30 comments on “What Would You Do If A Woman Showed Interest In You?

  1. The sad part is that

    a) women who are interested in you GENUINELY, don’t show interest directly.

    b) women who want to just use you, can show interest directly.

    c) women who are disinterested in you, OPENLY and directly show their disinterest in you, even if you aren’t hitting on them or anything. In fact, they seem to feel a need to universalize their interest like “ewww, that creep” LOOK AT HIM.

    The reason it seems like every woman hates you WN, is because the women who dislike you, they go out of their way to ANNOUNCE their dislike and disinterest.

    The women who do like you, will always hide their interest. It’s a big explanation for why women do this, but insecurity and how they’re raised (gender roles) has to do with it… “Never show a guy interest first or you’ll seem desperate and easy”… etc… etc…

    If you went around and asked women out, as much as 30% would say yes… Isn’t that funny? As much as 30% of women are interested in you, but until you asked, you wouldn’t have ever known any of them were interested.

    And yes, if a woman comes out of nowhere and starts directly hitting on you and touching you, and asking you out, there are large odds that she might be a predator like you fear. She’s either that or one of the super-rare, super-confident women who can show interest in guys first, but these women are super-rare.

    I’ve often asked why feminists aren’t doing anything to empower women to ask guys out, show interest, speak up when they like a guy etc… And feminists always freak out and never have a coherent answer. They’re all for empowering women to loudly shame, mock and proclaim disinterest (apparently that’s “breaking the silence”)… Going around loudly mocking, shaming and humiliating guys they dislike is apparently “empowerment”. Tagging random guys “creeps” is apparently empowering?

    But why isn’t showing interest in a guy you like – also empowerment? Feminists still allow for the centuries old rule of women never showing interest first – to still go on. They don’t mind that women are still silent on positive feedback. They don’t seem to want to break THAT silence.

    That’s in fact the greatest source of misogyny today. If we as men ONLY get negative messages from women, it feels like all women on planet earth hate us. And it’s basic human psychology to hate back that which hates you.

    I don’t care that if you’re a guy only (say) 5% of women hate you – the truth is, that it FEELS like 100% of women hate you, because the negative 5% seem to go out of their way to LOUDLY announce how much they dislike you – while other women say nothing in your defense.

    The 30% who like you pretend they don’t notice you and wait for you to show interest first (by asking them out, verbalizing interest first etc). The 65% of women who are neutral, just stand around, and don’t defend you when the 5% are attacking you and labeling you a creep. So yes, from the perspective of the average guy, it does seem like 100% of women hate him, because 100% of the feedback he gets is negative.

    And if the average guy feels like 100% of women are out to get him, than how can he do anything else except develop misogyny? And feminists don’t want to take any blame for this. They’ve been empowering the ability of women to provide negative feedback for decades, but they never gave women the ability to provide positive feedback.

    • The 30% who like you pretend they don’t notice you and wait for you to show interest first (by asking them out, verbalizing interest first etc). The 65% of women who are neutral, just stand around, and don’t defend you when the 5% are attacking you and labeling you a creep. So yes, from the perspective of the average guy, it does seem like 100% of women hate him, because 100% of the feedback he gets is negative.

      Why should I believe these women exist? These women NEVER SHOW UP. It’s not really about who asks who out. What about the times I was accused of sexual harassment? Where were these women then? If they liked me so much, you would think that they wouldn’t want me to lose my job or anything like that.

      Not all women may actively hate me, but the ones who don’t obviously don’t care enough to go against the ones who do. It’s not about them saying they like me. It’s about standing up for truth. Clearly, the women who don’t actively hate me care more for female solidarity than anything else. Because of that there is no other possible conclusion than no women are interested in me.

      • You are probably less likely to get played for a chump when you take the defensive actions to make sure that women have to put themselves out to get your attention.
        If they can’t pursue a man they want…
        They shouldn’t complain when the man they want picks someone else,
        chooses to leave the country or
        gets another job.

        For all the women who complain that nice men end up with bitches…
        nobody is stopping you from going up against those bitches. And a man has more to lose anyway. So in a sense so-called good women are throwing away their opportunities with nice men. What does that make them?

        So why don’t you ladies so concerned about the good men getting away… get yourself a good man? Unless of course, you say what’s socially convenient instead of DOING what’s right…

        The “men who are not visibly wanted” have no need to take risks with their livelihoods by going after women who are very calculating with their feelings.

  2. She doesn’t mention her age.
    Nor does she mention the job that she has.
    If a woman your age in a dead-end job shows interest, you can bet damn near 100% you’re being taken for a fool.
    Some of the ways you know the interest is genuine… is when the woman can attract others, but only chooses you and goes out of her way to show appreciation.

    A woman who cannot shake off the programming to be as miserable as the “sisterhood” says she must be, is not a woman you want to be with.
    As you will be judged by a parade of bitchy, irresponsible, battleaxes. And if such a woman agrees that you must be judged in that way, through doing nothing,

    What does that make her?

