Sunday, December 11, 2011

Women's Boring Fake Internet Profiles Receive Boring Fake Responses From Men

Women using the internet to meet men always complain about the lack of good responses from men. Well, in addition to the women being too picky there's another good reason why the responses seem "inadequate". It's the lack of substance in the women's profiles which give the men nothing to work with. You get all these women writing boring, cookie-cutter internet profiles, which in turn invites boring cookie-cutter responses from men.

For example, let's say the essence of a certain woman's profile states that she likes camping, dogs, and shopping. How is a guy supposed to respond to that? Does he say "Hi, I like camping and dogs too"? He could, but that would get him rejected for being too boring and not putting much thought into the response.

Here's another example. Let's say a woman writes that she likes to listen to music, likes to try new things, and is health conscious. That still gives you little to work with. The best you can really do is respond back saying basically the same thing, which of course gets rejected for the same reason as above.

The hard truth is that there's simply no way to write a unique and original response to a woman's profile if the profile itself is not unique and original. And believe me, most women's profiles are very generic and boring, especially if the women are attractive. So it is very ironic when responses get dismissed by women for having the same lack of imagination as their profile.

In addition to the short boring response, the only other possible response is the try-hard response, in which men try hard to come up with a good response. But because they have nothing to work with it usually results in them over-reaching, which in turn results in their response sounding fake and try hard. And the result is once again that they are dismissed by the women, but this time for being fake and try hard.

Not surprising, when women complain about men who write short unimaginative responses, the men say it's because when they write long thoughtful responses they get ignored. Looking more closely, what's really happening is that men (when responding to boring one-dimensional female profiles), can only exercise one of two options: either write the short unimaginative response, or the long fake response. And given that both have an equal probability of failing, they naturally choose the option that will result in better time management.

My advice to the women who complain about the constant lack of good responses from men: Stop being so picky and seriously consider adding substance to your profile.

Some ways to add substance to your profile are:

• Mention a really exciting experience you've had
• Mention something quirky about yourself
• Talk about the shows you liked as a kid
• Talk about a trip you went on
• Talk about the kind of man you are attracted to and what you are looking for (without regurgitating what the magazines say)

If your profile is bland and generic sounding and you don't take steps to rectify it then you have no right to complain. As the saying goes, garbage in = garbage out.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Sexual Economics

I recently read a very interesting paper written by Roy F. Baumeister (Department of Psychology, Florida State University ) and Kathleen D. Vohs (Faculty of Commerce, Marketing Division, University of British Columbia). The name of the paper is Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions. In this paper the authors give some pretty solid arguments on how societies in general treat male and female sexuality. In a nutshell, a man's sexuality is treated as having no value, but female sexuality is treated as having value, and a lot (or most in some cases) of what romantically happens between men and women ties into men buying sex and women selling sex. I can really relate to this premise and it does follow closely with one of my past posts: Most Women Are Prostitutes.

If you think about it, placing value only on female sexuality but not on male sexuality is really a rigged system, given that both exist in roughly equal numbers. It adds that certain dimension of artificiality and fakeness to the male and female dynamic in which women expect something for their artificially assigned sexual value and men have to pay for access to it. As much as people like to deny this, there is a very real exchange taking place, especially among westernized spoiled women which I feel epitomize the sexual exchange theory in quite a ruthless way. You can feel it every time an attractive woman walks by and avoids eye contact with you. You can just feel that she fetches a high price. It's almost an oppressive feeling. A guy once told me, while looking at this hot blonde, that he can't afford her. It's sad how common this point of view is.

Anyway, here are some points related to sexual economic theory, as presented in the paper, but also combined with my own input from my own experiences which I'm sure a lot of you guys can relate to.

