, or have done enough to get a reputation or some stories out there, it will put off women who were otherwise on the fence, like at the initial impressions stage and they might only see you as a friend or badly behaved brother-type at best, where you feel like you have to keep explaining yourself to other women (why do you hang out with him?) and explaining away his bad behaviour like he’s a child (Little Timmy only broke the window because he’s bored). It’s quite disgusting to imagine you’d be treated that way in future once the novelty has worn off, and this goes most of all for cheats. Once a cheat, always a cheat. The only type of woman that is OK with it is also a cheat. It seriously messes up their long-term prospect in the same way as a slut becomes unlikely mother of your children material.

You can’t erect a red flag or few and wonder why people avoid you.

Naturally, we rarely discuss this with men who tend to take it too personally (you’re judging me when we’re just friends???) since it never happens in male friendships (because they’re all the same sex) and it’s alien territory (it’s just how women work, son) so we try to hint with the nice guy stuff or making it really obvious by asking how you treat your sister or mother (women you have nothing to gain from sexually). Even in jest.

You kiss your mother with that mouth?

superman drinking give up nope

Hope this made sense.

p.s. This is why women walk around in groups aside from physical safety. It’s like the crow’s nest in war films or when soldiers stand back-to-back to get a 360 degree view. To watch what, do you think?

Video: Kleptogamy aka the Sneaky Fucker Strategy

I would call this the Bruce Jenner strategy. Cuttlefish spring to mind, donning female pattern colours.
Trannies and gay (really bisexual) men get to spend a lot of solo time with sexually available women. Like men in theatre, cheer-leading or ballet.

This whole series, called Wild Sex, covers evolutionary biology and while moderately tame by redpill standards, it’s hard to deny most of it. I highly recommend it.

Also relevant:

This subtly answers a common manosphere question;

Q: Why are modern women androgynous?
A: Feminist-dominant society punishes them otherwise, wanting to keep the standard required from men low or neutralize the superior competition with similarity (pressure from women) AND in a free sexual marketplace, they get less unwanted attention from aggressive, rude males wanting only one thing (pressure from men). 

Maybe that’s why the question goes unanswered, the manosphere doesn’t want to believe it’s half the problem.

Did I mention I recommend it?

Whiny “friendzoned” orbiters actually conniving sneaky bastards

If you have to call yourself nice, you’re not nice.
Everybody is basically nice, it’s nothing special.
It’s like having a sense of humour, most people do.

http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/7/27/whos-hot-whos-not-time-will-tell.html

They tried to trick (let’s say for argument) the hot woman into finding them desirable, and failed.

In a new study4 the research team asked a sample of 167 couples how long they had known each other (as acquaintances) before they started dating. What they found was that for couples who knew each other for very little time (less than 1 month) there was a very strong correlation between each other’s attractiveness level (ranging between .53 and .72). But for couples who knew each other 9 months or more before dating, the correlation between partners’ attractiveness was basically zero.

Friend Goggles.
Like to like-like.

A similar effect was found when the researchers asked couples if they were “friends” before dating (I put the word friends in quotation marks because it’s always possible that one partner could be secretly crushing on their friend). For those couples who were friends before dating, there was a much lower correlation between their attractiveness levels. So the take home point is that people are less likely to match their partners’ attractiveness level if they knew each other for a long time before they started dating….

This is hardly the rule, however.
What usually happens is rejection, but these studies only study on the couples where the offer was met with acceptance.

Another implication might be that the best strategy to date someone “out of your league” is to become friends with them first and be patient.

Yes, leagues totally exist, contrary to what some whiny men have complained on here. Science!

One of my childhood friends calls this “playing the long game.” However, we do not have any data yet about whether this is an effective strategy.

Trans.: It only works on stupid people who don’t know or appreciate their own SMV.
That’s why the orbiters whine. And the mark gets insulted. The whole friendship was a lie, a sneaky fuckers-style sexual strategy (kleptogamy) to blind the woman to her own perceptions of sexual attractiveness.

It might work but only a small percentage of the time. Hopefully future research will help us discover whether “playing the long game” is generally successful, or if some people are more successful at it than others.

In the successful cases, the bridge between SMV must be small, in my observation. Like, 2 points MAX.

From the woman’s perspective, being the mark of such a loser is incredibly insulting (from SF link);

When low-status males have no chance of accessing females via traditional routes such as fighting or signalling their prowess, they may attempt more deceptive means of getting a mate.

Assortative mating applies to long-term pair bonding i.e. marriage. So all the guys in the manosphere below a 7 (standard bearer for attractive) expecting to marry a supermodel are never going to marry.

