153 comments on “Dr. Manginalove Should Be Named Dr. Hypocrisy

  1. you guys want to read some twisted shit…

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/if-we-liberate-men-s-sexuality-war-against-women-can-end

    She is a sadist who beats, pisses on and ass rapes men. These slimebags pay this psycopath for the “privilege.” And her fake sympathy is disgusting. Of course Fraudtrelle is eating it up–and I’m sure there will be another donation drive so he can afford her “services.”

    Of course the implication is that if you want to have sex with a slender woman you are a filthy misogynist but if you give her money to humiliate you, you are fighting “patriarchy” dahrling…

    • That is disgusting. That woman is a sexual predator. Most of her “clients” are guaranteed to be victims of feminist indoctrination and bullying if not outright suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome. They go to her not because the mythical patriarchy suppresses their sexuality but because it’s the only sexual outlet for them. It’s a very disturbing aspect of The Reserves. It’s not the patriarchy that says a man’s sexuality should not involve abuse from women. It’s common sense, basic decency, and individual rights that does.

      Here’s a question to consider. There are dominatrixes that abuse men like the author of that link. How come we never hear about the same thing, but with the genders reversed? It’s because if a man did to a woman what a dominatrix does to a man, he would be arrested. Men are (correctly) not allowed to abuse women, but women have the freedom to abuse men.

      • another creeper is Jack Donovan–it’s okay to be a neo-nazi race realist, just as long as you fuck guys up the ass. Notice how Fraudtrelle hasn’t written an article about him but he has about every other major manospherian. Gays and womyn are allowed to be reprehensible and not critiqued but low status men (regardless of race) are subhuman pieces of shit.

  2. That line about Dr.Manginalove’s website not being about giving dating advice to men but about attacking men is so legit. God, what a con. I feel sorry for the real nerds out there who takes what he says seriously (nerds like Scott Aaronson.)

    I came across a comment on another blog that said that real, solid dating advice aimed at men (without consideration to female interests) will always be taboo and on the margins–it’s a bit suspect that so many women are commenting on Dr.Nerdlove’s site approvingly.

    • The closest thing I can think of as dating advice aimed at men is crap written by Eben Pagan/David DeAngelo, the con artist who invented game. It’s BS, but since he was just interested in money and not spreading an ideology, it’s the only dating advice out there that’s truly directed at men.

  3. Heh, I came over here to bang on Dr. Nerdlove for this very occurence :). Clearly his is a feminist site trying to indoctrinate men under the disguise of “advice”. We need to look at the subject of feminists hating nerds, since it seems nerds are more likely to believe feminism’s BS.

  4. Hi – I saw someone talking about this experiment done by John Calhoun on mice and was curious what your thoughts are. The mice had everything they needed, started from 16 mice, and ended up dying out totally. Here’s an excerpt from the wiki:

    ———————–
    Initially the population grew rapidly, doubling every 55 days. The population reached 620 by day 315, after which the population growth dropped markedly. The last surviving birth was on day 600. This period between day 315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and in normal social behavior. Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against. After day 600, the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed “the beautiful ones.”

    The conclusions drawn from this experiment were that when all available space is taken and all social roles filled, competition and the stresses experienced by the individuals will result in a total breakdown in complex social behaviors, ultimately resulting in the demise of the population.
    ———————-

    You were right all along, of course – the problem is systemic, and it’s in our minds. I think it absolutely makes sense that in this post-scarcity society, everyone feels superfluous – and a natural response to superfluity for a social animal is to increase the culling of the weak.

    If the constantly observed insanity of feminism has shown anything, it’s that the feminists are operating at a level that’s beyond logic. They have an overwhelming impulse to hurt weak men and to see them fail. Even if feminism were shameful to them, they’d still be disgusted by weak men and want to see them fail. Disgust, I think, operates at a much stronger level than logic in terms of what actually motivates our (especially women’s) behavior.

    I don’t know what the way out is. I’ll be okay in this lifetime because I’m pretty good at one of the few skills that still are in-demand, but there’s no saving all of us. Even if you can stop the feminists from proudly declaring their disgust, most men will still be trash in women’s eyes. It would take a global catastrophe to make men – all men – valuable again.

  5. You know, Dr Mangina sure took a lot of words just to recap the old SNL sexual harassment sketch:

    1. Be Handsome

    2. Be Attractive

    3. Don’t Be Unattractive

    In fact, Dr Mangina is worse. At least the sketch admits the whole thing is essentially arbitrary: you’re either handsome or not. Dr Mangina wants to recast it as some kind of morality tale, where the hapless and the hopeless (at dating) are filthy, despicable people whose inferiority (at dating) justifies any and all measures to cleanse society of their wretched infestation.

    Really, I have no idea why people call them feminazis.

  6. A couple of days back I wrote a comment on FC and it hasn’t been approved yet, so I thought I’d post it here…

    It’s a response to a comment by “400boyz” where he linked to an Amanda Marcotte article called “MIT professor explains: The real oppression is having to learn to talk to women”.

    —-my comment———

    The most infuriating thing about this response is just how extreme it is. (the response on their side in general, not just this one specific marcotte article)

    – I can understand not wanting to take responsibility for the side-effects of a campaign you have running (especially if you think you’re doing good work by doing it). It’s natural, it’s human to think none of your stuff has side-effects or unintended consequences.

    – But these people think that spending DECADES demonizing EVERY SINGLE CONCEIVABLE WAY of flirting or making a move on a woman has 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000% unintended consequences on men

    – They think that spending DECADES exaggerating HOW HORRIBLE and EVIL it is to make EVEN THE SLIGHTEST social FAUX PAS (or causing EVEN THE SLIGHTEST moment of akwardness in an interaction with a woman) has 0.00000000000000000000000% chance of causing anyone fear of doing things wrong.

    Now I if they said something like

    “Yeah I get how if you have a predisposition towards some mental disorder it can be made worse by misinterpreting what we’re saying”, maybe we should explain it a little better.

    (which is still taking much less of the blame than is objective, and its still taking no responsibility for being bad communicators)

    I’d be only 1000000000000000x less furious than what they do NOW. Right now they say that WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING for decades has 0.0000000000000000000000000% influence.

    None, it’s entirely the individual’s fault because he didn’t understand what they meant or was paralyzed by the utter contradiction and harsh punishments promised to him.

    They won’t even admit (for example “a miniscule-influence due to misunderstanding that’s not even their fault”. )

    They won’t even do this kind of admitting 0.1% blame instead of the 50% blame they actually do deserve in my opinion.

    Heck don’t call it blame, call it INFLUENCE, they won’t even admit 0.000000001% influence and its gas-lighting of the worst order.

    NOTE: they don’t even say “Oh you misunderstood what we meant”. No, they SAY you are an evil wannabe-rapist or hate all women or are “mentally disordered” for daring to even SUGGEST that their contradictory rules MIGHT HAVE HAD any influence…

    That CONTRADICTORY rules might have caused someone a cognitive dissonance based paralysis. (Which happens to humans when you give them contradictory rules and tell them they’ll be PUNISHED and shamed for breaking them, especially true of intelligent humans, which the professor is).

    AND NO IT IS NOT A “MENTAL DISORDER” to fear punishment for breaking a rule (I am so freaking ANGRY at the people claiming the prof has a “mental disorder” because he feared punishments THEY THEMSELVES instilled fear of!!!)

    .
    .
    .
    Now…Even IF YOU ASSUMED they had the MOST perfectly good faith motives in the demonization they’ve done. (assume it was 10000000000% only intended to lower GENUINE sexual harrassment) and 1000% done in absolute good faith…

    – Even if you assume there is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000% bad faith or bad intentions on their part.

    – Humans are not perfect at communication and misunderstandings happen, where sometimes you have to clarify what you meant.

    But anyone who’s gone through what the prof has gone through will tell you that if you ask for clarifications you are told to shut up and stop being such a rapist, and that it’s not their duty to educate you (or any of a hundred other ways of refusing to clarify).

    Now are these feminists (with their denial of 0.0000% responsibility and influence) claiming to be perfect communicators? If they are, it’d be the only perfection claimed to exist in this universe (aside from the perfection being claimed to be had for gods in different religions).

    Because literally (as has been discussed at length)

    – they give 1000000 rules of what makes you a harasser where LITERALLY ***everything*** on planet earth is “potentially” harassment AND DEFINITELY creepy (with no objective specifics given of where the “potential” comes from and in which cases it is or isn’t creepy)

    – and you’re told that creeping out a woman makes you as evil as a rapist, and as we know rape is the most absolutely evil thing on the planet

    – and to ask clarification for when it is and is not creepy, makes you a wannabe rapist (asking for a clarification does).

    (I won’t even go into all the cases you will be told to kill yourself or don’t deserve to live for asking. Let’s assume those people are “extremists” and not represenative”.

    Though I spent my early 20s being told to kill myself by so many identifying as feminists, because I asked for a clarification)

    And then to say that this COMMUNICATION STRATEGY THEY EMPLOY has 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000% influence on ANYONE developing a fear of flirting (or even merely increasing or triggering any pre-existing anxities)… is absolute gaslighting.
    .
    .
    .

    I am going to suggest that one of two things has to be true here:

    1) These people are not acting in good faith with the demonization campaigns they’ve run for decades

    or

    2) They are simply lousy communicators who don’t admit responsibility for being misunderstood or not noticing the logical contradictions in their communication

    I am going to say its a mix of the two.

    Now if you ask them (go to the marcotte link or the comments), the answer is:

    – Their motives are 1000% pure and pristine and its absolutely and entirely all done in good faith AND

    1) You are secretly a rapist and only misunderstand or are confused by their logically conflicted rules because you have a secret desire to rape women and are looking for an excuse to rape

    or

    2) You have a mental disorder and it is 1000000% your fault if you misunderstood what they meant (remember, they were acting in good faith and only genuinely demonizing actual sexual harassment). They had 0.0000000000% influence on you being paralyzed or triggered into anxiety. It’s just that you have both a mental disorder and a complex of blaming people for the development of your disorders.

    • Hey Alek you have done work for AVFM as a volunteer right?

      Have you caught the recent MGTOW AVFM civil war?

      (Anyway in reply to you post.)I think women in general don’t want to communicate clearly with men. I think a lot of women instinctively want deny men clear communication simply because these women view men with disdain. When you have zero respect for someone, you do worse than ignore them, you gaslight them, strawman them, etc….

      Feminists tell men not to hit on women because women are afraid of them. Men having empathy for women listen to this advice but when the men follow it, the women get creeped out these humble men who just hover about.

      I consider guliting a man about his sexuality, telling him it is violence, is a form of sexual violence directed at men.

      It is only men who can legally get their dicks cut not women, it is women who own their children, so it is women do do that. Women are the sexually violent ones, not men.

      I missed out on a lot of sex thanks to the mental abuse I gotten from feminist and women. Now I have women gushing after I fuck them telling me how handsome I am. (If I am so handsome, why the fuck did you deny me sex when I was younger and better looking?)

      At the moment I seriously considering never having sex again to be honest. I am disgusted with female sexuality to be honest.

      • I am still 100% behind AVfM (or more specifically Paul Elam).

        I don’t have time to comment on all the bashing going on here, because in essence all of you are acting from ignorance and projection when you bash things you don’t know about.

        You have absolutely no idea what happens behind the scenes or how hard Elam works or what decisions he makes for what reasons (in the overall picture every decision is politically beneficial and brings men’s rights forward, that includes rational compromises and not being lead by emotions)

        There is no war between “mgtows” and “avfm”. I’m an mgtow, and I see Elam as a friend and a great mgtow spokesperson. Elam himself is mgtow.

        If there is a war here, it’s like a war between “sunniis” and “shiites” or a war between “protestants” and “catholics” who nitpick about small difference in semantics even though they have 99% the same.

        Not comparing mgtow to a religion, just comparing that there are more things in common and small differences in interpretation of small subtleties between different groups both calling themselves mgtow… and it’s freaking crazy to have a “war” over it.

        One of the groups however is throwing a hissy fit about that 1% disagreement and demanding that it be catered to, and it’s not my/elam’s side.

        The 99% that matters is the “going your own way” part, the not marrying, not catering to social pressures part. Interpretations about female nature don’t have to be fully agreed on. That’s the 1% – what matters is that you’re going your own way, not that you have the exact same beliefs as other guys going their own way.

        • Many MGTOWs are all getting the same message from AVFM. If this message is incorrect, then AVFM has failed to communicate and needs to correct that. I don’t think that is what the problem is since the very idea of a married MGTOW (without expating) is a contradiction in terms.

          Also, there is no good reason to start bringing in manurespherians like AVFM is now doing much less Obsidian/Mumia Ali who was rejected TWICE by the manuresphere for his useless bullshit.

        • I respect you Alek, but your post is pure bullshit.

          “I don’t have time to comment on all the bashing going on here, because in essence all of you are acting from ignorance and projection when you bash things you don’t know about.

          You have absolutely no idea what happens behind the scenes or how hard Elam works or what decisions he makes for what reasons (in the overall picture every decision is politically beneficial and brings men’s rights forward, that includes rational compromises and not being lead by emotions)”

          Appeal to expertise/elitism I don’t need to know what is going on behind the scenes I judge things by Paul’s actions. If his action was rational why the fuck is he doing emotional based strawman attacks on MGTOW? Why is he trying to attack MGTOW and water it down to appeal to tradcon men?

          “There is no war between “mgtows” and “avfm”. I’m an mgtow, and I see Elam as a friend and a great mgtow spokesperson. Elam himself is mgtow.”

          No he is not MGTOW as he doesn’t understand the core princples or he doesn’t give a shit about them.

          What he does is disingenuously zoom onto the name and hyper focus on the “going your own way” part. Trying to water down MGTOw to just self owner ship and being a non-conformist rebeling who can do what he wants. is an attack on the core anti gynocenteric principles that the established MGTOW community has already agreed on.

          It is not sematics, if you are married you are not MGTOW full stop. I have to correct fucking idiots claiming to be MGTOW who are married. I do this, because they don’t stop there, these idiots then soft peddle and soft sell marriage. (You got to be careful, build yourself up first, get some status first, find the right woman etc…)

          “One of the groups however is throwing a hissy fit about that 1% disagreement and demanding that it be catered to, and it’s not my/elam’s side.

          The 99% that matters is the “going your own way” part, the not marrying”

          I respect the hell out of you, but Alek, I got to say this. Don’t try that bullshit with me. Tradcons invaded and then suddenly Paul pulls his shit. Not marrying is a core principle of MGTOW, it is based on logical and emotion. Going your own way is just an empty platitude without principles, Hitler was going his own way, a male feminist is going his own way, who are you to tell them what to do you control freak you?

          I grew up in a single mother household, with no father because he was driven away, he married my mum. When you marry you don’t just put yourself at risk, if the man has kids, he puts them at risk too. Go fuck yourself for saying MGTOW can get married.

          Don’t sell me the AVFM part line Alek, it will piss me off. AVFM came into MGTOW spaces and tried telling them what MGTOW is, don’t you try the deny reverse victim and attack bullshit with MGTOW.

          You are not an idiot Alek, so I will hold you to higher standards. MGTOW is not about emotional self gratification, it is not bullshit lifestyle fluff, it is a calculated reaction to the current social legal climate.

          Marriage has real word consequences, this is not a minor disagreement, MEN FUCKING SUFFER WHEN THEY GET DIVORCED, THE FUCKING SUICIDE RATE GOES UP BY 10 TIMES!

          Don’t be an asshole shill Alek.

      • Now I have women gushing after I fuck them telling me how handsome I am. (If I am so handsome, why the fuck did you deny me sex when I was younger and better looking?)

        That’s why pissed me off too… I’m like “so bitch, why did I spend my youth sexless”? And I was actually even better looking back then…

        When I started getting laid a lot (by ignoring all feminist and female advice), I got depressed. At all times I had a dozen women who are in love with me and constantly getting calls and messages all day long from women to come over to their place.

        Everyone one of them told me about how handsome I was and how good looking I am… And that made me depressed. Like fucking c*nt, if you’re so freaking attracted to me, WHY THE HECK DID YOU PUT ME IN A SPOT OF risking “harrassment” to get with you?

        Why did you, AND EVERY SINGLE woman ever PROACTIVELY pretend you’re not attracted, pretend you’re not interested and insist that I get rejected left and right to find out who the interested ones are.

        (Google dungone’s tiger analogy if you haven’t yet)… I’ve honestly been depressed after 95% of lays, because the first thought to my mind after orgasm was always “bitch, why all this effort?”… Why did I have to take 10000% of the risks, 10000% of the work, and I always was put in a spot of “risking harrasmment”.