• It's impossible to use men for sex because society views male sexuality as inherently worthless. Female sexuality, however, is inherently valuable. This is why women often complain about men just wanting them for sex. What they are really saying is that they detest men who want to have sex with them for free. It's not enough for a man to just have sex with a woman. He must also give her something for it, otherwise he's "using" her or taking advantage of her. This is because women have been programmed by society to view sex as something women sell and men buy, so when men just want sex, the unspoken interpretation is that they want sex without paying for it, which means that he is taking something of value from the woman (for free), something that should be paid for somehow, either by relationship quid pro quo, or with actual money (prostitution). And since male sexuality is worthless the reverse accusation never comes up, in which a man can be used by a woman for sex. In fact, female sex toys have more value than male sexuality, since those (at least) women have to buy, so even though male sexuality can serve the same purpose as a female sex toy, it has much less value than a female sex toy.

• When women call other women "sluts" what they are really saying is that these women give sex away for little or no cost, which has the effect of lowering the overall market value of female sexuality, hence the reason why these women are so hated by other women. Female uptightness with regards to sex is actually the fault of women (and not men). Women oppress women in order to maintain a collective high price on their sexuality. The oppression process usually begins at home with mothers indoctrinating and shaming their daughters into putting a high price on their sexuality. This oppression then extends into the peer network.

• Most women hate the idea of their man having sex with other women. The reason is because it tends to lower the value of their own personal sexual stock. Their sexuality cannot be very valuable if their man is also "doing it" with other women. Women like to see their sexuality as unique and special, not something that is very common (which it is). So they want their man to only be with them to affirm this belief. But this is nothing more than jealousy and pride centered around their own sexuality.

• For the reasons just mentioned, a woman who wants to make a man "wait" and go through hoops before sex is also a woman who doesn't want a man to be with other women besides her. These two things are consistent with putting a high price on your sexuality. So if a woman accepts upfront that you will sleep with other women, she will also not make you wait and go through hoops for sex, since both of these things are consistent with not putting a high price on your sexuality. Therefore, a good way to screen is to just say you won't be monogamous rather than ask a woman if she will make you work for sex. If a woman accepts that you won't be monogamous she automatically won't make you work or wait for sex either.

• Part of the reason why women wholly reject men in places like bars and clubs is because they collectively view men as wanting only sex, and hence wanting to exploit the sexual resources of the women there. Therefore, by rejecting men women are preventing themselves from being devalued by men (in their eyes). But if you think about it that's just ridiculous. When a man and woman have sex it's give-and-take. It's impossible to give without taking, and impossible to take without giving. That's just the way it is. However, if a woman doesn't enjoy sex, then to her it will feel more like the man is taking something from her, and she's just giving something to him, but that's her problem since sex is by its very nature a mutual experience. You are both having sex, and are both taking and receiving at the same time. Now compare this to how things work with a gold digging female, something which society finds more acceptable than a sex-hungry male. A man pays for her company through dating and dinner and gifts, but she doesn't pay for his company. He receives no material benefit from being with her, only sexual benefit, which she also receives, unless of course she doesn't enjoy sex, then in that case he shouldn't be with her anyway since a cold fish in bed is no fun to be with. But in an odd twist society accepts the female gold digger even though it exploits men, but discourages women from having no-strings sex because it (supposedly) exploits women. But one is actual exploitation and the other is imaginary exploitation.

• If you directly proposition a woman sexually chances are good that she will end up hating you for it. On the one hand she is flattered that you like her sexually, but on the other hand she feels that you don't respect her because you want to "take" something of value from her (without some kind of payment for it). In other words, you want to rob her of her valuable sexual resource. Again, this is just plain ridiculous, which I have already explained why.

• It's not that surprising that women often feel "worthless" or "cheap" after sex that happened "too soon". This is basically sex that was not adequately paid for according to the artificially assigned going market price. Other common shaming expressions used on women such as, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" are very telling.

• When women say they can't have casual sex because their feelings and emotions get involved they are really referring to the feelings of guilt that society has taught them to have for having sex without "investment" by the man. In other words, they can't get past their negative programming with regards to casual sex. But there is nothing that naturally limits women from having casual sex. Just look at prostitutes, who are able to have lots of casual sex (because they are getting PAID for it). The bottom line is that society has artificially endowed female sexuality with value, and because of this women generally feel uncomfortable with casual sex because it threatens the authenticity of this value.