  3. I followed the link and read Karen’s post. I think this speaks more directly to women’s sense of entitlement than anything I have read before. I have no doubt that “her children’s need for a good provider” would justify in her own mind her seeking child support from from the cuckolded, duped hubby if he ever left, even if the departure was the result of his knowledge of his non-paternity.

    This is aggravated paternity fraud, committed with premeditation and arguably, malice.

    And, I would be willing to bet if hubby did find out, Karen would be both indignant and demeaning of him for his temerity to protest, even as he began the first swing of the baseball bat, or the first thrust of the blade.

    • I think he should change his name, transfer all the money out of his bank account and leave.
      The moment he turns violent will be used to justify more women repeating such bad behaviour because they know they can get away with it, and there are too many mangina men who say that “because some men ruled the world, ALL men are responsible for their wives cheating on them”.
      When the reality is, this type of woman is evil and should never have been married by a man who, as a virgin… really should have known more about the nature of women.

  4. in the old days, paternity fraud probably wasn’t too serious, because the off-spring would be usable labor for a farm or factory, and they were not entitled to family inheritance. These days, children are mostly expense, and very little utility. Worse yet, modern husbands have no rights, and they can easily get stuck running the child support treadmill for a cheating wife.

    • In the old days, paternity fraud probably wasn’t as common either, women were not able to slut around with many men.

      • Don’t be so sure about it not being as common in the past. DNA analysis has proven that we are descended from twice as many women as men. That is, throughout human history, twice as many women as men got to reproduce. Think about that for a second.

        Even the results of hundreds of thousands of DNA tests in the current day don’t say 50%, but they are somewhat somewhat close. However those interested in kowtowing to the current status quo or maintaining their tenuous grip on reality as it’s being destroyed by emerging science downplay even the ~30-35% rate of non-paternity the DNA laboratories are consistently reporting.

        My take? This has always been a big problem, but at least in the old days a man could expect justice if he found out about it. So women had to be very secretive about the whole thing. Now because of how fucked our judicial system is, women can be as brazen as this disgusting specimen quoted here without any fear of repercussion for their clearly anti-social and destructive actions.

        It’s good that we live in a day and age where a man can find out whether he is actually the father of a child. Sooner or later once knowledge spreads about this, things will change. There has already been proposals for mandatory paternity testing in at least one US state.

        • “Don’t be so sure about it not being as common in the past. DNA analysis has proven that we are descended from twice as many women as men. That is, throughout human history, twice as many women as men got to reproduce. Think about that for a second.”

          The reason for that is simple. Back in the day, polygamy was widespread and rich or high status men had multiple wives. The majority of the female population would almost always reproduce, while only a minority of powerful men do.

          Paternity fraud really wasn’t that common in the past, when sluts were still demonised.

  5. Wow, I couldn’t imagine that White and Nerdy could get any creepier, but he has!

    It is patently obvious that he is incapable of seeing women as human beings, which is why he’s still a virgin. He’s dangerously close to snapping and murdering a bunch of innocent women, like Marc Lepine did.

    I hope he seeks help.

  6. I don’t hate men. But you two clearly hate women, as evidenced by the glee you get from fantasizing about my painful death. You should also get help.

    And Laurie Dann also hurt girls. She in no way compares to Marc Lepine, George Sodini, Ted Bundy and other misogynistic murderers you no doubt idolize.

    • These murderers get more women than us,

      and we realise many women would really want us to do something wrong so they can roll us for all we’re worth.

      So we don’t deal with such evil women. After all… a woman CHOSE to marry Ted Bundy AFTER he was put in jail.

      I don’t recall convicted female murderers having to deal with a deluge of romantic messages. Maybe you know differently, since you are in touch with the reality of feelings?

    • I realise the game you’re playing… you want us to explicitly spell out something against you so that you can get us off the interwebs.

      How about you relax with your wonderful boyfriend, and since we’re such evil nasty people… you don’t come here?

      Or are you going to claim offense when you voluntarily go somewhere and expect it to conform to your fantasies… and complain when it doesn’t?

    • Her contribution as an object lesson of the kind of people that both make this problem exist and persist,
      is something money cannot buy.

      For that, she should be recognised.
      And avoided, of course.

      There’s something delicious about exchanges that end with women displaying angry hypocrisy and pouty entitlement… all the while attempting to provoke people wise not to take the bait.

      It smells like payback.

  7. Pingback: Adventures in Trolling: White and Nerdy

  8. What irks me is that this woman acknowledges that man’s genetic goal is to spread their seed, and says that she loves her husband… yet denies him a legacy by both refusing to reproduce with him and preventing him from laying with anyone that might.

    Since when were good providers of poor genetics, anyway? We don’t live in the barbarian world anymore; the ability to stabilize a family is far more valuable to society than the ability to beat people up and make some vicious slut orgasm.