        By “risking harassment” I mean where a woman who’s attracted to you ACTS EXACTLY the same* as a woman who wants you to stop pursuing her. The difference is she wants to feel wanted and desired, by acting like she’s not interested and seeing if you’ll still pursue her…

        …only after you pursue her past a bunch of her pretending to not be interested… does she then OUT OF NOWHERE reveal she’s had a crush on you since forever and finds you super attractive… and then you can’t get rid of her.

        The process disgusts me. I think it’s been disgusting for centuries. But now it’s especially disgusting because it’s more than just rejection. She’s now literally forcing you to risk doing something illegal just to be with her.

        *Disclaimer – once you get enough experience you can see the subtle differences between a chick playing hard to get, and a chick genuinely not interested. But still you just get more accurate at guessing, it’s still not 100%.

        Also 99% of men never reach this level of experience to where you can tell this difference. It’s literally as tiny as the angle of the smile (one is an uncomfortable (I’m only smiling out of politeness) smile, the other is a cheesy (I want you to try again later) smile.

        • Alek, ever consider maybe its you? Probably you never have.

          I find most (not all) women pretty damn obvious when they like me and don’t make me go through any effort. Aaron Sleazy seems to find women pretty non-effortful too – in fact, when you asked him on his site to clarify in his new book about how he makes it seem easy and obvious, Aaron pointedly did not reply, because obviously he hasn’t had experiences like yours. Nor have I heard from other men that its different.

          Even though you insist your experience is the only valid one for all men everywhere and I’m a lying feminist whore or whatever for daring to say I have different experiences, I’m prepared to believe that women take a long time to open up to you and are initially cold, and I believe its like this for a lot (not all) men, simply based on what I read. I don’t discount the experiences of other man as lies off the bat just because things are different for me and the guys I know, and I doesn’t reflect the interactions I see with plenty of guys in bars.

          Consider this – your online persona is extremely aggressive, intimidating, dominant, and angry. Obviously people aren’t exactly like their online personas in real life, but is it even remotely plausible that your real life persona reflects at least some of this aggression and attempt to be intimidating? You might deny it, but I don’t find that even remotely plausible that you’re completely and totally unlike your online persona. You’re an angry, aggressive person online, and I have no doubt you are at least somewhat like that in person. In fact, you might genuinely not even be aware of it and swear that you are the sweetest most approachable person in real life, but it simply isn’t plausible that salient aspects of your genuine personality don’t leak out online, and have no relation to your real world interactions.

          Maybe you simply aren’t approachable? Maybe you seem intimdating? Maybe women are initially on their guard around a handsome guy with an intimidating air about him who doesn’t seem very open and approachable?

          Instead of angrily and abusively denying the experiences of men like myself and all my friends, and insisting with all the marvelous insulting and angry/abusive language at your command that I am a liar, a feminist, someone who never goes out, or whatever else your marvelously fertile abusive brain can come up with, maybe consider that its something about you?

          You’re right about one thing that you constantly say – women are far more socially risk-averse than men. That being so, confronted with an intimidating/dominant man like you obviously try to be, it makes perfect sense that they will not take the risk of being forthcoming about liking you and will be reserved and withdrawn for quite some time until they feel comfortable around you.

          In fact, if you are very handsome and well built, as you say are, and have an egotistical and intimidating manner (as you clearly do, even if you aren’t even aware of it), that would even make you more scary to women!!!!

          I doubt I’ll get a serious – or even coherent, non-abusive, non-hysterical – response from you, or even any response at all, because you seem to need very strongly to believe in this notion that all women are extremely non-forthcoming to all men.

          But other guys deserve to know that it isn’t/doesn’t have to be like that. Interactions with women can be pretty effortless and pretty easy going – women aren’t out to get you! – if you drop the intimidating/egotistical mask.

          Women can be quite forthcoming and obvious about their interest in you, smiles and eye contact can be quite common, approaches can be quite common – I think I get approached these days EVERY time I go out by at least one women, usually more. It used to be sporadic but as I became more comfortable with myself and my environment its now literally EVERY time. I just realized that. Interesting. Its EVERY time these days – and the field doesn’t have to be poisoned.

          Its sad that some guys have to go through such poisoned shit that they feel depressed after 95% of lays because it was so much work – but for lots of guys it doesn’t have to be like that, and for for lots it ISN’T. Perhaps for most it isn’t.

          Just look at Alek’s online persona – angry, intimidating, egotistical – and relax, be approachable, and don’t be like that!

        • @ Mortimer

          Its sad that some guys have to go through such poisoned shit that they feel depressed after 95% of lays because it was so much work – but for lots of guys it doesn’t have to be like that, and for for lots it ISN’T. Perhaps for most it isn’t.

          That’s because they only lay 1 girl every 2-4 years, the one girl who comes and throws herself at them.

          When I’m talking about the effort I went through, I was laying 10 chicks every season.

          Like look at you – apparently chicks make it effortless for you. How many girls did you lay in 2014 if they make it as effortless as you claim (or how many did you hook up with at least). Don’t give me this vague non-sense, give me an actual number.

          My bitter, angry, agressive, unapproachable persona

          This is the feminist time machine fallacy at its finest. First of all I do not hide being a bitter fuck.

          I became bitter as fuck after having spent a long time being lied to by society and women. Women 15 years ago didn’t have a time machine to know that 12-13 years later I’d become angry and bitter?

          So women in 1998 didn’t approach me, because they knew I’d become bitter in 2010? lol

          And they never approached ANY MAN I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HUNG OUT WITH (note I’ve hung out with male models and male celebrities, never seen them get approached in clubs either). Never seen them get asked out by a girl. Even the male celebrities I know are still expected to do the pursuing, and the process starts with subtle signals.

          (it’s just that being a male celebrity he gets subtle signals from higher quality chicks, but I digress)

          I can put on a fake smile and get girls to approach me (in social circles), despite being bitter and and angry as fuck on the inside. What the fuck does that have to do with the DISCUSSION overall? Girls TALKING TO YOU FIRST IN SOCIAL CIRCLES (does not ===||| ) them fucking you.

          Do you realize this?

        • I can put on a fake smile and get girls to approach me (in social circles), despite being bitter and and angry as fuck on the inside. What the fuck does that have to do with the DISCUSSION overall? Girls TALKING TO YOU FIRST IN SOCIAL CIRCLES (does not ===||| ) them fucking you.

          Do you realize this?

          In other words you are either:

          A) In the top 0.0001% of guys sexually speaking

          or

          B) Conflating socializing with fucking

          Girls being social to you in social circles (when you’re approachable) doesn’t mean they’re making it effortless for you get laid or get a girlfriend. They’re just being social, and you’re their girlfriend.

          If you actually grow the balls to make a move (instead of counting each girl talking to you as a lay), you’d actually see how “effortless” it truly is.

          Give me your number for 2014. Don’t beat around the bush. I want to know how many lays a guy who has it as effortless as you gets…

          What’s the number, in digits, don’t give vague answers

        • Alek, I don’t get girls through social circles at all – I’m really a club and bar person and I’m not interested in relationships, at least at the moment.

          So please bear in mind everything I say applies to bars and clubs. Nor am I talking about social successes (although I doubt any girl approaches you in a bar for “social” reasons), I’m talking about 1)sex 2) making out 3) grinding, obvious physical intimacy.

          Specific numbers for past year? Some months I hung out a LOT (3 times per week), some months hardly at all. If I hung out for 6 months out of the year and “averaged” one lay per week (some weeks more, some weeks less), which seems right to me, that’s over 24 girls for this year.

          That sounds about right. That’s fairly specific.

          Alek, forget the feminist time machine. Maybe you weren’t bitter when you were younger, but who says you were approachable? You yourself say you were at one point fat, nerdy, and socially clueless – would it be surprising if you were also extremely insecure? Insecure guys often adopt a pose of “aloofness” and arrogance – could you have done that? Maybe you were just shy, withdrawn, reserved? The way you describe yourself when you were younger makes it easy to imagine that you were unapproachable in any number of ways.

          And maybe you always had a bit of bitterness in you which just got worse as you had bad experiences (or no experiences, which you resented) resulting in a vicious cycle of reinforcement? Maybe you’re just more bitter now?

          I ALSO never got approached before my late 20s yet I never got bitter about it. Maybe it takes a bit of bitterness already inside you to get so bitter over not being approached and develop that kind of resentment. I just took it in stride. I wasn’t happy about it, but I managed to laugh it off and just accept it as the “way things are”. I just figured I wasn’t a ladies man. The kind of anger you have about it never took root in me. I never developed that kind of resentment. I’m not blaming you, just suggesting that for someone to develop your level of bitterness over not being a ladies man when you were younger, well, it might be something already in you.

          What changed for me? It took me a long time to admit or even understand this, but when I was younger I was very insecure and defensive, and I adopted a pose of aloofness and arrogance that made me seem far more anti-social than I actually felt. At my best I was reserved and not open. Most of the time I wasn’t even aware of what I was doing or why I was doing it.

          In my late 20s something “snapped” and I stopped giving a shit – stopped caring about my self-image, stopped trying to be “cool”, stopped trying to be “superior” – basically started doing the OPPOSITE of everything “game” says you should (after flirting with game for about 1 year in my late 20s and seeing myself get even less attention from women) – and my insecure, defensive attitude relaxed into an easy going, approachable attitude.

          It’s not uncommon for guys as they age to become much more relaxed “in their own skin” so to speak and to drop the mask, the fake ego, and the pretension that they felt they needed when they were younger (typically this process begins in late 20s), which in my view is at least one of the reasons older guys are so much more attractive to women (I don’t mean physically attractive a la game, but the social dynamics become so much easier)

          Part of what happened is I fell in with a group of relaxed, well socialized guys with no hang ups who opened my eyes to what I was doing and how it didn’t have to be that way.

          Like I said, and like you’ve said many times – women are risk averse socially. If there’s anything about you that seems like they might get rejected, they won’t be “open” to you and definitely won’t approach you. Instead they’ll be cautious and subtle. To be honest, are guys that different? How hard is it for most guys to “cold” approach a beautiful girl? In fact, for most guys and girls, the more attractive you are, the harder it will be. If you’re way better looking than me it might make it even worse.

          I’m not denying your experiences – I’m just pointing out they may be specific to you in ways you don’t realize (like it was for me).

      • “I missed out on a lot of sex thanks to the mental abuse I gotten from feminist and women.”

        If so, you are in an extreme minority of men who are extremely nerdy and socially clueless, like Alek Novy probably.

        I’m not bashing you guys and its sad that you actually took feminist advice seriously, but feminism simply has no impact on the vast majority of men or women for that matter.

        Feminism dating advice is completely ignored in popular culture. Most guys and women just tune that stuff out.

        99.9% of movies/sitcoms/books/comics or any other media portray boy gets girl in ways that have nothing to do with the side-show of feminist dating advice, which is a niche luxury product very remote from popular culture.

        That some guys actually do buy into the silliness that you can’t hit on girls or initiate physical contact with them is sad, but it is a very minor problem. Not saying we shouldn’t deal with it, but its hardly a society wide problem.

        So far, the only people I’ve seen buying into feminist advice have been that extremely nerdy and clueless MIT prof, Alek Novy who has become cool (supposedly) but admits to being a fat, utterly clueless geek while growing up, and online people like Alek Novy.

        When normal socially capable men with decent looks start compaining about how they bought into feminist dating advice, I’ll start listening.

        • When normal socially capable men with decent looks start compaining about how they bought into feminist dating advice, I’ll start listening.

          For the record I didn’t read your 2 pages of ranting just this last sentence.

          But basically you’re saying that it’s ok to bully and mislead and lie to geeky men? So feminist lies destroying male geeks’ lives is not an issue, because it only destroys male geeks?

          That’s quite the circular point there… The entire tonality you have here is as if geekiness was a moral failing. That some guys spend their teens obsessed with (say) technology and so miss out on the early social skills is somehow a moral failing, it makes them bad people?

          Why don’t you throw out all the technology you use then, it was invented by geeks who became grandmasters at technology because they spent their early youth obsessing with technology.

          Of course, when they decided to go into the social world (a couple of years later than a “normal guy) they were bullied and harrassed by people who like you imply its ok to bully, harass and ridicule geeks because they prioritized their teen year activities differently.

          Read what you wrote there:

          men falling for feminist lies isn’t a problem, because it only happens to men who were geeky?

          It’s ok to lie to geeks how dating works, because they don’t know how it works… Why, circular logic overload.

          The only reason they don’t know is that went into the dating pool a little later than other people, choosing to master other skills first. That doesn’t make them evil you asshole, it means you get to use a cellphone and modern computer technology.

        • I skimmed some of your comment and will only respond to 2 random things….

          Feminism dating advice is completely ignored in popular culture. Most guys and women just tune that stuff out.

          99.9% of movies/sitcoms/books/comics or any other media portray boy gets girl in ways that have nothing to do with the side-show of feminist dating advice, which is a niche luxury product very remote from popular culture.

          Actually the problem with MEDIA is that its just as unrealistic as feminist advice. In movies women’s signals are EXAGGERATED. An interested woman in a movies stares interested guys down with a huge ear-to-ear smile, or even approaches him and asks him out.

          THAT’S WHAT FEMINISTS SAY. In fact feminists make up their crazy theories about how meeting people should work BASED ON MOVIES, because feminists don’t actually leave the house either.

          Movies make this seem normal, whereas in real life most interested women do not spell it out (that’s why the average guy ONLY has 3-6 partners in a LIFETIME)

          In movies women are never subtle (you can’t get an actress to act out a subtle 30 minute display of subtle signals), so they just have her stare bond down in a 5 second camera pan, and she says something flirty or sexual first often times.

          in fact, when you asked him on his site to clarify in his new book about how he makes it seem easy and obvious, Aaron pointedly did not reply, because obviously he hasn’t had experiences like yours. Nor have I heard from other men that its different.

          Like all trolls on the planet you have serious reading comprehension issues. None of this happened. Literally you are making shit up.

          The comment you are mis-representing was me talking about parts of the book that need better editing (sentence structure). Nobody asked a question for it to be answered, I made a statement as a professional editor.

          The discussion was about APPROACHING STRANGERS IN A NIGHT club with certainty of exactly who’s interested… About 99% of guys haven’t had ANY success with meeting girls in clubs. In fact, most have never even tried and meet all their partners through school, work or friends.

          Of those who DO have success in clubs (1% of guys on the planet), 90% do it blindly randomly approaching girls and getting rejected left and right. And here you are as troll claiming that a skill posssed by 1% of the 1% – is normal….

          Most guys meet girls through friends, family, work. Look it up. ITS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.

          I love these trolls who come on the internet and claim that being a lothario is the most normal thing on the planet… And yet it’s a scientific fact the average guys has no casual lays in his life outside of social circles, and only 3-6 partners in a LIFETIME, TOTAL!

          Listen dork, that you “easily got the 3-4 girlfriends” you’ve had in your entire life is of no relevance to me. I’m not talking about the 1 girl a year who throws herself at you and makes it obvious, i’m talking about the 99 who don’t.

          And if you’ve had significantly more than 3-4 girlfriends in your life, congratulations, YOU ARE NOT NORMAL.

          – In fact, if you’ve had a two digit number of partners in your life (as I have), that puts you in the top 10% of men worldwide

          – So if you are in the top 10%, how the fuck are you normal? DO YOU KNOW what the word normal means?

          THE NORMAL GUY only gets ONE girl every couple of years. That is an OBJECTIVE FACT. Of COURSE YOU can get one girl who makes it super obvious she likes you every 1-2 years. Nobody is talking about that.

          I’m talking about the fact that feminists CLAIM that if you’re not a filthy animal all women should be super-obviously in your face (not one girl every 2 years).

          Stop the stupid internet bluffing about how its normal to be a lothario, yet mysteriously virginity rates are rising in the western world (check it out), and most guys have single digit counts.

          (even though its apparently “normal” to have a 100% approaching success rate in clubs, for some reason guys still choose to get an average girl every few years, and never get laid with hotties in clubs… it sure is a mystery….)

        • The comment you are mis-representing was me talking about parts of the book that need better editing (sentence structure). Nobody asked a question for it to be answered, I made a statement as a professional editor.

          The discussion was about APPROACHING STRANGERS IN A NIGHT club with certainty of exactly who’s interested… About 99% of guys haven’t had ANY success with meeting girls in clubs.

          Specifically I was talking about two friends I have who are so good, they know exactly which girl they have a realistic chance of hooking up with before they even approach her, on a NIGHTLY BASIS*.