• Those few times that women do want casual no-strings sex only occurs in very specific and (somewhat) uncommon circumstances, such as when they just ended a long term relationship and aren't in a hurry to get back into another one. This is pretty much the only time a woman (if ever) will be willing to give out "free samples" of sex since she is essentially taking a mental break from the quid pro quo payment tracking and processing she normally does in a relationship. In other words, she now wants to "have fun". But this will only be temporary and usually only lasts a few months before she starts to reel her sexuality back in and begins to demand that any of her casual lovers start "paying up" or get lost; which translates into them having to commit to a relationship or fuck off.


Keep in mind that the selling of sex for access to resources is more suitable in those instances where women are economically disadvantaged, since it is just a way to help even the playing field. But in cases where women have the same economic opportunities as men, the selling of sex by women to men is mostly just a form of male-exploitation conveniently disguised as time honored tradition, such as courtship. The women demand the benefits of equality while also demanding that certain traditions (i.e. the kind that benefit them) be upheld.

Given all the fucked up and game-playing bullshit that takes place in the "hidden" sexual market place it's no wonder that some guys just go directly to actual prostitutes. If you must pay for sex (and there are times where it makes sense to do so), then just do it and free up all that mental energy that would otherwise go into trying to win at the hidden (and rigged) sexual market place.

The majority of women are probably not in favor of prostitution because it threatens to undercut the sexual monopoly of women by giving men relatively cheaper alternatives for sex (as compared to courtship and dating). It might also expose some ugly truths. For example, if many women suddenly find themselves dateless because more men are going to prostitutes then this exposes the true value of these women in men's eyes. This may force painful introspection, such as these women realizing that their only real value to men is sexual. Consequently, these women will have to improve their personalities if they want men to be with them for reasons that extend beyond sex. Realistically, if all a woman has to offer is sex then she is essentially a commodity and her value is easily replaced by any other woman who is at least as attractive as her and who costs less to obtain sexually (where cost is a combination of money+time+effort). Modern courtship and dating, with all its inherent fakeness, tends to hide the lack of non-sexual value many women have, but men having easy (and not too expensive) access to prostitutes will tend to expose the lack of non-sexual value many women have.

If you haven't already now would be a good time to read Justification For Prostitution.

Toronto women generally see one night stands as a type of sexual theft, and they see 'players' as a type of sex thief who takes what they want from women and then leaves them. This is why Toronto women generally have such a negative reaction towards men they perceive as players. The internal dialogue of Toronto women goes something like this with regards to such men: "They want sex without PAYING for it and will say or do anything to get it. The nerve!"

What women collectively fail to realize is that men who try to avoid "paying" for sex are not really being dishonest or unfair to women. They are simply trying to avoid having to give something for something which they themselves would never be given anything for. This is just a form of equality seeking behaviour, if you think about it.

Based on comment feedback I decided to add a link to a post which sheds some more light into how Toronto women think when it comes to sex, and how it serves as a classic example of what I talk about here. Check out Sex For Payment.


In the most practical terms I can muster, the general truth to keep in mind for this part of the world is this:

When a woman says she wants something long-term, something serious, a relationship, etc. you are dealing with a form of prostitute. Such a woman wants a high price for her sexuality, and the "relationship" is merely a type of proxy to receive the value that she wants in return for giving sex to the man. This fact, for example, is enforced whenever you see women online who show sexy pictures of themselves, showing cleavage, legs, etc. These women are on a mission and as a result they lay their sexual bait in an overt way, like a catalog listing. But to avoid the "takers" who just want sex (without paying for it) they are usually very adamant about wanting serious committed relationships, which is payment for the sex. These women are essentially prostitutes who use the proxy of the "relationship" (which includes gifts, dinners, dating, courtship, commitment) to receive value for their sexuality, using the associated romance rationalization to make it seem legitimate and morally good.

It is usually argued that going straight to sex is unromantic and cheapens the interaction (for women). But if you think about it, sex is probably the most romantic activity of them all. It involves passion, kissing, hugging, closeness, and orgasms. It's certainly much more romantic than eating in a restaurant, going on dates, and playing courtship games, most of which lead to failure. Now, you can say that restaurants have a romantic atmosphere, candles, music etc. But the same can be said about a bedroom where sex happens. You can have candles, soft music, nice lighting, etc. In this context, this suggests that the receiving of material goods by the female is considered romantic, but the receiving of sexual goods by the male is considered unromantic. It's a scam system and men have been sold a bill of goods.