Women care about looks, stop deluding yourselves guys

We care AS MUCH, sometimes more. The manosphere needs to get over itself on this one. Everytime I hear a man bitch that women don’t care about looks online, you can tell he’s an ugly motherfucker. It’s like a feminist whining about attention paid to pretty girls, it’s pathetic. Stop. Is/Ought.

oh really am I supposed to be scared angelina jolie wanted big man uhuhO rlly? *I’m* the little bitch if I’m the tenth woman in a row to turn down your offer?
It’s almost like people don’t like giving away their valuables at a loss.

Sperm = cheap
Eggs = expensive
Sex = valuable to men, women? Not so much. The one who cares less holds the power, right?

Research: http://psychologyofattractivenesspodcast.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/overconfidence-when-we-think-were-more.html

You’re swallowing what your grandmother told you – “looks don’t matter” (to women) and passing it off as your original belief because it serves your ego in sheltering you from the reality. It’s in the same category as JBY (Just Be Yourself) for advice that requires a disclaimer about a book long and a series of asterisks listing exceptions longer than the Game of Thrones book series. If random people keep pulling this weird, twisty lip face when you discuss dating, you’re probably ugly.

hmm uhuh o rlly really ah sure thing

Don’t take my word for it, do the damn work and find out your number: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/an-easy-way-for-men-to-find-their-10-scale-value/ You’ve got a range of 1-2 based on external factors and the desperation of the prettier party.

This doesn’t make us women shallow anymore than not fancying landwhales makes you shallow. It’s nature. Everyone fancies attractive people. It’s evolution, it’s health, and it’s about the health of potential offspring.

Even when it comes down to the r-types, we have the Sexy Sons hypothesis. This overwhelmingly strong female attraction to appearance might dictate the bulk of their psychology, it’s that powerful. The stated exception is gold diggers, because plastic surgery is expensive and they’re rarely natural lookers themselves. The money overwhelms their disgust reflex and they’ve usually been around the block before settling.

Why do you believe women are special snowflakes when it comes to options? It’s ridiculous. Given two equally appealing choices, everybody, male female or alien would go for the more physically attractive. This was often swept under the rug because women had little historical say in mate selection (the betas and lower are the ones bitching about this now for that reason, they lost their power) and arranged marriages, complete with veil, meant if they knew they had a negative opinion of their husband-to-be, she had neither time nor purpose to point it out. It wasn’t as if women were expected to enjoy sex, was it? The woman’s sexual desire wasn’t a factor in the historical equation, so very little was written about it. Then courting came around, then dating and now hookup culture, where it’s plain to see if you pay attention. Look at any male model’s instagram account. Same as a woman’s, isn’t it?

Of course people care about looks when it comes to the opposite sex, that’s the difference between friends and more – do you find them physically attractive? It’s almost like boys in the manosphere haven’t heard the two ladders metaphor. This defines a big difference between male and female attraction mechanisms. If a woman fancies you, you’re on the prospect ladder. If she finds you ugly (that’s the brutal truth, it’s yay or nay) – you’re on the friend ladder. You ain’t never getting off, and the Friendzone is such a big deal online, because the boys in question refuse to believe women have eyes.

And dare to exercise a personal choice in whom to date.

You’re probably average, no shame in it, get over it. What do you think the Brad Pitt rule is about? Do you honestly think that guy needs a single bit of Game to have women interested in him? Pre-fame and money? Christian Bale met his wife when he was dirt poor and she traveled round with him. Any guesses why, children? [Clue: everybody has a personality, that doesn’t count as an answer.]

The starving artists stereotype is always drop-dead gorgeous. As is the hot nerd. And the hot librarian. And the hot businessman. And the hot gamer. It isn’t the context/skill/status that makes them hot, but adds to pre-existing hotness. And all pure stereotypes that appeal to women sexually, are already 10s….

What was I saying?

Gee, I guess that’s a MASSIVE coincidence…

You can’t convince women to be turned on by losers (genetic or otherwise), neither can feminists or SJW freaks. Attraction isn’t a negotiation. I’m saying this to help you. Women didn’t lie, your mother probably lied but she has vested self-interests, it’s usually the media who lied to you. The world has always been this way. Prince Charming isn’t the Hunchback, he’s a physical specimen of 10 like the Princess. The Beast turned into a hottie at the end to match his fiancee. Look at all romance plots written by women, the guy is never ugly.