          (*not the one girl who stares you down once a year).

          THIS IS NOT NORMAL. It’s not normal to effortlessly lay 20-30 girls a year from clubs.

          They are a rarity among rarities. 90% of guys HAVE NEVER gotten even a makeout from a club. From the 10% who do get stuff done in clubs, most do so blindly approaching with most interactions going nowhere.

          Only a small handful of guys who do meet girls in clubs, are there guys who are so skilled they can pre-approach so well that they have high-success rates, like my two friends.

          And here you are claiming that this is “the most normal thing on the planet”. Exactly who are you fooling? Yourself? You hope this will be true once you finally leave the house?

          Either you are trolling, or you are in the top 0.1% of guys (guys who get laid dozens of times a year). In which case if you are in the top 0.1%, how is that normal once again?

        • Alek Novy who has become cool (supposedly)

          I’ve never claimed this, in fact I spelled out that my default self is a geeky, asocial introverted dude who’d rather watch documentaries online than socialize.

          I CAN (however) “act cool”… All it does is increase the number of false-positives (girls who want to be your [non-sexual] friends, and more male acquintances want to make small talk to you and waste your time with useless conversations)

          In terms of getting together with a woman, being cool makes little difference. Even when you’re cool, the ones who want to bang you, still want you to jump through hoops, spend several attempts pretending they’re not interested, get you to pursue them around for a bit before they let you get to first base, then ask for some more effort (pursuing) before second base etc etc etc (all of that effort).

          The effort/pursuing they ask for is the same, the only difference is that if you’re cool/social/approachable, they do more smiling and luaghing while making you jump through hoops… but they are the same hoops.

          So again, you are either one of world’s best lotharios, or conflating false positives with actual dating/mating.

        • I have absolutely nothing against nerds or geeks and have some tendencies that way myself.

          It isn’t OK to “mislead” nerdy men, but the point is, no society ever in the history of mankind had all its rules in explicit, verbal formulations. There’s ALWAYS the “formal” version, and then the “real” unofficial text that everybody is supposed to figure out, and that indeed is not kept secret but communicated in a thousand more or less informal ways that the vast majority of people have no problem with. That’s how society works and always has. 90% of human communication is non-explicit, across every field.

          Now this system poorly serves nerds and geeks who seem to be distinguished by an inability to pick up on the sub-text and who have an over-reliance on explicit verbal rules that are often nothing more than a gloss on an unspoken text and to take these rules at naive face value.

          I have a geek friend who walked around flat out asking girls “who’s better looking” and taking their explicit responses at utter face value in the most naive fashion. He wasn’t able to figure out who girls like based on their behavior, and he wasn’t able to understand that their responses didn’t necessarily mean anything. To this day he can’t understand.

          That’s a kink of the geek mind, but you can’t reorganize society – where 98% of the people have this system that serves a purpose for them – into one that works for remaining 2%.

          There’s probably good psychological reasons why there’s a 2 tier communication system – probably because most people don’t want to admit what they are really doing half the time.

          Feminism is a particularly egregious form of an “official” lie, but whatever replaces it as the explicit version will be just as remote from reality and thus create the same problem for geeks – do you think the “official” version of chaste love between the sexes in the Middle Ages bore any relation to what actually took place? The hapless knight who bought wholesale into “chivalry” – and didn’t just see it as something to pay lip service to – was probably as sexless as the modern geek.

          You’re not gonna change a system that has social utility for most people (apparently).

          I would argue that geeks are in an unfortunate position from WHICH THERE IS NO REAL ESCAPE – and the fact that you continue to struggle with women and become bitter about that confirms me in that belief. If you lack the mental module to understand the subtext, you can’t replace that with explicit rules.

          What seems to be happening to you is that you don’t get a lot of attention from women (eye contact, smiles), so you then “cold approach” based on a belief you developed that the lack of attention isn’t real and in fact all sorts of utterly meaningless bullshit really means they are interested. Since its a cold approach, these women make you jump through hoops and chase them (of course), and these women warm to you over time (or some of them do, anyway).

          I would never approach a girl who refused me eye contact but “flipped her hair” (not to mention in a crowded noisy bar when I’m drunk to even notice such trivia would be impossible), and if I did, I would fully expect to have to chase her. If she can’t even look at me when I’ve made clear I like her, either she isn’t interested, or has massive hang ups that will make me chase her.

          Either way, its a terrible proposition.

  7. “If so, you are in an extreme minority of men who are extremely nerdy and socially clueless, like Alek Novy probably.”

    HAHAHAHAHA.

    I am a geeky person, not a nerd. It is the women who are socially clueless let me give you one story as an example. (More for the others here, not you as you are a retard who will not change his mind.)

    I was once flirting with a massive girl with big boobs, she used to hang round the same place I was. Anyway she invited me back to her place. We started making love, but then she just froze, so I stopped, then she asked me to leave and so I Ieft. (I hadn’t had sex in years, so I was really wound up by this.)

    Next time she saw me she was angry at me I had no idea why, as I was respectful. She was acting like I was a loser or something.

    Next time after that I saw her, she was drunk and was coming onto me very heavily, I was confused as fuck so I backed off.

    Next time I saw her she was mad again, I think she was upset at me backing off when she was drunk. I avoided her after that as I find mixed messages confusing.

    Anyway i didn’t figure out what was up until years later.

    She was upset the first time, because I didn’t force myself on her, she wanted a manly man to push past her resistance. She I didn’t and I left when she asked me too, she saw me as a spineless loser wimp. I suppose not forcing yourself on a woman is nerdy and socially awkward.

    The way she came onto me drunk was socially awkward and fucking confusing at the time. I suppose men are just meant to react to what women want and ignore the mixed messages? I suppose I should just fuck her when she demands even though she messed me about and just went passive during love making for no reason? What sort of game playing is that?

    Pro women manginas like yourself will make any excuse for women. The fact women refuse to communicate clearly with men is very disrespectful. The fact women collectively tell men, that women fear them, and then expect men to be manly men who push past token resistance is psychopathic as far as I am concerned. It shows zero regard for men and their feelings, it is like women just think of men as creatures who are meant to respond to females signals, that men have no minds of their own.

    You attempt at gaslighting has failed I am not socially awkward. I suffered form depression for a few years and that put women off, but that was a very long time ago. (I think women demanding men be confident or they get deselected is soulless frankly.

    I am handsome, but I am broke and poor, but I have still fucked very good looking women. I have fucked beautiful big tited black women, white women, and a very sexy slim oriental/Asian chick. (What they say about Asian pussy is true btw! very tight!)

    I have just recently passed the double diggit partner count, I doubt I will ever reach triple digits, but every single girl I have fucked as wanted to be with me because she wants sex, not because of my status.

    I am seriously thinking of giving sex up, I am, not looking at the moment, my last conquest was over a month ago.

    I think I understand female signals now, It is something you can’t explain you just have to pick it up. In retrospect I lost out on loads of girls that liked me, because I was too respectful.

    I LOST OUT ON SEX BECAUSE I RESPECTED GIRLS ARE TREATED THEM WELL! I DIDN’T WANT TO SCARE THEM!

    So don’t you fucking gaslight me and claim i am the awkward one when women refuse to communicate with men, and expect men to read their minds.

    I consider what you are doing and what females are doing as a form of collective relational abuse. It is ironically a form of abuse that is going to abuse nice decent guys. The assholes are not going to be bothered by the female gaslighting games. It is like women want to punish sensetive guys, calling them rapists and creeps, telling them not to approach women and you will only get a relationship when your respectful. Fuck you Mortimer

    (Sorry for the long post.)

    • I suppose men are just meant to react to what women want and ignore the mixed messages?

      But see, mixed messages don’t exist. Guys like you and me are crazy and imagining it. WE ARE CRAZY, WE HAVE A MENTAL DISORDER. We are not being gaslighted, we are delusional.

      Women communicate perfectly clearly, never send vague, mixed messaged, and only insane wannabe-rapists would ever claim this.

      In the real world women are all over you clearly spell out when they’re interested, in fact its effortless.

      We are also imagining that the best sold dating books of all time have been about how to play hard to get (how to send mixed messages and play games). We imagined that too, and the 10,000 webpages discussing those books. We are entirely imagining it, because we are crazy (not gaslighted, just crazy).

      That every female magazine on the planet has articles on how to play hard to get? WE ARE IMAGINING THAT TOO – IT DOES NOT EXIST. Only rapists claim that women are anything less than in your-face obvious and clear.

      Pro women manginas like yourself will make any excuse for women. The fact women refuse to communicate clearly with men is very disrespectful. The fact women collectively tell men, that women fear them, and then expect men to be manly men who push past token resistance is psychopathic as far as I am concerned. It shows zero regard for men and their feelings, it is like women just think of men as creatures who are meant to respond to females signals, that men have no minds of their own.

      Quoted for emphasis, especially:
      “fact women refuse to communicate clearly with men is very disrespectful. ”

      I think I understand female signals now, It is something you can’t explain you just have to pick it up. In retrospect I lost out on loads of girls that liked me, because I was too respectful.

      Yeah, the irony is you only start being able to read signals to a decent level after a ton of experience (which guys will never get).

      But claiming you should be born reading these signals is a form of gaslighting. The laws being passed and the claims being made by feminists assume you should have the signal reading ability of someone who’s had a triple-digit count.

      (guys who are past 3 digits get even better)

      I consider what you are doing and what females are doing as a form of collective relational abuse. It is ironically a form of abuse that is going to abuse nice decent guys. The assholes are not going to be bothered by the female gaslighting games. It is like women want to punish sensetive guys, calling them rapists and creeps, telling them not to approach women and you will only get a relationship when your respectful. Fuck you Mortimer

      Quoted for emphasis. It is gaslighting, and it is abuse.

      Mortimer even admitted it in the last sentence with something like “call me when this abuse affects non-geeks”. It assumes abusing geeks is ok?

  8. Female gaslighting and being on the receiving end of it, doesn’t make one socially awkward! lolol

    Also shy geeky girls do not get attacked for being socailly awkward, men do not deny women like that intimacy, yet women will scream and faint over Adolf Hitler.

    (Lets not pretend that female selection criteria is moral in anyway whatsoever.)

    Shy guys, who i see as nice and I have empathy for and in fact the sort of guys I would go for if I was gay, as just sub-human socially awkward creeps that should cut off from sex?

    Why don’t these women make an effort to at least befreind these shy “socailly awkward” guys? If guys ingored socailly awkward women like this, they would be called bullies.

    Also these socially awkward guys who are passive are playing a feminine role, it doesn’t work for them, but it works for passive women, that is how the sexual market place works.

  9. “In terms of getting together with a woman, being cool makes little difference. Even when you’re cool, the ones who want to bang you, still want you to jump through hoops, spend several attempts pretending they’re not interested, get you to pursue them around for a bit before they let you get to first base, then ask for some more effort (pursuing) before second base etc etc etc (all of that effort).

    The effort/pursuing they ask for is the same, the only difference is that if you’re cool/social/approachable, they do more smiling and luaghing while making you jump through hoops… but they are the same hoops.”

    Alek this is what I have learnt in my limited experience.

    (1) If a woman is not willing to kiss you the first time she meets you, it is a waste of time, just walk away.

    (2) Never phone the girls first, give them your number and wait for them to phone you.

    (3) Talk about your past conquests in front of them. (In a tasteful way of course.) One of the girls I done was a friend on mine who refused to fuck me before, until I told her about a girl I banged. She knew I was sexually frustrated and wouldn’t help me with that, until I got the social proof of banging another girl. (Not really a friend more of an ex acquaintances, I am bitter against her to be honest.)

    (4) If a girl is attracted to you, chances are she still won’t sleep with you, but will still waste your time.

    My experience is limited and will remain so, because I will never have a long term relationships, also I don’t plan on chasing girls anymore, doubt I will change my mind on that.

  10. “I find most (not all) women pretty damn obvious when they like me and don’t make me go through any effort.”

    You are a male virgin male feminist, or someone who has only had one long term partner, and she was the rare sort of girl that approaches first. You are clearly completely clueless to be honest. What an idiot.

    I have had girls show interest, and then drop me out! I have had women play all sorts of fucking games.

    • This is why I’m waiting for his number. There are several options here

      1) She’s a feminist trolling and gaslighting on purpose

      2) He’s a virgin who’s counting social success as sexual success (i.e. counting women being clearly friendly to him being the same as clearly and effortlessly getting laid, (even if he never banged or kissed them)

      3) He’s talking about the one girl who comes every 3-4 years and throws herself at you and genuinely makes it effortless, and he’s only ever been with girls like this

      -> The problem with number 3 is that its bullying and gas lighting too… if you believe that women who are interested will act like this, it means you believe every woman you’ve ever seen or met that didn’t act like this, finds you unattractive. Let that sink in.

      If you believe only that one girl who throws herself at you after 4 years is the only one interested in you, that means you’re saying the other 500 you crossed paths with found you unattractive? (and btw those 499 girls spent those years banging guys who didn’t wait to be thrown at)

      Is this what you are telling guys you bully? That women who don’t throw themselves at you find you unattractive? THAT IS bullying and telling guys they are ugly and unattractive. Feminists say this bullshit and its what makes lots of geeks develop a low self-esteem. This lie that “if a girl isn’t throwing herself at you, she finds you unattractive”. Because he goes out in the real world, and 499 out of a 500 girls don’t do this.

      • One clarification for anyone who happens to be in category 2.

        3) He’s talking about the one girl who comes every 3-4 years and throws herself at you and genuinely makes it effortless, and he’s only ever been with girls like this

        Specifically we’re talking about a girl who throws herself at you **romantically** or **sexually** speaking, and makes it effortless and obvious she wants to BANG you or be your girlfriend… with no games, no “pursue me some more and then I might let you kiss me” etc etc…

        Guys who are in category 2 think that a girl throwing herself at you SOCIALLY is the same thing. This is only about a 100 times more common. A woman making it super-duper obvious she wants to be social with you, IS NOT the same as a woman making it super-duper obvious she wants to be naked with you.

        Ironically, there are plenty of virgins out there who think they are lotharios. Why? Because they effortlessly make female friends and meet many women (by being asexual and unthreatining). We all know guys like these, in fact sometimes a guy like this will have even more female friends than even the most popular and cool lotharios… Because he’s such an obvious asexual being. He is the girl’s gay guy girlfriend.

        Sure he’s never hooked up with any of them, but he thinks that’s just like one small step ahead of having a friendly conversation. A guy like this thinks that a girl talking to him is 98% of the way towards being naked with him, so he may as well count it as a lay or hookup. Then he comes on here and says that effortlessly laying chicks on a regular basis is the most normal thing on the planet, and if you don’t believe this, you are not normal.

  11. Mortimer has posted more fucking crap.

    Might do a blog post covering his waffle.

    Motrimer seems to conflate nerds with asbergers syndrome or something.

    • I’m not reading any of it until he answers my question, so let me know if the troll does finally answer. Has mortimer finally given a NUMBER? (assuming it is a he).

      Notice, this is a person who claims that

      – it is male

      – women make mating effortless and unless you have assburgers, their interest showing is super clear

      – he gets hit on by women DAILY (being super obvious, direct and allowing for effortless mating)

      Now, by this logic, math tells me that mortimer should be hooking up something like 100 times a year, even if he rejected 70% of chicks

      WHAT ARE HIS numbers? Has he answered this question, or has he continued piling on with more gaslighting and strawmen?

      • lol Alek, I’ve answered the question. Its in my first reply – a number.

        Mating is fairly effortless. Spreading this message is important.

        All “dating advice” should be aimed at divesting guys of the false belief that you need any “special” skill set to get girls – whether its acting macho or learning the super-subtle signals women send – and encouraging a simple, direct, uncomplicated, and social approach, without pretension, ego, or false masks. The only emphasis should be that you shouldn’t be afraid to make moves, physically, if anyone needs to be reminded of that.

        However, accepting this means confronting your limitations. That’s hard.

        Nor did I say I get approached every day, just when I go out to bars, and even then perhaps by one or two girls. Lots of guys get approached in NYC – happens all the time.

        • I’m not going to read 4 pages of strawmen and “arguing in bad faith”, which is why I want someone to tell me if you gave a number.

          Ok so I found the number.

          Here are the facts

          1) the average guy can barely get 4-7 sexual partners in a LIFETIME
          1a) 99% of people meet partners at work, school or through friends

          2) you claim to get 24 partners per HALF A YEAR (strangers at that)
          3) you claim to be “normal”

          Number 2 and 3 are logically excluded, by virtue of 3 excluding number 1.