Being An Asshole Doesn't Help Much

It's like an urban myth that being an asshole gets you women. I never found a lot of truth in that. To me it seems that being an asshole is kind of like using PUA methods, where they are at best marginally effective, and can only slightly enhance attraction that is already there. The problem with being an asshole is the same as the problem with being a nice guy, it's viewed as a type of extreme in the eyes of Toronto women. If you're nice, women will associate that with loser, needy behavior. If you're an asshole they will feel offended and also brush you off. Acting like a true asshole cannot get or keep women unless those women happen to have very low self-esteem. At best women will be intrigued by you and your "dark side" but once that element of intrigue wears off (and it quickly will) she will move on to the next shiny thing.

Toronto women are notorious for rejecting all forms of men, including the asshole. In fact, when you display asshole traits to a Toronto woman that often just makes her determined to put you in your place. A man being an asshole is a stereotype that Toronto women have in their heads about men, which is one of the factors contributing to the anti-male bias that exists in the city. So it makes sense that you can't get close to women using a persona that helps keep them away from you in the first place.

I have acted like an asshole towards women back in the day when I was experimenting with what works and what doesn't, and I can tell you that it rarely works, if at all. It seems it is best used in small doses, according to the situation. In fact, given the confrontational and rude nature of many Toronto women, being an asshole is simply a way to fight fire with fire, and to prevent them from walking all over you. So if a chick hints at being taken out to dinner you pull out the asshole card and tell her to get lost. That may get her to take you a bit more seriously and respect you a bit more, but that's almost all the benefit you will get from being an asshole, at least with the typical snooty Toronto woman.

If a girl ends up with a guy with asshole traits, it's usually a byproduct of being with someone that she mainly likes for other reasons, such as good looks, or being rich (for example). So it's much easier for a woman to complain about such a guy for being an asshole, then to admit that she is willing to put up with it because he's really good looking and/or rich. This is why it often seems like women go for the asshole types, but there's usually more going on than meets the eye.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Miscellaneous Points

• Dismissing someone's comments because he's bitter because he can't get laid is like dismissing the owner of a crappy car when he complains that the car is a piece of shit. DUH, when else are you supposed to complain, when the car runs well? The most natural response to a crappy situation is to complain about it, so if a guy complains about women because he "can't get laid" then maybe, just maybe it's because there are many women who create situations which make it very difficult to meet or hook up with them, and hence they are crappy. A good indicator of their crappyness is that you can't get anywhere with them, from a simple hello to getting a date, to having sex.

• We are all descended from twice as many women as men. There's a statistic measured from genetic data that 80% of women historically passed on their genes, but only 40% of men did. This means that we are descended from the most "fit" men, and men walking around today are themselves descended from the most alpha men. So it's ridiculous when PUAs say how inept the vast majority of men are when it comes to meeting women, since modern men can only be descended from the most sexually successful men of the past. This is a very under appreciated and unacknowledged fact about men. So it is absurd when PUAs say that the average man supposedly has so much to learn when it comes to meeting women, and that acting "normal" just doesn't cut it with the modern woman. This is in direct odds with the fact that the male ancestors of the average man did just fine acting "normal". The truth is that women, especially attractive western women, have become more narcissistic and demanding than their historical birthright would dictate, so to these women it only seems that very few men are good enough for them, when in fact their ancestral genetic record indicates otherwise. Hence, raising the bar on what men should deliver in order to please the modern woman is completely artificial, let alone ridiculous.

• One argument PUA proponents use for their methods is that acting normal and being themselves doesn't work, so it only makes sense to learn strategies and tricks to get women. But this panders to the spoiled world view of (modern western) women, and furthermore it doesn't even work except in very few random instances, which is a far cry from anything consistent. And it does more harm than good anyway since it communicates to women that they aren't doing anything wrong, just like bailing out wall street doesn't do anything to get them to change their ways, so they continue on with business as usual which is damaging in the long run. The truth is that only a male revolution can change things, the same way that a tyranny can only be overthrown by people banding together. A few rebellious individuals operating here and there cannot effect change.