Of course women are shallow, when it comes to dating, that’s all it is – being really, really shallow. Until you meet someone’s mutual standard of shallowness. One of the few totally valid PUA criticisms – they look at their actions, including external factors like income, and never pause to consider their physical league. If women seem to have a “bitch shield” around you, and you aren’t being rude, you’re probably swimming in the wrong gene pool. People with status abhor being approached by the SMV/MMV equivalent of peasants. This goes for men too, don’t start on a misogynistic rant about how all women are bitches and blaming them for your problems. If you were unemployed and walked up to random successful men in swish suits in coffee shops and in the street, they’d be disgusted too. You gotta have something to offer those people and bring to the table. What’s relevant in business? Contacts, contracts, money, skills. What’s relevant in dating? Looks, looks, looks, and a wildcard, like maybe you have a sense of humour like most people on the planet. You know that thing where everyone laughs at the hot girl’s non-jokes? It’s cos you don’t really see past the packaging, isn’t it? Women online are upfront about this, who they crush on and who’s the hottest out of XYZ options and men have the temerity to call us superficial…. nah, not gonna cut it, men discuss passing women in the street with the same lack of respect and when men have topless calenders and read lad’s mags at work, inappropriate doesn’t cut it either. We’re all adults here, opinions are okay. Alpha/quality males are serene about this and acknowledge quality women have options too and the non-quality proles of both sexes will daydream (few are foolish enough to try and play out of their league).

If you dare try and pull that feminist shit like “we don’t like being judged, it hurts our feelings” – erm, how do you think we feel, being literally marked on a scale when we walk down the street, like produce? Which sex is more sexualised in the media? Again, grow up. Adults judge things all the time and it’s a good thing. If you fall short, that’s your personal issue, not the people judging you and finding you wanting. You didn’t bring it to the table. You weren’t tall enough for this ride, whatever. Offer rejected. Nothing personal. You’d be a glad of a “bitch shield” if it was your wife maintaining it, in fact, you’d rely on it. That’s what really gets us – you expect us to make an exception for you and turn around and complain about special snowflakes. Does that make your hypothetical wife a bitch? Nope, she’s a quality woman who doesn’t fall for that casual nonsense we call pick-up, you’re just crybabies that spitting certain lines isn’t like a cheat code for sex with any random woman.

Short-term, who cares, get rejected thousands of times for all it matters. I don’t speak to those guys who wanna die alone because it fulfills some mythic complex about Eve and the wicked temptation of women.
For long-term, you need to redpill and look at the data. Assortative mating. People end up (most of the time don’t anecdote me) with someone of similar attractiveness to themselves. Not higher. Not lower. Similar. This way, neither party feels like they’re losing out on the deal of the relationship, getting the wedding is the easy part, maintaining the marriage requires effort on both sides. Sure, she loses post-pregnancy weight for you, but you can’t get a beer belly and wonder why she keeps getting headaches. It’s an exchange, no woman will ever be your mother (a mother figure you wanna fuck, creep alert!) unless she’s a co-dependent drip you don’t respect or trust. Long-term it’s an exchange of genetic material, the most serious decision you’ll ever make, an Eloi with a Morlock is poorly matched and won’t stick around for long and no, celebrities aren’t a rule or proof for anything in the real world.

Nothing wrong with being average, it isn’t your spiritual worth as a person, but it is your real SMV and likely highly correlates to your MMV, male or female, gay, straight, bi or whatever. Better happily matched, once your ego is over the shock, than #foreveralone because you had the male equivalent of Cinderella syndrome. Notches aren’t alpha, that’s a lie from PUAs trying to sell their book/site/method by spinning out notch numbers (not accounting for quality), your life isn’t a video game where you score for your score and if you’re top of the leaderboard you’re Mostest Alpha Man; it’s getting the Best woman in a social circle (the socio- in sociosexual hierarchy) and keeping her is what an alpha male does.

Bonus attachment!

Link: Why Pretty Girls Hate Being Asked Out By Losers

http://www.triggerwarning.us/why-pretty-girls-hate-being-asked-out-on-dates-by-nerds/

I think they misuse the term nerd to mean loser.

At least nerds have something going for them. It’s like a caste system, and what they find attractive/repulsive is determined by their position. You have to be pathetic to get a SJW, but this isn’t a norm to all other groups. There isn’t a crossover. If you seek a prep wearing goth gear you’re going to get shot down. Context is key.

I think it’s about this expectation that, while being shallow themselves (after the pretty girl because she is pretty) they have a double standard that the girl in question should have no physical standards and like him for existing, pretty much. They’re fishing out of their league and wondering why they get shot down repeatedly, then bleat how they hate being single, but not enough to date within their league or go without sex (like a normal person) without complaint. It’s very immature.