          I’m not going to engage in the 50 claims you invent per posting, until you clear up one of them, so I’m not moving from this topic.

          1) DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE WORD “normal” MEANS
          2) IF YOU DO, how can 2 and 3 exist in the same universe?

          One has to be false. This is logic 101.

          So which is it…

          Are you

          a) not normal (i.e. way above average capability) in sociosexual skills
          or
          b) lying about the numbers

          Both can not be true at the same time.

        • EDIT… I meant (edits in bold)

          So which is it…

          Are you

          a) not normal (i.e. way above average) in sociosexual ABILITY
          or
          b) lying about the numbers

          ONE of these two HAS TO BE TRUE. Either A is true or B is true.

          Neither one serves you.

          A – proves all your other claims are false, since you claimed your proclaimed abilities are the most normal thing on the planet for every “normal guy”, and only assburger bitter geeks lack these abilities

          B – proves you are a lier

          There is no C.

        • “lol Alek, I’ve answered the question. Its in my first reply – a number.

          Mating is fairly effortless. Spreading this message is important.

          All “dating advice” should be aimed at divesting guys of the false belief that you need any “special” skill set to get girls – whether its acting macho or learning the super-subtle signals women send – and encouraging a simple, direct, uncomplicated, and social approach, without pretension, ego, or false masks.”

          This person is a female troll Alek don’t bother. The waffle about male ego gives it away.

          Gay men are straight forward and direct and fuck all the time. So hooking up is made hard by the female sex. Their relational aggression games as nasty and gaslighting us is not going to work.

          Women are fucking nasty cunts when they shoot men down, some women even freak out and act like an approach is harassment. IN fact under UK law, harassment is completely subjective, so technically all heterosexual interactions/flirting is illegal.

          You post Mortimer is nonsensical on so many levels.

          Men are asking for clear communication, your reply is. “You are just a asbergers nerd who is socially awkward!”

          Just standard female invalidation. This is not just a dating issues, this is how females communicate with men on all issues. men get the same invalidation tactics on other human rights issues.

        • @Tamerlame

          It being a female troll is one option, but there is another option.

          If it is female, it is not surprising

          Women have to ignore the work done by men in order to prevent cognitive dissonance.

          One great book on this is “self-made man – One Woman’s Year Disguised as a Man”

          There are a lot of things that BLEW HER MIND when she lived as man, but one of the major ones was HOW DIFFICULT women are to men. She had no clue until she actually stepped in the shoes of a man.

          She wrote an entire chapter about how stunned she was at how disrespectful, vague and mixed-messagey women are when you’re a man. She couldn’t believe it, as she had personally spent decades believing the opposite.

          (Btw a lot of women genuinelly believe they’re being clear, part of it is intentional game playing, part of it is being as you say socially stunted, and society allows them to be so sociosexually underdeveloped as they get to blame men for everything and never having to develop their own sociosexual skills)

          If it is male, the other option is

          Remember I spent a decade around community guys, I witnessed literally hundreds of virgins who went online talking about how much they get laid, and how its soooo easy, you just have to believe xyz.

          They would brutally attack anyone who was skeptical of their favorite guru/method/belief, even though they personally got no results from it.

          What gives? Apparently there’s a weird mechanism in a lot of people that if you defend and believe in something strongly enough, it will eventually start working for you.

          Also the “just be social, everything else handles itself” trend…

          There have been a lot of scammy methods in pua, but one of the newer ones is “just be social and direct, and everything will work out automagically” “you just have to have the right story and beliefs, and women will SENSE that energy on you, approach you left and right and nobody will play any games with you”.

          Ok, it’s a half-scam… If you reach a REALLY REALLY high level of charm, you can get approached more often and women can make it easier for you (especially if you combine it with never pursuing women, so you only accept the women who pursue guys).

          AND there is a finesse to being direct. If you go out and try being direct, you WILL creep out 99% of chicks. It takes a TON of experience to where you reach a level of being “charmingly direct”, which again is not normal.Takes years of practice (not fucking visualizations and lying to yourself), actual YEARS of real world experience.

          The scam is that you have to go around lying to yourself that this ability is “normal”. Which again, means one doesn’t know what the word normal means. The belief is that if you lie to enough people that this is normal, it will “become your reality”…

          That’s fine, lie to yourself all you want, but don’t tell geeks that they’re abnormal because they’re not getting approached left or right, or because women play games with you. THIS IS NORMAL. It’s not normal (i.e. its high level skill) to rise above it.

        • What gives? Apparently there’s a weird mechanism in a lot of people that if you defend and believe in something strongly enough, it will eventually start working for you.

          And if you proslethyze and evangelize it to enough people. I saw this with hundreds of guys. They were virgins in real life, but went online with a mission to CONVINCE random people to join PUA (or their pua-that-doesnt call itself pua) method.

          There was this bizzare belief that if they convert enough people into believers, they can finally leave the house, and the method they had preached would work for them overnight.

        • They were virgins in real life, but went online with a mission to CONVINCE random people to join PUA (or their pua-that-doesnt call itself pua) method.

          One thing I’m starting to notice with this is that there seems to be an aspect of fantasy and escapism with PUA. These guys aren’t getting laid in real life, but they go online and pretend they are. This is an interesting aspect of PUA I hadn’t thought of before.

        • Most guys hook up with few partners because they don’t go to clubs or bars much. It’s a choice.

          Of the guys who go to clubs and bars, hooking up is exceedingly common, especially in a big city like NYC.

          While it would be incredibly flattering to think of myself as in the top 1% of males socially-sexually, I simply know it to be untrue. The truth is once I started getting girls, I simply joined most “normal” club-going, bar-hopping men in any big city.

          For any of us who’ve struggled with girls, its very tempting to think once we got better we’re now suddenly “elite” – the sad truth we’re just reached average. For me, that’s accomplishment enough.

          To be absolutely clear, this is what I regard as clear female communication

          1) Extended eye contact. Stares. Repeated eye contact. Unmistakeable eye contact that lasts more than half a second.

          2) Smiles.

          3) Hovering extremely close to you when there is tons of space.

          4) Actually talking to you.

          5) Grinding up against you on dance floors. Grabbing your arm. Or even suddenly burying their face in your chest on dance floors (not uncommon. I find that very sweet and cute)

          All this is crystal clear female signalling.

          Normal guys like myself, friends, and many others I see in clubs, receive such signals on an absolutely regular basis.

          How can “be normal” be a PUA thing when it goes against everything PUA says? I admit I don’t follow PUA, but if simply don’t do anything is PUA, that seems to be self-contradictory.

          I have no particular need to convince anyone of anything – I think its clear from your vehemence and regular posting that its rather you that feels compelled to convince. I rarely comment.

          But I do think I am being kind to men by liberating them from false beliefs that are holding them back. Since abandoning these beliefs means finally coming to terms with your own limitations (accepting the level of beauty you can get), its psychologically hard for many guys to do.

          Accepting that lack of clear eye contact in a bar means you have little chance with the girls there is a hard thing to do. Its far more consoling to believe that female interest exists but is hidden. You then approach and find you have to chase and pursue a girl who had no initial interest in you – sometimes this pays off, as girls can be “won” over if there is enough there to go on. This seems to be what is happening to you. But it leads to bitterness and anger. Which is why I never approach unless I get clear eye contact – the number one signal I rely on.

          Anyways, anyways. Best of luck to you guys. I don’t deny your experiences or your reality. Its clear to me you guys are just much less appealing to women than you wished you were. Consequently, you get far less attention and then have to put in far more hard work than average to above average guys. Or you’re going for girls way above your level. You then develop resentment that you don’t get the attention more appealing men do, and have to put in more work than them.

          That’s irrational, not to say childish.

          A far healthier attitude would be to accept your relative lack of appeal to women and congratulate yourselves on your ability to get women through hard work, persistence, and initiative despite your shortcomings.

        • One thing I agree with you Alek – it takes actual experience. And it takes age and years as well to reach the point where you are “comfortable in your own skin” and women will feel comfortable around you.

          As for “charm”, what is that even? What you need is to not be defensively egotistical – again, it can take age and experience for many guys to reach that level of comfort with themselves that women are at ease around them. Most young guys are incredibly defensive and egotistical.

          Drop the ego! It will kill you with women!

          Women are risk averse. The scariest thing in the world for them is a hot guy who they like who’s defensively egotistical. Drop the ego and they open up. Create a safe environment for them and they open up. Guys are like this too. People feed off your energy – if you approach them in a defensively egotistical fashion, they’ll respond in a defensively egotistical fashion.

        • Most guys hook up with few partners because they don’t go to clubs or bars much. It’s a choice.

          So you’re claiming that most every normal guy (aside from bitter assburger misogynists) can effortlessly get laid 24 times per 6 months, they just choose not to.

          Do you have any evidence that 90% of the male population prefers only having 0,125 partners per half a year? And that they prefer spending thousands of hours on pornography, despite the fact they could effortlessly have the real thing.

          Not more claims please. Do you have evidence of this preference? It only goes against everything known about male nature and preference. It’s an extraordinary claim. Any evidence?

        • For any of us who’ve struggled with girls, its very tempting to think once we got better we’re now suddenly “elite” – the sad truth we’re just reached average.

          So banging 24 girls per half a year is “average”?

        • One thing I agree with you Alek – it takes actual experience. And it takes age and years as well to reach the point where you are “comfortable in your own skin” and women will feel comfortable around you.

          But you said it was normal for everyone except assburger misogynists. Now you’re saying it takes years to develop.

          Pick one.

        • Women are risk averse. The scariest thing in the world for them is a hot guy who they like who’s defensively egotistical. Drop the ego and they open up. Create a safe environment for them and they open up. Guys are like this too. People feed off your energy – if you approach them in a defensively egotistical fashion, they’ll respond in a defensively egotistical fashion.

          Wait…

          – but you said that if a woman is not showing signals then she’s DEFINETELY not interested and out of your league. Women never hide (not display interest)

          – Now you’re saying a woman will not show interest if you have the wrong energy and don’t listen to enough brent smith brainwashing.

          PICK ONE. Make up your mind. They can’t both be true.

        • 1) Extended eye contact. Stares. Repeated eye contact. Unmistakeable eye contact that lasts more than half a second.

          2) Smiles.

          3) Hovering extremely close to you when there is tons of space.

          4) Actually talking to you.

          This is cowardly PROCEPTIVE signalling, not clear unambigious risky initiatives. Stop making excuses for women being so lazy and putting all the risk on men you mangina.

          5) Grinding up against you on dance floors. Grabbing your arm. Or even suddenly burying their face in your chest on dance floors (not uncommon. I find that very sweet and cute)

          Yes, if you don’t have assburgers and cynicism every single interested girl will do this. It’s the most common thing on the planet. (except aaron whom you quote ripped you to shreds telling you how rare it is and happened almost never to him)

          SOME SCIENCE

          -First Time Risky Relationship Initiatives-

          First time risky initiatives are direct and unambiguous requests that have not been made previously, and that will either be clearly accepted or rejected. Because risky initiatives are unambiguous, they cannot be misinterpreted. In the film “When Harry Met Sally” Harry makes a risky initiative that Sally finds offensive, so he says “I take it back.” Sally replies: “You can’t take it back, it is already out there.” First time risky initiatives are especially salient because the initiator has no previous history of acceptance by the target person. Because the response to the initiation is uncertain, Farrell (1986, p 126) noted: “The ‘first time’ is the most important time, when the risk of rejection is by far the greatest.”

          -Nonverbal Proceptive Signaling-

          In contrast, proceptive relationship initiation signals are typically open to various interpretations. In the film “The Graduate” Mrs. Robinson gives proceptive nonverbal signals to her daughter’s friend Ben, who says: “You are trying to seduce me, Mrs. Robinson. Aren’t you?” (italics added)

          The potential ambiguity of proceptive signals leaves the signaler less open to direct personal rejection since such initiations can be seen as either an initiation, or as just very friendly behavior.

          Monica Moore (1985; 2002) has catalogued a variety of nonverbal proceptive behaviors, including smiling, brief glances, raising of the eye brows, hair flips, drawing attention to attractive parts of the body, etc.

          QUOTED FOR EMPHASIS

          The potential ambiguity of proceptive signals leaves the signaler less open to direct personal rejection since such initiations can be seen as either an initiation, or as just very friendly behavior.

          You can talk all you want about “male ego” you fucking mangina, but nobody here is buying your desire to make excuses for women doing this crap.

        • ” If you go out and try being direct, you WILL creep out 99% of chicks”

          Its tragic that nerds believe this and this is a huge part of the reason nerds don’t get laid. Simply tragic.

          That walking directly over to a girl and talking to her, and if you get a positive response becoming gradually more physical will creep out 99% of girls is just a sad example of the fears that beset the nerd mind.

          Admit it, Alek. You don’t get girls in bars and clubs. Its time to come clean.

          I remember a while back reading that you think clubs and bars are terrible places to pick up girls and nearly all your lays recently come from from social circle.

          Why not just admit that clubs and bars are places you aren’t comfortable with and that don’t work for you? You’re clearly just not very good in these venues – your aggressive demeanor is probably off putting, while in social circle this can be overcome as the girls get to know you.

          Contrast this with Aaron Sleazy who has explicitly stated he thinks bars and clubs are fantastic places to meet girls and that the experiences you can have there are way more adventurous and fun.

          Clearly, you’re struggling in bars and clubs, while Sleazy, myself, and countless other men find it works for them fairly easily.

          There’s no shame in that and its not a big deal.

          Why all the go saving bullshit that you’re one of the few elite who has mastered clubs and clubs 99% of guys never will and if you’re direct about what you want you’ll creep out most girls and all the other ego saving devices designed to shield yourself from the reality that clubs and bars simply aren’t for you?

        • So you’re claiming that most every normal guy (aside from bitter assburger misogynists) can effortlessly get laid 24 times per 6 months, they just choose not to.

          Do you have any evidence that 90% of the male population prefers only having 0,125 partners per half a year? And that they prefer spending thousands of hours on pornography, despite the fact they could effortlessly have the real thing.

          Not more claims please. Do you have evidence of this preference? It only goes against everything known about male nature and preference. It’s an extraordinary claim. Any evidence?

          Going to bars and clubs isn’t “effortless” and plenty of guys simply don’t enjoy it or don’t have time. Only certain types of guys enjoy it and are willing to spend the time. Lots of guys find it intimidating and just don’t see themselves as “club” guys.

          Plenty of men prefer “stable” relationships to promiscuous sex with girls you find in bars. Probably most men.

        • One thing I agree with you Alek – it takes actual experience. And it takes age and years as well to reach the point where you are “comfortable in your own skin” and women will feel comfortable around you.

          But you said it was normal for everyone except assburger misogynists. Now you’re saying it takes years to develop.

          Allow me to clarify.

          While plenty of guys are fine with girls at a young age, a large number of men take years to drop the defensively egotistical attitude and settle into themselves. By late 20s/early30s, its “normal” for guys who enjoy clubbing and promiscuous sex to not have trouble getting it in bars and clubs.

        • Women are risk averse. The scariest thing in the world for them is a hot guy who they like who’s defensively egotistical. Drop the ego and they open up. Create a safe environment for them and they open up. Guys are like this too. People feed off your energy – if you approach them in a defensively egotistical fashion, they’ll respond in a defensively egotistical fashion.

          Wait…

          – but you said that if a woman is not showing signals then she’s DEFINETELY not interested and out of your league. Women never hide (not display interest)

          – Now you’re saying a woman will not show interest if you have the wrong energy and don’t listen to enough brent smith brainwashing.

          PICK ONE. Make up your mind. They can’t both be true.

          I’m afraid I don’t see the contradiction.

          Women will show clear interest in guys who aren’t defensively egotistical, and this is most “normal” guys past age 25 or so.

          Also, I never said women NEVER hide interest – they do, sometimes, just like the guy who pretends to be “aloof” does as well. We all hide interest sometimes. But most guys are upfront, and so are most girls.

        • 1) Extended eye contact. Stares. Repeated eye contact. Unmistakeable eye contact that lasts more than half a second.

          2) Smiles.

          3) Hovering extremely close to you when there is tons of space.

          4) Actually talking to you.

          This is cowardly PROCEPTIVE signalling, not clear unambigious risky initiatives. Stop making excuses for women being so lazy and putting all the risk on men you mangina.