• Consistent lack of success with PUA methods is an indicator that they do not work. If you put in the effort, and follow the script and you get poor results, then you must conclude that the methods don't work. Now for example, someone might say that your criticisms of Mystery Method (or whatever method) shouldn't be taken seriously because of your low success rate, but at the same time you cannot reach a high success rate using Mystery Method because the method itself doesn't work, or only works marginally. The same goes for other PUA methods.

• Women having contempt for men is laughable, since men, just like women, are a part of humanity (one half of it to be precise), so hating on men is the same as hating themselves.

• Sex is something men buy and women sell, which is an economic representation of the history of male and female relations. But in times past the seller respected the buyer much more than today, and the system was much more functional. However, in the modern dating scene in western societies, the buyer-seller model still applies, but is cleverly disguised with fake courtship rituals and relationship quid pro quo, with the added insult that the sellers (the women) often disrespect the buyers (the men). It's like walking into a store, and instead of being greeted by the merchant you are ignored, and even scorned just for being there. You are starting from a negative position which you must climb out of somehow. In other words, you have to prove yourself worthy before even ATTEMPTING to buy.

• Men, at least in this part of the world, lack backbone with women. The degree to which women have gotten the upper hand is not a testament to the strength of women, but to the weakness of men. In fact, it is very easy to recognize when a woman is scheming or manipulative, but it is only that men are so easily blinded by their sexual impulses that women are allowed to get away with what they do.

• Western women always say they want confident men, but when you confidently approach a woman in a public venue she brushes you off with the cold shoulder, and that's because it is a social taboo to meet strangers in public. But really, it takes a lot of balls to cold approach someone in public, which is precisely what women say they want in a man. Unfortunately, such behaviour is not rewarded, no matter how gutsy it is. So in actual fact, women are only receptive to meeting "confident" men who operate within societies guidelines and restraints, which usually means meeting someone through their peer group, which is a chicken shit standard a man must adhere to in order to meet women.

• In the west, men hating on women is mostly a response to their shitty behaviour towards men. But women hating on men is mostly due to their indoctrination and socially downloaded negative programming towards men.

• If a woman flakes on you and you call her on it she will become very upset, not because you're falsely accusing her, but because in her mind you cannot possibly know that her flake excuse is bogus. So she's upset at your arrogance at assuming something to be true when you have no proof, and it doesn't matter that you are in fact right.

• PUA thinking takes the position that the customer is always right, where the customer in this case is women you are attracted to. With this mindset it's easier to simply go after what you want and do whatever it takes. Except that it takes two to tango and the fact that women themselves (especially western women) are hardly proactive at all in getting men, when there's no reason not to be, means that the dynamics are heavily biased in their favor. To gamers (and some highly ambitious types), if you want something from someone then they are always right, and the only thing that matters is figuring out what it takes to get it from them, and if you don't do this then you will go without. It's a mindset taught as truth without actually being the truth because acting as if it's true will make you as proactive as possible towards achieving your goal.

• Men have an ingrained deep need to do something proactive where women (or any other object of their desire) are concerned. And pursuing, being active, hard selling yourself, using PUA methods, etc. is a way to do something in a powerful way. That's a big part of the appeal.

• Guys learning game embody the idea of not bowing to women only in the context of doing whatever it takes to get them. It's comforting to them to feel like they are not bowing to women while also being as proactive/productive as possible in getting women. It fills two emotional needs at once even though they contradict each other.

• Being picky is not a virtue. So many women act like being highly selective is a good thing, so it's almost as if, to them, the act of rejecting is done just to feel better about themselves. This is certainly true in club environments where many women see men as bowling pins which you can knock down for self-esteem points.

• The fact that women are "everywhere" does not necessarily mean that your odds of meeting them will increase, just like having more people witness someone in distress will not necessarily mean that the odds of someone helping will increase. In fact, the exact opposite happens. This is known as the Bystander Effect, a proven yet counterintuitive phenomenon.