    Not even evolutionary psychology justifies her misandrist malice.

    • She wants the ability to cheat with the hottest guy she knows, while getting the “man she does not want” to pay for it.
      It’s fraud, plain and simple.
      She knows she is not woman enough to tame that hottest guy she knows.
      But she can look at her son everyday and say, “for that few moments that man was mine, and look at what I have to show for it.”
      “A lot better than the guy I’m with, he is only good enough to pay for me in his life. Because, my presence is my gift to him!”

  9. This post is so true.

    Forgive the narcissism of this necessary establishing statement, but I am generally considered to be a very attractive male (I still have spend most of my life alone because I am 100% socially inept, but I digress)

    I am constantly hit upon by married women. CONSTANTLY. Sometimes I have known these women for years before this happens, which is why it really confuses me when it suddenly happens. Obviously they wait for their husband not to be around before this happens (It takes more then something little like he left the room, its usually at least something like: he left the country for a week or so.)

    I will never forget the one who (totally unprompted on my part) started a conversation about affairs (in a sort of implicit hypothetical sense) then eventually got around to pointing at her fairly impressive and expensive looking ring and said, while smiling seductively, “This really doesn’t mean anything you know.”

    But what has been most shocking to me about this behavior is what they say about their loving caring husband behind his back just because he is temporarily physically remote. They frequently start this flirting, something that I didn’t even realize was flirting at first, by degrading him. They literally make it known, by a series of increasingly scathing anecdotes and their increasingly cruel perspectives on the situation, how much they control their husband, how they really don’t care for him all that much, how he really is just a dumb provider of assets and opportunities. The full discussion is often subtle and takes a long time to unfold (perhaps this is mostly because I am 100% socially inept) but if you look back on it and boil the whole dialogue down it becomes: “Yah so my husband is an amusing source of revenue, gifts, and security, but he doesn’t really meant much to me. I’ll keep him and my marriage around because the situation is undeniably nice, but they really mean nothing. So you shouldn’t feel threatened or thwarted by that dumb schmuck and my superficial relationship to him. Now with that established, wanna’ fuck?”

    I have no idea how they plan for things to proceed from there because usually at this point I am just staring at them with a slightly agape look of bewilderment that has a touch of horror to it. Things naturally just devolve to silence, then awkwardness from there, and then seem to be magically flushed down her memory hole. There may be no such thing as game, but man is their anti-game, I know cus’ I haz it in spades (now if only that were something marketable that I could sell some books or DVDs with).

    The truly eye-opening thing about this is that far more married women have hit on me then single ones. Essentially, if the thought of ruining the fidelity of someone else’s marriage didn’t horrify me, and I weren’t 100% socially inept, I would have slept with far more married women then single women. I hate to overgeneralize but it really looks to me like many women seek a stable relationship first to establish money and reliable maintenance, and then with those secured are more free to turn 100% of their desire on other interesting male aspects. If you want to find a woman to date who doesn’t care about the money you make or social status you have, find a “happily” married woman.

    Naturally some might wonder if all the married women I had this interaction with were older and thus more desperate – possibly in stale relationships that slowly had become loveless. From what I can tell, this has not been the case. The few unmarried women who have hit on me have generally been older then the majority of the married women who have hit upon me. Also two of the younger married women who have flirted with me were married less then five years at the time. Obviously this is all qualitative and I can’t link you to something like an Excel spreadsheet with exact numbers and data to back up this claim, but for what it is worth I assure you I am very confident in this assessment.

    I briefly talked about it with one male friend who has the opposite “problem” (formidable social skills but not exactly male model material). I was a bit upset to learn that in his book married women were good game: easy pickings, less time and monetary investment required, and that really it must be the husbands fault if the wives can be enticed into cheating let alone if they are actively flirting.

    Personally I just felt awful for these husbands that their wives were even flirting behind their back. Perhaps it is just empathy and not any sort of ingrained morality in me though. In the few relationships I have had I was cheated upon rampantly. I have found nothing so draining and emotionally painful as having to cheer her up because the other (secret) guy left her. I didn’t really believe in emotional scarring until I realized how doing that on three different occasions has changed me. That and the behavior of supposedly happily married women are the primary reasons that led me to go my own way.

      • http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=WestPac%20widow

        Ah I see, I wasn’t familiar with that term before. Honestly it doesn’t take the amount of time of a WesPac deployment for many, but it does usually take a bit more then a week and a fair deal space. I would say that: time x distance is non-linearly proportional to the probability of infidelity, as a rough estimate from personal observation. As such I can see how WestPac Widows term is very appropriate because the probability of infidelity should definitely be approaching one under those conditions. Poor bastards.

  10. Is that story real? If yes, that woman is truely disgusting. But even worse is the man. I don’t sympathize with him, he probably had indications about her character before or shortly after their marriage and he had the choice to leave if he didn’t liked it. believing otherwise you are implying men are stupid and cannot make their own life decisions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s