          We weren’t discussing “initiatives” . I agreed from the first that men for most part have to be the ones with initiative. I said that women “signal” clearly, and that it isn’t “uncommon” – rare(ish) but does happen – for women to take the “initiative” as well

          5) Grinding up against you on dance floors. Grabbing your arm. Or even suddenly burying their face in your chest on dance floors (not uncommon. I find that very sweet and cute)

          Yes, if you don’t have assburgers and cynicism every single interested girl will do this. It’s the most common thing on the planet. (except aaron whom you quote ripped you to shreds telling you how rare it is and happened almost never to him)

          Some girls will do this and if you go out a lot it isn’t uncommon. Stop mischarachterizing what I said

          SOME SCIENCE

          -First Time Risky Relationship Initiatives-

          First time risky initiatives are direct and unambiguous requests that have not been made previously, and that will either be clearly accepted or rejected. Because risky initiatives are unambiguous, they cannot be misinterpreted. In the film “When Harry Met Sally” Harry makes a risky initiative that Sally finds offensive, so he says “I take it back.” Sally replies: “You can’t take it back, it is already out there.” First time risky initiatives are especially salient because the initiator has no previous history of acceptance by the target person. Because the response to the initiation is uncertain, Farrell (1986, p 126) noted: “The ‘first time’ is the most important time, when the risk of rejection is by far the greatest.”

          -Nonverbal Proceptive Signaling-

          In contrast, proceptive relationship initiation signals are typically open to various interpretations. In the film “The Graduate” Mrs. Robinson gives proceptive nonverbal signals to her daughter’s friend Ben, who says: “You are trying to seduce me, Mrs. Robinson. Aren’t you?” (italics added)

          The potential ambiguity of proceptive signals leaves the signaler less open to direct personal rejection since such initiations can be seen as either an initiation, or as just very friendly behavior.

          Monica Moore (1985; 2002) has catalogued a variety of nonverbal proceptive behaviors, including smiling, brief glances, raising of the eye brows, hair flips, drawing attention to attractive parts of the body, etc.

          QUOTED FOR EMPHASIS

          The potential ambiguity of proceptive signals leaves the signaler less open to direct personal rejection since such initiations can be seen as either an initiation, or as just very friendly behavior.

          You can talk all you want about “male ego” you fucking mangina, but nobody here is buying your desire to make excuses for women doing this crap.

          I simply do not see how any man can consider smiling and eye contact unclear signalling, even though it fits the definition of nonverbal proceptive signalling. That’s the beauty of it – it satisfied both sexes. Women get their plausible deniability while being crystal clear.

      • Oh I’m sorry, you wanted evidence.

        I don’t have any aside from anecdotal, and neither do you. I am familiar with the facts about partner numbers, and merely interpreting them differently than you.

        I also would never deny that under certain conditions, many men would like to have unlimited promiscuous sex, but its a fantasy – not related to the real world for most men (I’m an exception). Just like women fantasize about rape doesn’t mean they want to get raped in real life. Both fantasies reflect an aspect of each genders psyche but don’t necessarily translate into real life preferences.

      • “So banging 24 girls per half a year is “average”?

        For guys who bother to go out to clubs and bars a lot, sure.

  12. PUA and all these bizarre ideas are formed by men who are sexual “losers” because women do not communicate clearly with men and send mixed messages. It is like this men are driven insane by the gaslighting, they come up with more convoluted ideas, instead of just coming to the simpler conclusions that women are nuts. No wonder that so many bizarre sub cultures form on the internet.

    I want all men in the UK to pay attention to this article.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

    This is what female gaslighting leads to. At the end of the day women want the social power to destroy any man they want, women want this collectively, most women approve of this even non-feminist women. If women really cared about men, they would be protesting about this.

    Women will protest against girls in Africa getting sexuality mutilated, they will campaign over it, but will not say shit about boys getting their dicks cut over here. Women would rather spend energy over girls thousands of miles away than help boys nearer to them in their own country.

    • Alek is the one developing a complicated theory – that women send super-subtle signalling that you have to become expert at decoding (Alek’s version of “game”).

      My theory is exceedingly simple – if you aren’t getting clear signals, she’s not interested in you.

      Nothing is simpler than that.

    • @Mortimer

      My theory is exceedingly simple – if you aren’t getting clear signals, she’s not interested in you.

      You do realize you’re calling tamerlame a rapist? You’re saying all the women he laid were not interested.

      He spent all this effort trying to tell you about all the women he laid and how none of them gave him any clear signals at the start and forced him to pursue them and battle through mixed signals before they finally admitted interest back.

      Also keep your gaslighting narratives straight, you’re starting to mix up your gaslighting narratives.

      – IS IT THAT

      A) assburger bitter time-travelers are causing women not to give signals (i.e. its your fault that women aren’t clear, because you cause it with your bitter cynicism, otherwise women are pristingly clear with everyone except assburger cynical future bitter ex virgins)

      (in which case you ADMIT that a woman can be interested in you and not show it clearly)

      B) Or is it that if a woman is not showing clear signals, it definetely means SHE IS NOT interested.

      You do realize A & B can’t both be true at the same time in the same universe, do you?

      Yet you can’t keep track of your narratives. Choose one.

      • He spent all this effort trying to tell you about all the women he laid and how none of them gave him any clear signals at the start and forced him to pursue them and battle through mixed signals before they finally admitted interest back.

        And specifically he explained to you how after he finally got them he learned they were interested all along, but admitted to playing hard to get and wanting to be pursued.

        – Are you calling tamerlame a lier?

        – Did tamerlame imagine all his experiences?

        – Are all the best-sellers teaching women how to play hard to get something one is imagining, they don’t exist, the world is imagining them, and amazon is selling imaginary non-existent books by the millions

        – Are the thousands of articles and interviews with women talking about wanting to be pursued and put effort into imagined as well?

        – Are all the studies and scientists talking about the human female and its mixed signalling as a mating strategy also imaginary (there are thousands of papers on this)

        – Are the studies that find 78% of men are blind to female signals (which the woman defines as clear, yet the men do not even see)

        *-Hint, if 78% of men have difficulty with doing something, then by definition it means that doing it is not normal

        • Are all the best-sellers teaching women how to play hard to get something one is imagining, they don’t exist, the world is imagining them, and amazon is selling imaginary non-existent books by the millions

          That books have to be written about it, can indicate that it isn’t common and women don’t for the most part practice it. Most women aren’t feminists (look it up), yet countless books are written exhorting women to become one. Books aren’t written advocating the adoption of practices that are already widespread

          – Are the thousands of articles and interviews with women talking about wanting to be pursued and put effort into imagined as well?

          Sure they wanna be pursued. I wanna have a harem. But I’m not gonna base my real life strategy on that, and neither will she.

          – Are all the studies and scientists talking about the human female and its mixed signalling as a mating strategy also imaginary (there are thousands of papers on this)

          Smiling and eye contact can be described as both mixed signalling (after all she was only being friendly) and crystal clear to anyone who isn’t autistic.

          – Are the studies that find 78% of men are blind to female signals (which the woman defines as clear, yet the men do not even see)

          *-Hint, if 78% of men have difficulty with doing something, then by definition it means that doing it is not normal

          I believe there are SOME signals that the majority of men might be blind to. But not most.

      • Alek, alek, alek. What are we gonna do with you.

        No, I’m not saying Tamerlame is a rapist. Either he pursued women with minimal interest who then developed interest in him as they knew him better, or allowed themselves to be “won over” through persistence (which can happen if there is minimal interest), or he pursued SHITTY women. My definitions of a shitty girl is one who forces you to battle them in order to get them. In fact I can’t think of a better definition.

        Alek, I’ve always admitted a woman can be physically attracted (not necessarily interested) and not show it.

        I say if you aren’t getting clear signals from women on a regular basis

        1) You are not attractive (at least to those women)

        2) You are unapproachable.

        It can be one, the other, or both.

    • @Tamerlame…

      I saw it posted 3 more comments. Let me know if it answers the A/B paradox or not. I’m not reading its rants full of claims upon claims upon claims about claims upon claims…

      It’s funny how these gaslightbots work…

      – They make a claim
      – You make an argument to disprove claim
      – Instead of making counter-argument, the bot throws 3 new claims
      – You provide arguments about why the claims are false (so 3 arguments in total)… to each argument it answers with 2-3-4 new CLAIMS

      And it can multiply to infinity. It never gives arguments, just keeps piling claims as evidence of previous claims.

      Let me know if there’s an answer to the focused single thread rails it tries to avoid, among all those claims. With bots like these you have to confine them to a single thread so they can’t pull that claim-showering.

      SO FAR we have 2 threads

      1) It claims that banging 24 women per half a year is the MOST NORMAL thing on the planet, and requires a NORMAL skill that everyone except assburger suffers possess.

      Yet the average guy has 0,125 partner per actively sexual half years. That’s a difference of 19,200%. Did this robot respond to this. Is every research on the planet lying about what’s normal, or does the robot admit that this is not a “normal skill”? Both can’t be true at the same time.

      2) It claims that if a woman is not showing you clear signals, SHE IS DEFINETELY not interested.

      Yet at other times says that if you have don’t have the right mindset (your ego is causing you act in ways that get her not to show you her interest). So it needs to choose one, both can’t be true.

  13. Contra the idea that its extremely hard to figure how to get women, Aaron Sleazy stated in response to my comments on a recent thread that “it wasn’t that hard” to figure out how to get women once he began going out. His book, minimal game, also presents it as exceedingly straightforward and easy, and focuses, like me, on simply being upfront and social, and accepting your limitations (that’s a major theme of his writings, btw).

    I guess that’s what you guys are referring to when you mention the recent PUA trend to simply be upfront and social.

    If so, you need to realize that Aaron Sleazy is not a PUA – he packages himself as one in order to sell books, but his basic idea is 1) accept your limitations 2) Be normal, upfront, and social (and escalate). Nothing more. Nothing less.

    As an aside, a book most of you guys here would LOVE is highly respected military historian Martin Van Creveld’s book “The Priveleged Sex”, about women. It’s a bit tongue in cheek response to feminism and guys who don’t realize that are in danger of taking it far too literally. Its a book that only makes sense as a decidedly one sided riposte to the excesses of feminism. Its preposterous as a stand alone characterization of relations between the sexes, but I doubt its meant to be taken as such.

    Its free if you have AmazonPrime.

    • You do realize me and Sleazy are friends right?

      BTW he talks a lot about mixed signals, and he ripped you to shreds when you claimed women are never ambigious and show clear signals.

      He went out on a rant ripping on you and explained how super-in-your-face clear unmistakable interest showing is RARE and the exception.

      His latest book delves deep into female ambiguity and lack of clear signaling.

      Aaron Sleazy stated in response to my comments on a recent thread that “it wasn’t that hard” to figure out how to get women once he began going out.

      Yes, and he retired and got married because it was too much effort and not worth the effort. He never claimed it was effortless or that all interested women make it easy.

      He (and I) say it is SIMPLE, not effortless. But as you’ve demonstrated plenty you suck at understanding differences between concepts. You’re confusing the two concepts.

      • He (and I) say it is SIMPLE, not effortless. But as you’ve demonstrated plenty you suck at understanding differences between concepts. You’re confusing the two concepts.

        The notion that women are selfish risk-averse lazy maters who want you to take all the risk IS SIMPLE. One does not have to subscribe to things being EASY, in order to have a SIMPLE approach…

        — Mine is ALSO SIMPLE —-

        – Women are lazy and selfishly want you to make the moves and take the risk

        – They will send you mixed signals, don’t wait for 100% certainty it will never come, make a guess and make a move

        – The more experience you have, the better you’ll get at guessing, but you’ll never get to a 100% guessing rate, or 0% effortlessness rate

        – It’s up to you how much pursuing (effort) you want to do, some will require little, some will require a lot. Women who are interested in you come in all levels of game-playing, from the women who don’t play games, to the ones expecting you to “win them over”.,

        ————

        YOUR SIMPLE VIEW is not any SIMPLER. So claiming that YOUR VIEW about vibes and ego dropping and energies and feeding of vibes is NOT “anti-complication”, it’s just a DIFFERENT VIEW.

        • It is the ego comment that gives her female nature away. We talk about females not communicating clearly, using the dating and club scene to practice relational aggression to shoot men down harshly, that somehow translates into male ego?

          The term ego is used to invalidate male pain. For example fathers who are driven away from their families after divorce, kill themselves because their egos can’t take it according to feminists.

          Anyway lets get back on topic.

          Women who find you attractive can still mess you around and still not sleep with you,

          If you are not forceful and wait for the woman to make the move you never get laid.

          If you are too pushy you risk getting done for sexual harassment or even sexual assault. Even boorish behavior is considered sexual violence in the UK.

          Men who get the most sex are pushy.

          Nice respectful good looking men, who are not pushy, can remain sexless for years. Even if they date they can remain dateless.

          Also we are not even tackling things like freindzone guys, or women who love wasting the time of men, by leading them on. Women have zero respect for men.

          I just want clear direct communication.

          I would say I would love woman to do half the work in romance/dating, but I am not even that interested in women anymore.

          The link I posted about having to prove you didn’t rape a woman, makes all sex a crime for heterosexual men.

        • No, my view is definitely simpler, as it contains fewer elements. You say there is one more complicated skill to master – decoding subtle signals. I say that’s unnecessary.

          You also seem to have toned down your view on how unclear women are. It went from being women are super-unclear and deliberately play games all the time, to now where its that signals aren’t always 100% clear.

          Good.

          You’re considerably closer to my view now, although we still disagree.

          We’re actually not that far apart. I too would encourage men to approach when its ambiguous. I merely say clear signalling is far more common than you admit, and that once you approach most women are far more cooperative than you admit, and that whatever coyness she does initially show is more a result of a need to get comfortable with a total stranger, which takes time, than out of some desire to “be pursued”, or worse, a desire to play games.

      • Right, cause that’s the only reason someone gets married, to escape the difficulty of getting chics in clubs.

        Fair enough, in that comment he said it was easy to figure out, which doesn’t necessarily mean its easy to do. But he says its easy to do all over the place.

        • Also, recently on Aaron’s forum someone suggested you should focus on social circle game, and Aaron responded that you would miss out on some of the best adventures and times of your life if you neglected clubs.

          Clearly he immensely enjoyed his time clubbing and found it thrilling. That wouldn’t exactly be the case if he found it exhausting and difficult.

    • @Mortimer This is page 97 of Aaaron Sleazy’s new book…

      Chapter: Female Signals
      First Sentence: Only in rare cases do women signal clearly that they are interested in a particular man. Normally, you can at best hope for mixed signals…

      Last paragraph of chapter: Women don’t want to be held accountable for their actions, which is reflected in their dating strategies.

      Chapter: To lead means to be creepy (page 135):
      First Sentence: Women play a reactive role on the dating market in western society… If you as a guy wanted to get laid effortlessly, you would need to be extremely good looking or famous for being wealthy, and even then most interested women will not make a move.

      You’re welcome…

      • Thank you.

        Its a question of semantics. Eye contact IS a “mixed signal”. It’s a clear signal, but it doesn’t preclude plausible deniability.

        I said MOST girls will NOT approach me. That one girl out of hundreds in any given night WILL, fits the definition of “rare”.

        Similarly, “effortlessly” – this means girls approaching guys and jumping them. This IS rare. One girl a night out of 100s – rare. Having to approach a girl and gradually escalate, a process that can take half an hour before you go come with her, is in my definition “effortless”, but does not technically fit the definition of “effortless”, no. It’s all relative.

        You have to look not at Sleazy’s definitions but his descriptions and judge for yourself how you would describe it.

  14. One comment you post

    “But I do think I am being kind to men by liberating them from false beliefs that are holding them back.”

    Then you contradict yourself with.

    “One thing I agree with you Alek – it takes actual experience. And it takes age and years as well to reach the point where you are “comfortable in your own skin” and women will feel comfortable around you.

    As for “charm”, what is that even? What you need is to not be defensively egotistical – again, it can take age and experience for many guys to reach that level of comfort with themselves that women are at ease around them. Most young guys are incredibly defensive and egotistical.

    Drop the ego! It will kill you with women!

    Women are risk averse. The scariest thing in the world for them is a hot guy who they like who’s defensively egotistical. Drop the ego and they open up.”

    What the fuck does defensively egotistical even mean? Is that codeword for shy or something? Explain what you mean by ego?

    One tactic people use to invalidate people who are analyzing female nature systematically, is to try and convince them, that the bullshit relational aggression hoops women try to put men through is somehow the mans own problem.

    Level of comfort? do you mean confident guys? Do you realize pyschopaths are very confident and smooth? That criteria is completely amoral. I wouldn’t mind so much, if women didn’t go around acting like shy guys are sub human creeper rapists.