• In magazines and in online articles which show a picture of a man and woman, such as in a relationship context, the man is often shown looking at the woman while the woman is shown looking at the camera. This basically means that the man's focus is on her, while her focus is on the camera. It's almost as if the man is shown as an accessory to make her look good.

• Some men don't like prostitutes because the woman doesn't actually like them, and is just doing it for money. To me that wouldn't matter, anymore than I would care if my mechanic likes me as a person. As long as he can properly service my car, that's all I really want. I'm not paying him to like me. I'm paying him to service my car, the same way I would pay a woman to satisfy me sexually. However, I would want her to respect me. That is important, the same way it's important that my mechanic respects my wishes with respect to my car.

• When men complain about hard to meet women they are often called whiny or defeatist. But the defeatist argument is often used as a shield against deeper and more truthful examinations. And it's also a double standard to accuse men of being negative or defeatist when they complain about unapproachable hard to meet women. What about all the women who walk around with cold bitchy looks on their faces. Aren't they being negative and self-defeating too? How can you expect to meet someone when you carry around a fuck-off vibe? But when men refuse to approach these women because of their bad vibe they are the ones who are accused of being defeatist or lacking boldness.

• From my own experience, a woman who doesn't open up quickly is a lost cause. Yes it's possible to get some kind of positive response from her using wit and funny banter (such as by using PUA material), but unless she decides from the get-go that she wants to know you better you are wasting your time and you will get no where with her. Another point to make is that it is 10x easier for someone to make themselves approachable than it is for you to approach someone who is unapproachable. As a result, the burden should be on women to make themselves approachable rather than men having to overcome their resistance to being approached. So it makes no sense to approach a woman who avoids eye contact and has a fuck-off vibe.

• Attractive white anglo women are generally the worst. They are the British inspired, stiff upper lip, snooty, cliquish, stone-faced women whom the media sees as the gold standard of beauty. They are icy and cold in their demeanor and are highly adept at ignoring the shit out of you, especially if you're a man. You can almost marvel at this ability they have to completely and consistently ignore men in public, but only if you think in terms of how hard it would be for you (a man) to do the same thing towards them. The truth is that it's not an ability they have but rather a lack of something which enables them to treat men as invisible as well as they do. You can call it a lack of wonder, or even curiosity about the opposite sex, which is replaced instead with total indifference. This is hardly an ability worth crowing about in my book. So we shouldn't act so amazed at their ability to do this any more than we should marvel at the ability of a hamster to keep running on it's wheel for hours on end. It's nothing more than a symptom of a weak non-curious mind.

• Men have their faults too, no doubt. But when modern westernized women complain about men it mostly comes across as higher quality complaints about problems that you encounter when you already have the upper hand, and those below you are not measuring up to your standards. It is not that different from how a royal would complain about the misbehaviour of his subordinates and servants - oh look, they dropped the fruit tray again, those idiots. If you look closely at the general complaints men and women have about each other the following pattern emerges:

Women's complaints are generally that men don't measure up in some way. For example, all he wants to do is drink beer and watch sports, or he did X when he should have done Y. The complaints are often just vague descriptions, with not too much detail, and with focus on men's shortcomings (real or perceived).

Men's complaints are generally that they can't connect with women, that they aren't given the time of day, that they can't make progress, that they aren't meeting women's expectations, that they aren't getting positive responses despite putting in the effort.

Women's complaint format: "He's not good enough".

Men's complaint format: "No matter what I do I'm not good enough".

One group is focused on self-improvement and the other isn't. One group is forced to be introspective, and the other isn't. Therefore, which group is most likely to be humbled and realistic in their expectations? Which group is most likely to gain feelings of entitlement and narcissism?

• As a consequence of their bias against men, women raise the bar on what constitutes a "good man" and lower the bar on what constitutes a "bad man".

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Which Toronto Women Am I Talking About?