In dating, you sell yourself. You can’t expect romantic attention for other things that are not romantic in nature (work things, personality, being a “nice person”) – those are a given. Practically everyone has those. Most women would rather be single than with a loser, because their overall value in the future is reduced by dumper-diving in the same way as a man sleeping with a fat woman. Dating isn’t charity work, you aren’t supposed to be a nice person. It’s a social exchange, and these entitled people, truly entitled, bring nothing to the table while expecting a supermodel. If they actually have character or a good personality, that would be one thing to boost their otherwise average looks with the halo effect, but the worst kind befriend you because they’re too chicken to ask upfront, trying to, in effect, blackmail you with friendship feelings into accepting the offer. Those are completely separate from romantic feelings, which are completely separate from sexual feelings, but younger men fail to understand this. When a woman says she likes you as a friend, she means it, in the same way a man says he has no long-term feelings for a fuckbuddy. The ruse uses a woman’s greatest gift, her emotional intimacy, against her. You ever wonder why so many women nowadays have trust issues? THIS sort of bullshit. They can’t even trust their “friends” to be their friends.

You want a free hooker and don’t care about her as a person, she’s just body parts to you, but you refuse to admit it, and furthermore, lie through your teeth to somebody you’re supposed to care about (as a friend or more), saying it’s about anything else than sex (abusing terms like “love”) and laughably, saying you’re doing her a favour. Is it any wonder they hate you? After you put them through that level of emotional anguish? And now you’ve ruined the friendship by making it awkward and weird because you exposed your own plan in throwing a tantrum like a toddler when she declined. “Friendzoned” boys act like passive-aggressive women, thinking if they make the friendship hard enough the woman will give in like a mother figure buying sweets at the supermarket. It’s hella creepy. We don’t even put up with that bitchiness from other women, you’re gone. Friendship finished. Friends don’t deceive one another and certainly don’t start a campaign of emotional abuse. It’s morally repugnant.

When someone asks you out on a date, they are basically saying that they think your standards are low enough to voluntarily go out with them.

It’s an insult. You’re assuming (arrogantly hoping) they’re in your league or think they’re in a comparable league while you know logically they are not, or you wouldn’t be attracted to them (their high SMV). Women can separate feelings of friendship from romantic attraction in the same way men separate sex and love. It isn’t our fault we don’t fancy you, it’s yours. You aren’t attractive enough. It’s like a fat girl asking out the King of the Jocks and blaming him for not finding her physically attractive. Except fat is easier to lose than whatever his appearance-based shortcomings are. Sometimes it’s completely out of your control, like height or race, in which case, get over it. You can’t expect to be compatible with everyone. You can’t negotiate/’shame’ around it and no relationship based on that would last long. Attention from a woman isn’t all the same thing on a sliding scale, like a game of Mario where you rack up points to move onto The Next Level and the final round is sex; in the same way a man wanting to fuck you might fairly balk at the prospect of marrying you. They are completely different considerations. That’s why women run as fast as they can in the opposite direction. It’s like you switched the game between you (relationship) from checkers to chess and demand they play without their consent. Women expect men to know these basic things about them, especially since being in friendships with them, and treat them like individual human beings. Blaming women will just make you more bitter, more of a turnoff in human form and you’ll never resolve the problem. Hint: The problem is you.

There is an issue in the manosphere and fake MGTOWs and a certain type of entitled boy, where, if you tell them the truth, the complete unvarnished truth, they shut down. They refuse to believe it or call you wrong because it hurts their feelings. Maybe they start with the personal attacks when it’s an impersonal topic. You wanted the truth, you don’t get to complain about the taste.

Losers want winners. Winners have a choice. Losers can stamp their feet however much they like, the winners will always be in demand amongst themselves. Life isn’t fair. Your presumptions are baseless. Self-improve and STFU.

The Friendzone: Exchange or Communal relationship confusion

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pop-psych/201501/quid-pro-quo

I speak in generalities, as always…

Friendzoned men don’t understand the value of sex differs between the sexes. The perception, experience and behaviour of women regarding sex is completely different.

A woman’s sex is valuable, usually her ultimate value and human expression (sadly). A woman who would give that away casually (FWB), for a mere friend on a regular basis (easy to gain and lose), either isn’t very smart or has no self-awareness/esteem. Essentially they want the woman in question to be as blind (if deception is involved as to their ‘nice’ intentions) and desperate as they are (horny but with no genuine lasting affection for the intended target) and blame her for ignoring the situation (to save the man embarassment and hope he figures it out by himself) or despise her for explaining the truth (especially so if she gave no indication of romantic interest or outright told him such). That last group are, indeed, entitled creeps. You can’t even pay a prostitute in kind deeds and they knowingly enter exchange relations, because women no longer value those kindnesses on a sexual level (provider types flourished in times of hardship and war, long gone). There is also an argument to human decency but it varies depending on nobility of upbringing and expected manners. Friends don’t call in debts of kindness, it is supposed to be natural, and pity sex is no sex at all.