    So young insecure guys, who are normal human beings get deselected? Do you know men get taught in todays culture that women are afraid of them? That you shouldn’t be pushy, or act entitled? Yet it is the entitled pushy men who get sex! lol

    Also I love how you claim I am socially awkward and geeky! lolol

    Women are the ones who are socially awkward, when your the sex that sets up the hoops that men jump threw, you can make the rules arbitrary and then claim the man who was deselected, was just clueless. Women being the passive ones, expect men to react to them, and do what they want, they are the ones who lack empatyh for men and don’t communicate with them.

    Fuck you bitch, fuck your failed attempt at gaslighting, you are a disingenuous weasel/cunt.

    • What the fuck does defensively egotistical even mean? Is that codeword for shy or something? Explain what you mean by ego?

      What I mean is acting arrogant, superior, or aloof and anti-social out of fear others won’t like you. You are not genuinely arrogant, but you act like it out of fear. Another aspect of this is to pretend to be superior to what you actually are, out of fear that others won’t like who you really are.

      Level of comfort? do you mean confident guys?

      What I mean is you’re comfortable with who you are – you don’t pretend to feel what you don’t feel or be what you aren’t. You don’t pretend to be superior out of a fear that others will reject the real you.

      So young insecure guys, who are normal human beings get deselected?

      This isn’t unique to mating. Young insecure guys will also have few friends and have a hard time finding jobs or get promotions. Insecurity can lead to behaviors and attitudes (often arrogance and acting superior, btw,) that create lots of problems for you socially. There is no point railing about this.

      Do you know men get taught in todays culture that women are afraid of them? That you shouldn’t be pushy, or act entitled? Yet it is the entitled pushy men who get sex! lol

      I do know this. Few people listen to this nonsense. I’m certainly not against interventions designed to help the few who buy into this nonsense, I’m just saying it isn’t a society-wide problem, its a niche problem. I’m definitely not against geeks and nerds helping each other to wise up.

      It many console you to think I’m a woman because I don’t buy into your narrative, but I’m male. People have more complex psychologies than your simple categories allow for.

      I don’t think women are especially socially capable – in fact I meet socially awkward and clueless women all the time. Women who don’t know how to gracefully let a man who hits on them easy I would define as the epitome of graceless social awkwardness.

      Fuck you bitch, fuck your failed attempt at gaslighting, you are a disingenuous weasel/cunt.

      Calm down. Take a deep breath.

  15. “Accepting that lack of clear eye contact in a bar means you have little chance with the girls there is a hard thing to do. Its far more consoling to believe that female interest exists but is hidden.”

    WTF? STRAWMAN MUCH??!!!!!

    Even women who make eye contact with you, can drop yo out and suddenly stop making eye contact with you.

    If a woman makes eye contact with me, I make sure she sends me more signals before approaching her. Stop the gaslighting you lying piece of shit.

    • It’s not her/his/its first ridicolous strawmen… Look at this one.

      Contra the idea that its extremely hard to figure how to get women

      TROLOLOLOL!?!? It/he/she then precedeed to lecture me and inform about Sleazy’s approach (a guy I’ve connected with for years, and who shaped my sex life actually)…

      Ironically Aaron Sleazy told this troll to get lost from his blog after he/she/it tried this gaslighting crap on there and told it off for the ridiculous claims it made

      (claims like, its normal for women to grab you by the arm, shove tits in your face, kiss you first, all interested women stare you down with big smiles, women are never subtle) Like he actually got pummeled by Sleazy, and now he’s back here preaching this stuff.

      p.s.

      Aaron’s Latest book has an entire chapter on women’s games, mixed signals, etc etc…

      • Contra the idea that its extremely hard to figure how to get women

        For anyone new reading this, not knowing why its a strawman. Nobody here says its difficult to figure out how to do it.

        – It’s simple, the more women you make a move on, the more women you bang.

        – The more persistent you are, the more you bang, as most women expect some persistence and not giving in too easily

        It’s that simple. So nobody has claimed its hard to figure out.

        Now if you want to enter some subtlety into it, i.e. avoid rejection, you can set criteria about whom you make moves on and when… and also know how much to persist and when to quit. What criteria you choose is up to you.

        – In general, deciding you’ll only make a move on 10000% super clear and direct interest, is deciding to be a virgin for life, or getting one ug every decade or so. As most women don’t like being clearly interested.

        (Ironically enough, a lot of women are capable of clearly showing 10000% disinterest, but almost none are capable of showing 10000% clear interest)

        – On the other end of this spectrum is sexual harassment, making moves on clearly uninterested women.

        A balanced approach would be something like Aaron Sleazy’s

        He will tell you be discriminate in whom you approach, and not waste your time on women who don’t seem approachable. And to quickly drop women who don’t seem to like you persistence.

        You get better at this with experience…

        An imaginary approach is Mortimer’s

        Only approach and make moves on 10000% interested women that make it effortless for you, and get laid 24-48 times a year.

        • An imaginary approach is Mortimer’s

          Only approach and make moves on 10000% interested women that make it effortless for you, and get laid 24-48 times a year.

          This simply required dropping your ego, and I guess hugging a tree or two before going out. Don’t forget the ego dropping, it’s key to this method.

        • “– The more persistent you are, the more you bang, as most women expect some persistence and not giving in too easily”

          Yet men are told persistence is harassment and it is creepy. Nice guys who respect women, and don’t understand the fact most women refuse to commicate clearly with men, will listen to this advice and never get sex.

          R.Crumb the famous underground comic artist admitted he was ugly, but he used to fuck a lot of chicks back in the day, he did by being pushy and hitting on countless women. He was from another era though, as acting like him would most likely lead a person into trouble, if they acted like that today.

          I am about done with mortimer, as he is repeating himself.

        • Why is there so much gaslighting, attempts to suppress the true nature of female nature and the dynamics of dating/romance?

          It is because romance/dating is a con?

          Is it because women treat men disrespectfully and act entitled when it domes to romance/dating? Thus they attempt to hide how badly females treat men by trying to shut down any narrative that is truthful about romance.

        • Brilliant! Couldn’t agree with the balanced approach more!

          But its all in the definitions.

          “Clear interest” to me is eye contact and smiling. If you ONLY hit on girls who give you eye contact you most certainly won’t be a lifelong virgin if you’re even reasonably attractive and personable (i.e not aloof, arrogant, defensive, etc) – and you will save yourself a WORLD of suffering, as the example of Alek and Tamerlame both make clear. Who wants to end up bitter and angry like them after years of rejections from pursuing girls who showed them no interest? You see what it does to a person!

          And to me, “persistence” is putting in the time it takes for the girl to get comfortable with me AFTER she has given me a positive first reaction. Persistence does NOT mean continuing to hit on a girl who has given you a neutral or mildly negative reaction, a la Alek Novy. You see where that has led him – down the path to bitterness, anger, and resentment. And small wonder.

        • “Clear interest” to me is eye contact and smiling.

          If you’d leave the house and actually tested this stuff out, finally… you’d learn that

          a) a chick giving one positive PROCEPTIVE signal doesn’t mean she’ll keep giving positive signals

          b) It’s a proceptive signal (meaning it might be social or sexual, you don’t know until you get through the entire ordeal and actually bang her)

          c) mixed signalling comes in when she alternates between positive and negative signals, which you’d know if you left the house and actually tried out your theories

          If you ONLY hit on girls who give you eye contact

          Didn’t tamerlame already TELL YOU A BILLION TIMES that he only hits on chicks who give signals!?!?!

          You are battling actual ghosts, inventing strawmen and then proceeding to butcher them.

          A woman giving you eye-contact for more than 0,5 seconds doesn’t mean you will effortlessly bang her. A woman smiling while you talk to her doesn’t mean she will fuck you. You’d actually know this if you left the house and actually tried out your theories.

        • In other words, your main issue is not having left the house and tries this stuff out, you’ve read some Aaaron Sleazy/Brent Smith, missunderstood them and then decided to preach your missunderstandings as gospel.

          They (and I) are saying that using these things improves your ODDS and makes things a little EASIER. Not effortless, easier. It improves your ratio, that’s it. But there’s still a ratio, there’s still effort, there are still games, and there’s still playing the numbers.

          Aaron has never said that your lays will come from 10000% clear signalling where a woman does zero mixed messaging from hello to lay. That’s entirely your fantasy.

        • So great. At least we all finally admit that eye contact is common from women, a claim you hotly denied at first. Or at least tamerlame does.

          Of course if you approach women who give you eye contact in a shitty manner it can get difficult. None of this invalidates anything I said.

          OF course there’s still effort, of course there’s still a ratio, of course there’s an element of a numbers game. Where have I implied otherwise?

          A woman can find you sexy, stare at you, but be in a relationship. Happens. Big deal. A girl can find you sexy, stare at you, but not wanna have sex and just wanna flirt a bit. Big deal.

          OBVIOUSLy eye contact isn’t a guarantee of anything, its just a clear, unambiguous signal which you denied women ever make.

          What I DO deny is that there are “games” from most women and “obstacles”. From women who are interested – i.e intended all along to fuck you .

          Perhaps “effortless” is the wrong word – obviously simply approaching a girl is effort. “Obstaceleless” is a better word. If you approach in a non-shitty way a girl who smiled or gave you eye contact, and she is interested in you, there will be no more serious obstacles or games. It will proceed smoothly at a pace dictated by how fast it takes both of you to get intimate with a complete stranger, without any major obstacles (games, signs of disinterest from her),

          If it doesn’t, something is wrong with you (you’re triggering her ego by being arrogant), or something is wrong with her.

          Either way, overcoming female obstacles is neither a necessary part of getting laid nor worth doing under any circumstances, as it will lead to the kind of bitterness we see in you, Alek. And that we want to AVOID. And by obstacles I mean signals of disinterest, not the fact that intimacy hasn’t been achieved yet. Like, if she refuses a kiss but puts her hands around your neck while dances (happened to me) – not obstacle, merely not enough comfort between strangers yet. Refusing a kiss with no corresponding indication she’s still interested – obstacle, back off and spend your time elsewhere.

      • This is true, Aaron did. He even banned me. He’s banned me before for arguing with him (which, btw, should say something about his charachter)

        Aaron is far from perfect, but he is still the best advice you can get out there.

        Still, though, Aaron frequently contradicts himself. I can quote passages from Aaron that would suggest he is an advocate of “alpha” style game.

        Aaron isn’t the most intellectually honest person and he will back up a friend like you even if it means contradicting what he has said before.

        I once got into an argument with Aaron (and got banned) for arguing that its incorrect to say “women are the choosers”, but rather that both men and women choose. An innocuous enough position, one would think. Aaron yelled at me and insulted me that I was wrong – even though in his book Minimal Game he has a section explaining that both men and women choose, and explicitly says women aren’t the only ones who choose.

        In a recent post, Aaron stubbornly refuses to admit to a commenter that women enhance your life but insist they “add nothing”. If so, then why write a book about getting them?!?!?!

        Aaron clearly states all over the place that it isn’t difficult to get women, most recently in a reply to my comment.

    • Really? Then that’s part of your problem. If a girl makes “prolonged” eye contact with you, its a green light. Doesn’t mean you’ll get her, but its a green light.

      Alek Novy claims women NEVER give you more than 0.0005 second eye contact though so itsn’t not something you have to worry about.

  16. Final post.

    I take back everything I said about Aaron Sleazy. The man is a complete fraud.

    I just checked out his forum’s “classic posts”. You have to register. Sleazy is a classic-style PUA, no better than Roosh or Heartiste, using the same jargon, and yapping about his being alpha, push-pull, time constraints. Unless all those posts are sarcastic, the man is a complete and total 100% fraud. He has a massive alpha complex, like Roosh and Heartiste. He’s a complete, complete fraud.

    No wonder Alek is friends with him. Oh, and Alek, he literally contradicts everything you said – he says women throw themselves at him in clubs, and the encounters he describes are even easier than mine.

    One more illusion burst. There are no sane men writing on getting girls. In retrospect its obvious – sane men who get girls don’t write about it. Anyone who writes about it is a fraud. And anyone who is bitter about girls but supposedly has no trouble getting them is a fraud. I was suspicious that Aaron was supposedly great with women but he was so angry and bitter about them. Now I know – he’s a typical insecure guy with an alpha-complex, going on and on about his machoness and how you need to be an “alpha” to get girls.

    You guys are total losers. Goodbye.

    Any other guys reading this who are sane, before you take anything Aaron says seriously check out his classic posts on his forum. Do yourself a favor.

      • Did the troll post 12 rants in a row and then rage quit calling everybody a loser? If I was bothered to read them, I’d guess they’re just the next flurry of

        – logical contradictions
        – answering arguments with claims
        – more claims
        – claims about claims
        – STRAWMEN

        She/it claims to be just your average guy who lays 24-48 strangers a year from clubs.

        It is here because it has an altruistic mission to cure losers from false beliefs and get them to drop their egos, hug some trees and feed better energy to chicks who… well chicks just can’t wait to jump on you, grab you by the arm and kiss you (if you feed them the right energy).

        But don’t forget to drop that male ego before you go out, or the energy transferal will not work.

        p.s.

        If it’s a guy (I think it’s someone listening to Brent Smith type crap), he’ll eventually leave the house, test his fantasies out and find out he’s not actually getting laid effortlessly 24-48 times a year through energy feeding.

        A lot of these guys justify their hipocrisy by believing that they’re doing good “sure I’m a virgin claiming to bang 24-48 chicks a year with zero effort online, but the truth is I CAN, I know the secret about energy feeding! it’s not true at the moment, but the moment I leave the house and do it, it will work just as my guru says anyway, so its ok to lie about it on the internet”

        • A lot of these guys justify their hipocrisy by believing that they’re doing good “sure I’m a virgin claiming to bang 24-48 chicks a year with zero effort online, but the truth is I CAN, I know the secret about energy feeding! it’s not true at the moment, but the moment I leave the house and do it, it will work just as my guru says anyway, so its ok to lie about it on the internet”

          I think what we have here is the equivalent of romance novels for men. These guys go on the internet and pretend they’re getting laid. It’s a form of escapism like romance novels are for women.

        • You are such a fraud Alek, its hilarious. You don’t get girls, and neither did Aaron before he got married. And you know it, don’t try and lie to me. I know. You are 100% not getting over 20 girls a year (trust me, I know)

          You guys are just slightly more sane versoins of Roosh and Heartiste, but ts the same basic psychology. Scratch you or Aaron for a bit, and out comes the “alpha dominance” language, lol, the same resentment and bitterness, the same intolerance of difference of opinion, the same tendency to argue by insult and vituperation, and the same closed mindedness.

          What a fool I’ve been taking you or Aaron seriously!

          Anyways, anyways. Whats done is done.

          Good luck, Alek. Might wanna try hugging that tree, it’ll do you some good.

        • To clarify.

          I am not saying having “good energy” or anything like that will get you girls, as Alek is maliciously mischaracterizing me. What I AM saying, is that being especially anti-social, arrogant, or superior, usually as an overcompensation for insecurity, \ will make girls less open to you, less clear with you, and unlikely to approach you.

          I think its pretty clear that Alek IS unusually arrogant and anti-social, and I think that’s a big part of why he’s struggling so much with women whereas I am not.

          Its a simple point.

          You’ll get girls based on your looks, style, type, and in some cases, money and status. That’s it. But if you’re especially arrogant , you’ll create problems for yourself, like Alek is doing. And you would create problems for ourselves at work or with male friends too, if we were arrogant.

          Be normal simply means make make no special effort either to be “nice”, or to be “superior”, or to “be” anything. Just be, but make sure you are not arrogant as a result of insecurity.

          Really quite simple.

          Peace.

  17. “I think its pretty clear that Alek IS unusually arrogant and anti-social, and I think that’s a big part of why he’s struggling so much with women whereas I am not. ”

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    I only read part of your inane ramblings…

    Didn’t you say you were leaving, not very alpha to come back….

    anyways, let’s look at some men who don’t struggle with women….

    Warmachine, Hugo Schwyzer, and convicted murderers such as Charles Manson who get women 1/3rd their age…

    Getting pussy has nothing to do with being “a good man.” Nice try though. You came back after the testosterone shots from jack Donovan? Now you gonna pedal race realism like a good little male feminist?

    Fucker.

    • The troll rage quit, then it came back to strawmen some more.

      Neither me nor Tamerlame have ever said that we “struggle” with women. I’ve said that like every non-celebrity guy I have to put in effort, take risks, and play the numbers to get women.

      You know what the ironic thing is?