Not all of them. I will admit that I say some pretty negative things about women in this city, but that does not apply to all of them. There actually are quite a few genuinely sweet and nice women in this city, but my feeling is that the overwhelming majority of these women come from the pool of the older and/or less attractive ones. These women are sexually unattractive and/or are 40-50 years old at least and although some of them might be "cute", they usually aren't the kind of women that men desire the most sexually. However, this does not mean that men only desire the hottest model types, and therefore if THOSE few women act like bitches then ALL women must be bitches. The truth is that there's actually a minimum level of attractiveness a woman in this city needs to have in order to start crossing the threshold into entitled bitch territory, so there's a fairly big range of women who act this way. Hence my venom is mostly directed at these women

A woman's propensity for being a stuck up bitch is directly related to her level of physical attractiveness. The more attractive she is, the more likely she will develop narcissistic traits. This is true for women of all nationalities, but it is most true for young, white, anglo women. Young, white, attractive, anglo women are in a class of their own and display an alarming level of coldness in their daily interactions. You could say they are all "business" when it comes to how they view the world and what they expect from others. As a group, they are the coldest females around. Do not expect any warmth from them if you're a stranger, unless of course you're in a professional setting and it is their job to be polite and feign warmness. These women are the British inspired, stiff upper lip, snooty, cliquish, stone-faced women whom the media sees as the gold standard of beauty. They are icy and cold in their demeanor and are highly adept at ignoring the shit out of you, especially if you're a man. You can almost marvel at this ability they have to completely and consistently ignore men in public, but only if you think in terms of how hard it would be for you (a man) to do the same thing towards them. The truth is that it's not an ability they have but rather a lack of something which enables them to treat men as invisible as well as they do. You can call it a lack of wonder, or even curiosity about the opposite sex, which is replaced instead with total indifference. This is hardly an ability worth crowing about in my book. So we shouldn't act so amazed at their ability to do this any more than we should marvel at the ability of a hamster to keep running on it's wheel for hours on end. It's nothing more than a symptom of a weak non-curious mind

Now, some would say that (for attractive women in general), being a bitch is a defense mechanism used to ward off creepy aggressive guys, but I beg to differ. For these women, being a bitch is an inward reaction to her outward attractiveness. It's a self-induced pumped up egotistical state, something she carries around with her constantly and which bleeds through her entire personality, even in environments where there is no chance of a man hitting on her. As mentioned, this attitude is totally proportional to how attractive a woman is, and this society caters to this attitude. For example, you sometimes hear a guy complain about a certain woman who acted like a bitch towards him, and then saying that she's not hot enough to behave like that. This implies that in this culture, an attractive female is allowed, accepted and even encouraged to be a stuck up bitch.

Even moderately attractive women in this city carry around these cold expressions like permanent ice shields. Some of them might be nice in a professional setting, but when it comes to meeting men it's "game on" and they become ruthless. The attractive nurse who nurtures and looks after sick people in the hospital becomes a stone-faced ruthless bitch when placed in an environment which contains men who might want to date her.

Ironically, your best chance at meeting a nice datable woman in this city is to focus on the unattractive women and those women who are at a stage in their life where they are no longer physically attractive. And the latter is not necessarily strictly related to a certain age range. There are attractive women in their late 40s and even 50s who still act like stuck up bitches. They haven't yet reached the stage in their life cycle where they are ready to become genuinely nice human beings who aren't drunk on their sexual market value.

But since most single men want to meet women who are at least somewhat attractive, then your options are seriously restricted, and you must focus on finding the right niches. This could be meeting foreign women who recently moved to Toronto, or play the numbers game and just approach like crazy until you meet someone you like and who likes you.

"So What Do You Do?"

This is how Toronto women start off their relationships, by asking men what they do for a living. It's a quick way for them to size us up financially, socially, and economically. And unlike what some say, it's usually not a "get to know you question". It usually goes well beyond simple curiosity. They want to evaluate your social status, pure and simple.

Now, I will admit that it is understandable that as two people get to know each other they find out things about each other, like what each does for work. But that should come up naturally.