You can’t turn a hoe into a housewife, but you also can’t turn a good girl (who would take pity) bad. It works both ways.

Whereas if a woman assumes she is highly desirable, it reflects badly on her, however true. The ‘friendzoned’ boy assumes the same, the flipside yet same ugly arrogance and entitlement [how could they ever say no?] that if he is nice enough to ANY woman, she will find him desirable [even seasoned players get rejected, it’s a fact of life]. Cases of ignorance are more sympathetic if one party is young but women in particular underestimate just how many of their male ‘friends’ have hung around in part because they want sex too. As before, sexual perception varies and men desire more from more casual relationships, which women in turn have a hard time wrapping their head around, assuming deception from this when there may have been none, just a hopeful ‘let’s see what happens’. It’s all very muddled by PC egalitarian BS and lack of formal rules for expressing interest.

In this life, it is a hard lesson to learn that nobody owes you anything.

You cannot reason another into an emotion. [Look at all I did for you... betraying what should be a communal relationship for a petty exchange one from the beginning, from his perspective alone, as if every woman’s sex can be bought. And the boys wonder why average women are insulted by this, and for making the game of what could be love in some rare cases so base, calculated and overt.] Subtle as a brick.

Where the friendzoned is a woman, she uses an offer of sex as a lure, the bait to something more. When this is rejected, it reinforces the fact that nothing she offers will be good enough. As she must already have low SE (to give up her primary value) this causes a spiral. The lowest barrier of something universally appealing (non-sexual affection) is not only insufficient to build a history for more than that but repulsive to the target on principle because it is used as a tool for manipulation. Relationships should be honest and founded on communication and trust, these are flouted. The frustration is similar to the male case but not the same.

And then there’s the signal function of desperation, including claims of unending loyalty with conditions (oxymoron), which is a turn-off in EVERYTHING [emphasis for people who found this by Google and need help.]

The reason such exchanges cannot be made explicit, I think, has to do with the signal value of the exchange. Consider two possible friends: one of those friends tells you they will be your friend and support you so long as you don’t need too much help; the other tells you they will support you no matter what. Assuming both are telling the truth, the latter individual would make the better friend for you because they have a greater vested interest in your well-being: they will be less likely to abandon you in times of need, less likely to take better social deals elsewhere, less likely to betray you, and the like. In turn, that fact should incline you to help the latter more than the former individual. After all, it’s better for you to have your very-valuable allies alive and well-provisioned if you want them to be able to continue to help you to their fullest when you need it. The mere fact that you are valuable to them makes them valuable to you. [assortative, matching hypothesis]

Fairweather friend v. Real friend.

Here’s a secret: you always learn who your true friends are eventually, and by then it’s too late to repair bridges and reconnect on the same level. Let the fairweather ones fall away, don’t be scared to cast them out yourself, and it will be one of the best things you have ever done. The stakes are higher for any relation above a common friend. The highest is spouse. This is why friendzones create such high tensions and emotions. It’s an almost autistic response on part of the ‘friendzoned’ to fail to see why their approach doesn’t just fail, but damages whatever was there. [no trust, no love]

In turn, this would create the need for people to distinguish between what we might call “true friends”—those who have your interests in mind—and “fair-weather friends”—those who will only behave as your friend so long as it’s convenient for them. In that last example we assumed both parties were telling the truth about how much they value you; in reality we can’t ever be so sure.

It’s easy. Like if you were dating someone and were unsure of their commitment level, freeze them out. Don’t call. Let the loved one go and see if they come back. If they never do, they were looking for an excuse and deceiving you the entire time. This is the origin of the Ice Queen approach and relies on men being the pursuer.

Without such credible signaling, I’d be left taking you at your word that you really have my interests at heart, and that system is way too open to manipulation.

Ya think? Everything in life is a risk. Be yourself (omitting gross personal problems, get those fixed) and the people who like the real you, quirks included, instead of what you expect them to like? Those are the keepers.

Such considerations could help explain, in part, why people are opposed to exchanging things like selling organs or sex for money but have little problem with such things being given for free.

It puts a price on the highest spiritual human expression [materialist/spiritualist division in people] and damages the social fabric.