      Most average guys I know put in 10x the effort I do, and they get one chick every 3-4-5 years. I do 100x less effort than them, yet I am fucking angry and pissed each time I lay a chick…

      Because right after the sex, my thought is, wait, why did you get to rollercoast through this process and I had to do the risk-taking, while you get to hide behind mixed signals.

      If you define struggle as mentally struggling with it, then yeah. I do struggle with the fact our society gives women the power to plant mines for men as Tamerlame pointed out.

      But the average guy has 100x less success than me for 100x more effort, yet he doesn’t get pissed about it… He has been taught that “it’s just the way it is”

      • If thinking about the unfairness of the male gender role makes one struggle, so be it… But you can’t squeeze toothpaste back into the tube.

        You can’t tell men to go back to the plantation and just accept that their sexuality is worth less than a woman’s, and hence they should accept that for getting something mutually beneficial, the man has to pay for it (with effort and risk).

        • there’s the rub of it…

          ideologically, I think prostitution should be legal…

          however, when you had over your hard earned cash to some broad, you are essentially saying your sexuality is worthless, even after you give her orgasms…

          that’s were pigman fraudtrelle intentionally misquoted me….

        • @Stoner… speaking about prostitution vs our ragequitting troll…

          Apparently average looking escorts can charge $200 to $300 per encounter for something that’s easily and effortlessly available, according to our favorite rage-quitting troll.

          Apparently all these succesful men could easily and effortlessly get laid 24-48 times a year for FREE (if they just dropped their male ego and hugge a few trees)… But for some mysterious reason they go and pay $300 to bang an average looking chick.

          Methinks these succesful men should pay mortimer $200 to teach them how to do ego dropping. It’s a wonder that Mortimer isn’t rich yet. Imagine all the profits he could steal from the sex industry.

          If only these men went to Mortimer, they’d get off so much cheaper. They’d only have to learn and master ego-dropping ONCE, and then get laid for free from there on out, WITHOUT EFFORT.

          One has to wonder why Mortimer isn’t investing his time targetting the clients of the multi-trillion dollar sex industry (globally speaking), yet instead wasting his time trying to educate us lame losers for free…

          One has to wonder…

      • “Neither me nor Tamerlame have ever said that we “struggle” with women.”

        Yeah, you did. You just say struggling with women is “normal”. Jesus, you must think everyone else is a complete idiot.

        What rollercoaster, dude. I NEVER experience a rollercoaster with women. I would bail at the first hint of one. That you don’t is pathetic. You still don’t understand that YOU are triggering ego responses from women with your arrogance and anti-social behavior? No, I guess not. That would require a level of maturity and capacity for self-criticism you simply do not possess.

        Good God! When I wake up the next morning with a girl who was friendly and cooperative with me from the get go I experience pleasure and joy.

        Tell me Alek, why would you even bother getting girls like this if every time its rage and bitterness? Why put yourself through that punishment? Its crazy. You make good money why not get prostitutes?

        Jesus I would never do that to myself. If I felt rage and bitterness every time I got with a girl, if that was the price to pay, I would NEVER do it. Whats wrong with you that you do it? Do you need validation from being able to “get” girls? Sounds like it. More and more it looks like you have the psychology of a roosh/heartiste.

        I know, I know, its 100% women’s fault and there simply can’t, by definition, be anything about male behaviors that trigger shitty reactions from women. Anyone daring to suggest otherwise is clearly, obviously a woman, a mangina, a liar, or worse.

        That’s my crime, I know – I am plenty critical of women but I don’t join the bandwagon by attributing 100% blame on women, and I have precisely ZERO resentment and bitterness towards women despite being ignored by them in my youth, and I believe there are PLENTY of cool girls out there who don’t play games (the majority, actually).

        I am off-message, so I am a thought criminal here

        1) Don’t blame women 100%.

        2) Think most girls are pretty cool and chilled out.

        Yikes! A heretic!

        • I am off-message, so I am a thought criminal here

          1) Don’t blame women 100%.

          I don’t blame women 100%, I blame society, manginas, tradition, media etc… Women are taught that they have a golden vajay and they need to perform relational agression on men and not “give in easily”

          2) Think most girls are pretty cool and chilled out.

          Yikes! A heretic!

          Yikes a strawman!

          What does women being cool and chilled out have to do with the topic? As was covered before, if you cool around women, they’ll act cool too… they’ll still play the same games and make you jump through the same hoops though. Just with a smile on their face. They still won’t “effortlessly jump on your cawk the moment you show first interest”. That requires being a rockstar.

          The only people on the planet who believe that an average guy can get laid as much as rockstar with the same level of effortlessness – are people who’ve read and missunderstood new-agey pua theories. (and yes the guys writing the ego dropping, tree hugging shit are puas with a new marketing angle)

        • *- with notable exceptions. I love me some exceptions, but you certainly don’t meet the exception on a daily basis. (each time you go out).

    • Dude, I’m not the one who cares about being “alpha”, Alek and Aaron are. If you read more than just part of my “ramblings” (but of course you won’t) you would know that.

      I ridicule the whole concept of “alpha”, which is why I ridiculed Alek when he used classically alpha-style language to describe women’s reactions to men who persist vs men who don’t. Scratch Alek, and reveal an insecure gamer who, at bottom, really does think in categories like “alpha”, despite the window dressing. Same goes for Sleazy. Read Sleazy’s “classic posts” and you find an insecure adolescent who delights in fantasies of himself as this super dominant “alpha” male (his words) who dominates women left and right, lol. He’s a roosh/heartiste in sheeps clothing. Its all bullshit.

      Nor do I say being “nice” (never mentioned being a “good man”) is anywhere near enough to get women – but nothing to do with it? Sorry, but it does. If you act arrogant and anti-social you will be doing huge damage to your ability to get girls. Or have friends. Or get job promotions. That’s just a fact. Deal with it. If you don’t believe, look at Alek’s struggles with women.

      I get girls 10-14 years younger than my age regularly, and without the go games that Alek triggers with his haughtiness. And not being arrogant has SOMETHING to do with it, not nothing. Although obviously its not NEARLY enough.

        • WTF? Jesus man, at least read what I write if you’re gonna comment on it.

          My whole attitude is ridiculing the whole “you’re a man if you get pooosy attitude”.

          You guys are wacko.

          I don’t buy into the alpha, dominance bullshit of roosh/heartiste/alek/sleazy, and my WHOLE POINT is to ridicule that way of thinking whenever I see it come up, because it develops as an overcompensation for insecurity and is a big part of the problem why men struggle with women.

          The more I guy thinks in terms of “alpha”, the more he’ll struggle with women.

          (note having a spine and standing up for yourself, not allowing yourself to be mistreated by women, by walking away if she does, has nothing to do with “alpha”. Its simply across the board human self-respect that does not in any way preclude respect and kindness for others including women, does not involve attempts to “dominate” or demonstrate “strength”, and has no special application to women but applies equally to men)

          The more guys drop the arrogance, haughtiness, and anti-social attitude (without in any way stopping to stand up for yourself and have self-respect), the more your social relations will prosper, including with women.

          Lol, anywhere in the normal world this would be an utterly uncontroversial opinions.

          Here, its malignant heresy of the worst kind.

    • I love these “studies”. They are designed and executed by nerds/geeks (not pejorative, just descriptive) who are massively insecure about their own masculinity and preoccupied with “machoness”, are keen to attribute their own failures with women (and general social life) not to any genuine shortcoming like bad looks, difficult or unappealing personality, disinterest in style and other activities that most “average” people enjoy and find emotionally stimulating, and are channeling unoriginal pop cultural tropes about “what women like”.

      Love it, love it, love it. Its why sociology is a bogus field. Even in harder sciences over 90% of studies can’t be “replicated. Its just an echo chamber and a wish fullfillment/projection device for the people who do these studies.

      The tragic thing is guys with no experience, like I once was, will believe this crap.

      • haha, you don’t like it so the authors of the studies are sexless nerds…

        and your “no experience” crap is quite frankly insulting…

        even if Mr. Black Pill is a virgin, he still has plenty experience dealing with women…

        As someone pointed out, his being falsely accused of harassment is experience with women….

        Even if I am also a virgin I also have experience dealing with women. In fact, my feminist mom used me as a punching bag when I was a small boy. That probably turns you on. Fucker.

        In fact experience sticking your penis into vaginas doesn’t insulate you from danger. Just look at that exec guy who was left to die by a prostitute…

        http://abcnews.go.com/US/prostitute-injected-tech-exec-heroin-left-die-yacht/story?id=24483851

        He apparently got along and got promotions in the corporate hierarchy. And you probably consider him a real man. Whatever, your as delusional as the White Nationalists who expect us to bend over for Jack Donovan.

        Now kindly go fuck off asshole….

      • Science is not invalidated by your personal ad homin attacks.

        I think most scientists get laid, since they have status. Alek thinks you are a dude, your nerd hate convinces me that you are a woman.

  18. Why is it insulting to say people without experience will buy into these stupid studies about the sexes? I did. I firmly believed for the longest time the whole “macho” theory of the sexes that is peddled so heavily by these modern “studies” but in fact has very deep roots in popular culture. And it destroyed my love life.

    Game isn’t some kind of innovation despite what their naive promoters claim – its just repackaging age old cultural tropes in modern scientific verbiage, evolutionary verbiage, with an added element of trying to make a religion out of it (providing a “purpose”in life – “its my evolutionary duty to get women”!, etc, etc, bullshit like that)

    I’ve never said women are angels. Humans aren’t angels. We’re all pretty evil. I can trawl the web and find you thousands of examples of both men and women acting in the most shitty ways imaginable. So what? What’s your point? That women aren’t angels? Of course they’re not!

    Pointing out examples of female evil makes sense towards people who believe women are angels – that ain’t me. Bring that up when you talk to feminists.

    Are women worse than men? No, we’re both bad. Big deal.

    I’m sorry both you and Mr PIll had bad experiences with women, but ever heard of such a thing as perspective? I’ve had some shitty experiences with women, I’ve had evil experiences with some evil men too. You know what that’s called? Life.

    I won’t deny that the modern femminist-defined legal landscape presents special hazards for men and is an unmitigated evil. That’s true. But that’s not what I’m discussing.

    Its certainly one of the reasons I won’t get married, or will hesitate before doing so.

    I’ll even admit that a not insignificant number of women exploit their position of power as passive receivers of male advances to humiliate men by rejecting them harshly. I’ve been on the receiving end of that. Some human beings will simply exploit whatever position of power they find themselves to do evil. If men were in that position SOME of them would do it too.I simply laugh it off and move on, because it isn’t extremely common, though its unavoidable if you’re male. A guy like Alek gets super bitter and resentful and begins to believe women are uniquely evil and malicious, because he is incapable of PERSPECTIVE.

    There exist girls who will reject you harshly even if you approach them in the least arrogant, non-superior way possible. Non-arrogance isn’t a panacea for human evil, for Gods sake. That’s why it pays to look for smiles and eye contact from girls (not for flicking of the hair in a crowded club or bar when you’re drunk, lol)

    But outside of legal issues, there remains tons of cool girls who are no more evil than you or I, don’t play games if you aren’t arrogant yourself, and are sweet and kind.

    Took me a while to figure this out. In fact it happened by accident.

    • “Why is it insulting to say people without experience will buy into these stupid studies about the sexes?”

      Science is invalid eh?(You are a woman, pure give away bitch.)

      “There exist girls who will reject you harshly even if you approach them in the least arrogant, non-superior way possible. Non-arrogance isn’t a panacea for human evil, for Gods sake. That’s why it pays to look for smiles and eye contact from girls (not for flicking of the hair in a crowded club or bar when you’re drunk, lol)

      But outside of legal issues, there remains tons of cool girls who are no more evil than you or I, don’t play games if you aren’t arrogant yourself, and are sweet and kind.”

      Urm….? That is why nice guy is codeword for sub human in feminist online cirlces? That is why women date bad boys?

      Also stop fucking implying I am arrogant you bitch. I am very humble and respectful in real life, why you repeatedly try and gaslight us and tell us it is our attitude that is holding us back, it is an attempt at brainwashing mind control.

      Your bitch logic, your bitch attempts of invalidation, your shitty advice, all point to your nature.

      Just be a nice humble guy and girls will flock to you? lolol

      Fuck off, get lost.

      • Unfortunately (from my experience), it is a man. I saw this many times. It’s just a phase of “pua withdrawal”. A lot of ex-puas get seduced by what I’d call a “reverse scam”.

        It generally goes like this

        Phase 1 – Dude gets seduced by PUA that promises him effortless sex and getting laid like a rockstar if he only “acts alpha enough” and learns the right words to say and the secret actions that make any woman want you.

        -> When dudes learn this is a scam, a portion of them get seduced by an alternate scam (there are now new pua gurus who don’t call themselves pua, but attract ex-puas and re-scam them by offering the opposite extreme. The marketing angle is that they attack the PUA scam, only to attract the victim into a new scam)

        Phase 2 – Dude is told that the only reason he isn’t getting laid like a rockstar is because he needs to drop the ego, JUST BE SOCIAL, just have a good vibe, just be humble and biotches will be dropping in your lap left and right, rockstar level sexlife yo!!!

        He is told that the only reason a guy doesn’t get laid is because he’s bought into the idea he needs to be macho. Feminists call it toxic masculinity and blame patriarchy… Neo-Pua gurus call it “ego” and blame the pua industry and such.

        –The victim then enters a false dichotomy–

        The victim adopts a reverse extreme. It’s compensating for phase one (believing being alpha gets you biotches effortleslly), BY NOW believing that being humble and compassionate gets you biotches effortlessly.

        That’s why it drops strawmen left and right, because its mind categorizes everything it sees into one of these two sides. That’s why it literally reads words that were not written on a page. It accused you of being stuck in a need to act alpha – even though you’ve never said you believe any such nonsense.

        It accuses anyone saying anything different to its extreme of being part of the phase 1 extreme. Oh you don’t believe that ego-dropping and being humble automagically gets you laid 48 times a year!?!?! You must then believe in overcomplicating everything and acting macho on purpose!!!

  19. “Why is it insulting to say people without experience will buy into these stupid studies about the sexes? I did. I firmly believed for the longest time the whole “macho” theory of the sexes that is peddled so heavily by these modern “studies” but in fact has very deep roots in popular culture. And it destroyed my love life.”

    Stop lying you stupid fucking bitch, you are not male.

    The dating rules are not macho, they are written by women and enforced by them, women are the selectors.

    You have conflated shyness with girls with lack of friends and a lack of success in life. (This is the biggest give away of your female nature.) Being good with girls is not a sign of anything except being attractive or having status. And no, shy males do not fail in life and lack friends, as male friends do not deselect other men on female criteria! Go fuck yourself to lying bitch.

    You ignore the points that people make,

    You strawman people and attribute positions to them they don’t hold.

    You waffle on about the male ego, you then make assumptions about me and Alek to boot.

    You are female I am 99% sure of it! lol

    I have talked to older men who where young men during the 60’s, my impression is that women are more fucked up than ever in the modern world, and are hyper fussy.

    Women use dating for 3 things

    (1) sex

    (2) Getting resources.

    (3) Validation.

    Women either get validation by wasting your time, or by practicing relational aggression, shooting you down/acting arrogant.

    You ignore the fact that women want men to be forceful. You ignore the fact if the man gets it wrong he can get down for sexual assault.

    Stop pretending to be a dude, your not fooling anyone.

    • Being good with girls is not a sign of anything except being attractive or having status.

      Or, lots of experience, one gained by screwing up a lot. A guy who gets laid effortlessly is either

      a) Extremely attractive through status or exceptional looks

      or if he’s not super attractive, but does get laid effortlessly, then its because he

      b) Has such massive levels of experience that he can tell where to invest what kind of effort

      But the way he got that experience is by screwing up a ton of times. The reason that he knows exactly which women to make which move on when, isn’t that he is a “good person” or somehow morally superior to the average guy. It’s just that he made the wrong move at the wrong time at the wrong woman thousands of times.

      • b) Has such massive levels of experience that he can tell where to invest what kind of effort

        But the way he got that experience is by screwing up a ton of times. The reason that he knows exactly which women to make which move on when, isn’t that he is a “good person” or somehow morally superior to the average guy. It’s just that he made the wrong move at the wrong time at the wrong woman thousands of times.

        To clarify the reason I am pointing out this option is because it contradicts feminists (and mortimer) who try to imply that not having this skill makes you a bad person or defunct in some way.

        Not being smooth and effortlessly escalating perfectly and reading signals super clearly at the right times simply means you didn’t choose to invest time on this.

        There’s a reason 93% of men do not have even an inkling of this skill, per the research. By definition if 93% of men don’t have, it means its normal not to have it.

        The guy who has it, spent his teens hitting on a ton of chicks, while the average guys didn’t. That doesn’t make him a morally better person.

        Yet if an adult man doesn’t have this skill feminists like Mortimer, Marcotte and Doctor Nerdhate will imply the guy is defunct in some way, a non human even, as if it were a moral failing he spent high school learning a valuable skill, not chasing skirts.

        • By Amanda Marcotte Logic, the guy who spent high school hitting on hundreds of chicks, is morally superior to the kid who spent high-school reading addicted to studying novels (for example).

    • @tamerlame…

      The sidebar tells me the troll is back… again… after rage-quitting several times. Does it answer why it is even here? I’m not reading its strawmen claim-filled, goal shifting posts, so if you can stomach it, let me know.

      I mean, it can go and tap the multi-trillion dollar sex industry and find reasonable people to help and get rich that way. If these people only knew mortimer’s tree hugging secrets, why would they spend all that money on sex workers when they can get laid efforlessly for free by just learning mortimer’s secrets.

      Instead of helping reasonable people for a fee and getting rich, it keeps coming back to us lame stubborn losers and trying to help us for free. Can it justify this? Why isn’t it off trying to help the rich guys wasting money on escorts?

  20. My beliefs –

    1) Getting laid is about looks, and in some cases, status and money.

    2) Guys have to initiate and sexually escalate.

    3) Its not uncommon for girls in big cities to initiate.

    3) Being an arrogant prick can cause a women to react defensively and create obstacles for you out of her own ego, and can make interested women not display clear interest, and will ensure that woman who might otherwise have done so will not initiate.

    4) Not being an arrogant prick is absolutely no guarantee that you’ll get laid (see #1)

    5) If you are not arrogant and superior, women who(already) want to have sex with you will do so with a minimum of fuss in a spirit of cooperation, with few or no obstacles, and the encounter will be easy, pleasurable, and smooth, such that you wake up the next morning happy, relaxed, and pleased.

    Alek’s and Tamerlame’s beliefs –

    1) Agrees with 1&2 above.

    2) Believes women hide interest and create obstacles even when guy is not in the least bit arrogant and superior and that sex can rarely be had without an exhausting and often humiliating effort to overcome female obstacles, such that Alek wakes up feeling sad, bitter, and angry after each time he has sex.

    My take

    Alek, who is bitter, resentful, angry, arrogant, superior, and anti-social online, is like that in person, and is eliciting the reactions he so bemoans.

    Alek’s take

    I am a woman, a mangina, an evil heretic, for even considering such a thing. It is 100% women’s fault and women are malicious creatures who make men suffer to have sex with them, and if I deny this, I am a woman, a mangina, etc, etc – you get the point.

    Ok.

    Just trying to see where we stand.

    • “4) Not being an arrogant prick is absolutely no guarantee that you’ll get laid (see #1)”

      Yet you accuse Alek of being bitter and that is the reason why he is not getting laid?

      Do you have to contract yourself every single post?

      BP please ban this troll.

      • Ironically enough, I fully admit being bitter, and yet I get laid more than all the non-bitter guys who just accept the notion they have no sexual worth. Or myself back when I was a humble modest celibate mangina.

        I am angry and get pissed off that I had to try 3-5 times (that’s 3-5 attempts of 3-10 minutes each, with trying to escalate upon randomly running into a chick at parties, clubs). Knowing she was fully interested from the first attempt and first time I CLEARLY COMMUNICATED my interest. (why did I have to communicate it 3-4-5 more times and she had to not give clear answer back?)

        At the same time the average guy is happy a girl “let him score” after chasing her for 6 months and spending sometimes HUNDREDS of hours on the phone and facebook chat. And yet he’s happy when he finally “gets her”.

        So in some way its true that mindset is part of being bitter. If I hadn’t discovered the notion of gender roles, I’d be just another blissfully happy dude just accepting the unfairness of men having to battle through faux ressistance.

        • dude just accepting the unfairness of men having to battle through faux ressistance.

          Which had ALWAYS been a crappy deal… But now they’re even passing laws to punish you for doing what women force you to do.

          Now if you persist past lack of clear unambigious communication, you’re breaking the law. But it is women who refuse to communicate clearly. Mind blown.

        • Ahh, Alek’s mythical “average” guy against which his performance is so impressive.

          You’re a champ, Alek. You’re a member of an elite club called “most other men”. Enjoy.

        • I think we finally made a breakthrough.

          You fully admit to being bitter when you approach girls, and that you have to try multiple times before they reciprocate your interest. Whereas women reciprocate my interest immediately (if they’re interested).

          Let everyone connect the dots for themselves.

          Thanks, Alek. As I’ve said, I learned from you in the past, now you’re teaching me indirectly and against your will even more. Thanks. Now I’m experienced enough to put your example in context in a way I never could before.

        • “Ironically enough, I fully admit being bitter, and yet I get laid more than all the non-bitter guys who just accept the notion they have no sexual worth. Or myself back when I was a humble modest celibate mangina. ”

          The lack of anger from guys in more worrying. The lack of anger from guys who get fucked over is the reason why women crush men and control them.

      • Do you have to contract yourself every single post?

        Every claim contradicts every other claim he makes. In mortimer land 2+2 = 7

  21. Serious question Alek.

    WHY on earth would you continue to get sex from girls in clubs if it leaves you feeling so bitter and sad each time?

    Why would you do that to yourself?

    Why go through that?

    I know I definitely wouldn’t. I would use prostitutes or social circle.

    So whats going on here? Are you looking for validation?

  22. In the interests of honesty and fairness, I am now reading Sleazy’s Club Game and its pretty good. My previous comments were too harsh.

    Sleazy apparently evolved from a classic PUA of the worst, most insecure, “dominance” obsessed type of gamer into a mature person without the bullshit (I guess he is one of the humans who can really learn from experience), and his classic posts section of his forum clearly reflect his earlier incarnation – though God knows why he keeps that junk up still. Its embarrassing. B

    I would add a note of caution though – old style PUA thinking crops up every now and then in Sleazy’s thinking, as it does with Alek, so neither are as consistent or as honest as one would hope.

    Its pointless going into at anymore as this conversation has gone nowhere, but Aaron doesn’t come close to Alek’s take on what you have to do to get laid. The section on female signalling isn’t even close to the severity Alek’s ideas, and the encounters he describes seem very much to flow smoothly and fairly effortlessly (or “obstaclessly” if not effortlessly)

  23. @Mortimer.

    I genuinelly have not read any of the past 10 comments you’ve posted, I just scroll past them.

    The previous 10 I accidentally caught some of the things you said while scrolling, this time I scroll quite more quickly so…

    I am genuinely recommending that you take your expertise to the men wasting trillions on the sex industry. Why waste your time with a bunch of bitter, stubborn losers like us here?

    Go and become rich teaching guys how to get laid 24-48 times a year without effort and without having to pay whores.

    Good luck.

  24. Its all good, Alek. I don’t think you understand life very well, but good luck with everything.

    People can make up their own minds about what each of us has said.

    All the best.

    • You forgot to leave contact information so they can reach you and learn how to get like a rockstar without effort.

      • BTW Alek Mortimer used the old

        “You are just shooting out of your league” line.

        Personal I used to hit on ugly women all the time, I never convinced one to fuck ,me, they had a rotten entitled attitude, the only women I have ever fucked are good looking ones.

        If Mortimer is a guy, he is a PUA shill, he uses the same old boring personal attacks and invalidation that PUA’s use.

        PUA’s are very bitchy and feminine with their online personas, so maybe that is why I think Mortimer is a female.

        • Oh you wrote about it in MS 2 years ago? Then of course it must be wrong! Sorry, my mistake. I didn’t realize you wrote about it already. Had I only known….

          It’s like I’ve fallen through the Rabbit Hole – the utterly uncontroversial idea that everyone actually is limited in what level of mate they can attract is here considered lunacy.

          Love how you guys preempt debate by simply declaring illegitimate the very thing to be debated.

          It’s a very classic debating move, but unfortunately only works on idiots.

          And of course once again I have to clarify (because actually getting my position right would mean reading what I wrote, and neither Alek nor tamerlame do that apparently, despite responding to me)

          Hitting on girls out of your league doesn’t make you sad and bitter. Having shitty encounters with women can (it doesn’t have to).

          One way to avoid having shitty encounters is to avoid aggressively escalating on a girl who has shown you no interest, and to cultivate self-knowledge and an awareness of your own attractiveness (apparently self-knowledge isn’t a virtue here), when choosing which girl to approach.

        • One way to avoid having shitty encounters is to avoid aggressively escalating on a girl who has shown you no interest. (apparently self-knowledge isn’t a virtue here), when choosing which girl to approach.

          You do realize that each time you talk about approaching, its a dead giveaway of being a virgin?

          There are hundreds of steps between successfully starting a conversation and ACTUALLY penetrating a woman. The bullshit, mixed signals and “persist and convince me to sleep with you” shit starts in between having a pleasant conversation and having your actual dick inside of an actual woman.

          One way to avoid having shitty encounters is to avoid aggressively escalating on a girl who has shown you no interest. (apparently self-knowledge isn’t a virtue here), when choosing which girl to approach.

          Except that’s a strawman as nobody you have ever argued with has EVER said to hit on, approach or escalate on ZERO interest showing.

          The discussion is that you claim women are super-duper-obvious and in your face begging you to have sex and don’t MIX SIGNALS…

          As most virgin gurus, you seem to assume that a pleasant open = I had sex with her. That’s why you keep coming back to approaching and “approach invitations”. It’s clear to anyone who’s ever had sex because you never actually bring up anything that happens in between point A and B

          Point A = in pleasant conversation with a chick
          Point B = your dick is inside her

          Like most virgin gurus, you are obsessed with getting to point A, assuming that’s where the success happens.

        • the utterly uncontroversial idea that everyone actually is limited in what level of mate they can attract is here considered lunacy.

          Strawman

          Love how you guys preempt debate by simply declaring illegitimate the very thing to be debated.

          It’s a very classic debating move, but unfortunately only works on idiots.

          Declaring people idiots for saying something they never said (i.e. the strawman).

          Hitting on girls out of your league doesn’t make you sad and bitter. Having shitty encounters with women can (it doesn’t have to).

          I don’t give a fuck what makes you sad and bitter. Your emotions are none of my business bitch.

          The topic of discussion here is the gaslighting feminists like you perform where you try to erase all the effort between points A and point B and insulting, bemeaning anyone who doesn’t automagically and effortlessly get from point A to point B.

          One way to avoid having shitty encounters is to avoid aggressively escalating on a girl who has shown you no interest,

          Strawman

          and to cultivate self-knowledge and an awareness of your own attractiveness (apparently self-knowledge isn’t a virtue here)

          As the guys over at MS covered….

          When a guy hears this claim and goes out AND KEEPS DROPPING HIS STANDARDS… he finds that he never reaches this PURPORTED scenario of “an interested woman on your level will throw herself at you and make it effortless”.

          Because no matter how many levels he drops, it never happens, not even if he chats up the ugliest wilderbeasts does he ever. In fact, as has been all of our experiences, HOTTER CHICKS ARE EASIER and play less games (when interested).

          Your feminist theories do no match ANYONE’s LIVED EXPERIENCES. No matter how many times you repeat your gaslighting claims.

      • who has shown you no interest,

        This strawman is at the heart of this gaslighting campaign. Nobody here has ever suggested or said that they make moves on women who show clear disinterest.

        In fact the whole subject is MIXED SIGNALS. There are 3 options.

        a) clear unmistakable and unambigious signals of interest
        b) mixed signals and game playing
        c) clear signals of disinterest

        This whole gaslighting campaign by feminists is to hide female privilege to erasing b. It’s also the shit they erase when they bash and gaslight “nice guys tm”.

        There are three stages courtship goes through.

        1) You have no relationship to the woman
        2) You have a social relationship with her
        3) You have a SEXUAL relationship with her

        Going from having a SOCIAL interaction to actually having your DICK inside involves some actions. You’re not having a friendly conversation and next thing you know she’s naked and on top of you.

        Feminists conveniently try to erase all that happens in between stage 2 and stage 3, they do it by strawmanning, gaslighting, insulting, everything they can to imply that one goes from stage 2 over to stage 3 by some effortless magic.

        Why are they so obsessed with erasing this area? Because this is where most of female privilege lies, and where most b-type actions happen. It directly contradicts feminist theory. So it has to be erased.

    • I mean you’ve imparted all this wisdom to the poor gullible souls who might be mislead into thinking that getting laid involves effort (or status or looks).

      What if they read all these rants you’ve so unselfishly written so altruistically and finally “get it” and convert to mortimerism? What if they have more questions and need clarifications? You don’t want to leave them hanging do you? Open a blog or forum so they can come on there and hear more of your wisdom.

      • BTW I got to thank you for mating seflishness, it is the only advice that got me laid.

        (There is no formula for men to follow to get laid, you can only tell men honestly how the sexual market place works. Then he can work with what he has got to get sex.)

        After reading your blog, I just started weeding out time wasters ruthlessly.

        I wanted to power to go voluntary celberate on my own terms. Having women gush over men, and giving me the option to walk away from them, has boasted my self esteem a lot.

        I have decided never to have sex with a woman in the western world again.

  25. There’s no money to be made in telling guys they’re limited in the level of women they get.

    There’s no money to be made in telling guys if they’re arrogant anti-social pricks they’ll make it harder for themselves.

    There’s no money in telling guys if a girl seems disinterested she probably is.

    Most guys know that already (most guys are fine with girls however much it pains you to accept that), and of those who don’t, some will figure it out, and the rest will end up like you, tamerlame, heartiste, roosh, and to a lesser extent Sleazy – sad and bitter from having self-inflicted shitty encounters with women, or celibate.

    However, there IS money in telling guys they don’t have to confront their limitations.

    There IS money in telling guys disinterested women are secretly interested.

    There IS money in telling guys if they just master the super-subtle signals of seemingly disinterested girls they will get laid (and if it doesn’t work, they just have to keep on trying harder, they didn’t do it right, did they think mastering this important skill set is easy? But at least they’re on the path to improving…..)

    Your path is clear Alek…….

    Go get ’em, champ.

    • There’s no money to be made in telling guys they’re limited in the level of women they get.

      There’s no money to be made in telling guys if they’re arrogant anti-social pricks they’ll make it harder for themselves.

      This is bullshit, and the Scott Aaronson situation is the most recent high profile example of it. That’s so obvious so you must be a troll, and I have had enough. Consider yourself banned.

    • There IS money in telling guys if they just master the super-subtle signals of seemingly disinterested girls they will get laid

      Except that’s a strawman. You’re the one who says a guy must have something FIRST before he can get laid (in your case a dropped ego, magical vibe etc)

      Getting laid is a numbers game (let’s say your ratio is 1 in 30)

      – You get laid with girl number 30 regardless of your reading abilities.

      – I have never said that reading is a pre-requisite, only that the better you get at reading the less time/effort you have to waste on the 29 you do not lay.

    • There’s no money to be made in telling guys they’re limited in the level of women they get.

      There are TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS BEING SPENT by average guys paying to bang AVERAGE girls.

      AVERAGE GIRLS

      – Most whores are average to nasty looking, few guys can afford paying for a hot whore.

      – If all of these guys are wasting TRILLIONS to bang AVERAGE GIRLS, then they ARE paying to bang girls “within their own level”

      Why are you still here trying to argue with stubborn idiots like ourselves when you could be off stealing trillions off of the sex industry?

      All those average guys who are paying money to bang average looking whores could bang 24-48 girls a year for FREE if you only convinced them.

      • Why are you wasting effort trying to convince people here (a den of biter ex-virging time-travelling fraud moron losers), when you could be off investing that effort in more reasonable people and make money at the same time?

  26. I love how mortimer ignores the fact that women show interest and then just withdraw it for the hell of it.

    He ignored my story of the women who froze halfway through making love with me!

    This loser has no real life experiences with women ,glad DP banned the troll.

    • Dude, its your fault. Your ego had undropped in the middle of sex and she sensed your arrogance, that’s why she froze.

      You probably became bitter and arrogant in the middle of it so she backed off. You just had to redrop your ego and become more humble.

  27. Fucking A, man. Fucking A. I knew he was full of shit the moment I read through his pieces. It generally follows the pattern of starting off to get a man’s interest and then rapidly degenerates into telling men how bad they are and how they need feminism.

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