But when a woman asks the question in the first few minutes then you should suspect that she is evaluating your status. And this has nothing to do with your sexual attractiveness, as some would say. If a woman wants to fuck you she will not care what you do for a living. I know this from personal experience. This becomes very obvious on Lavalife, when I'm chatting with some chick and a few minutes into the conversation she asks me "what do you do?" At that point I know immediately that her interest in me is mostly not sexual, and therefore we have nothing further to discuss. Because even if I tell her my profession, all it does is trigger her hypergamy instinct which gets me absolutely nowhere.

So like I said, when a woman just wants to hook up she doesn't care what you do for a living. Sure, it might come up later, but it's not in the front of her thoughts. This is how I screen, and it's especially easy to do this on the internet. If she asks what I do a little too early she is OUT. But if I write a profile that basically says I don't want anything serious (i.e. looking for sex) then the women who respond never ask me that question. It's quite fascinating really.

So there you have it. An insider tip on how to find the women who want you for sex is to avoid those women who ask early on "what do you do?"

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Reader Submission: Toronto, the world’s capital of misandry

Here's a submission from a reader who asked that I publish his thoughts on the Toronto dating scene.

*****

Toronto, the world’s capital of misandry

I moved to Toronto 4 years ago and my life has changed dramatically ever since. I have become a deeply unmotivated individual, taking anti-depressants for the very first time and waking up every morning trying to find meaning to what I am doing. Needless to say, I never had to do this before, and my family back home asks me why am I still here. So I asked myself the same question, why am I here? After a minute of searching for the answer I finally decided to leave Toronto and go back home. They ask me what is it about Toronto that affected you so much. My response without any doubt: the women.

Pardon my language, but seriously, who the fuck do they think they are?

I as a man get rejected here by default. It is true. Women do not even give me a chance to speak. In the beginning I thought my game was off. However, gradually I learned there was absolutely nothing wrong with me. If I'm not even given a chance, one chance, then there's something bigger going on. How can you say you’re not good at a given game if you’re never allowed off the bench?

If you're a decent guy from anywhere in the world, listen carefully: DO NOT move to this town. I repeat, DO NOT move here.

Unless you've been offered a job here where you'll make AT LEAST 100k/year, please do yourself an enormous favour and stay where you are. The grass is greener where you are. I will so enjoy the day all these women grow old and lonely living with their cats desperate for male attention. I have no sympathy for the female gender in this town. No compassion, no mercy, no consideration of any kind. Toronto is the living breathing mind of "all men are evil" feminist extremism. You will NOT meet the love of your life here. There are no soul mates here. There are no love stories. Women do NOT give a damn about true love or romance here. They look at you with scorn and hatred in their eyes on a daily basis. They will see you as just another loser no matter what you say or do. And if you have money, you're a still a loser, but a useful one. Women will date you ONLY if doing so will make their girlfriends jealous, not because they genuinely like you, and if you ever stop providing them with material wealth they think they’re so entitled to, they'll dump you immediately. TV is their only school on relationships thus unrealistic expectations are the norm here.

Women in this city are the pretentious kind that leaves other towns in order to "hit it big" either career-wise or rich husband-wise. The real problem is that all the bad apples are concentrated here. Do not generalize. Not all Canadian women are like Toronto women. To all men who are lonely here: My friend, it's not your fault. But your case is hopeless. It will not get better. Either accept it or leave. Remember not all of Canadian women are like this. The good down to earth ones stay in their little towns. I should know, when I first landed in Toronto I was polite and called them “miss” and now I see women as little devils walking around releasing poison onto everything they can possibly contaminate with their hatred. When you're surrounded by rude unhappy people, you will become rude and unhappy too eventually.

I have no desire to become successful in this city. Not because I lack ambition, but because I am not looking forward to impressing any of these girls. I do not care about them and just the act of trying to impress these shallow creatures would lower me. What's life and money and success good for if you can't share it with anyone with a healthy mind ? You’re telling me no matter how much I succeed my partner is still going to hate me just for being born a man ? Are you kidding me ? Are you out of your god damn mind ? Do you poop roses or gold, sunshine ?

Please, men of Toronto, have some dignity, some self-respect, some honour, just a tiny bit, you know, just a tiny little bit might be good. Nothing you were told was true. You are not a natural born rapist, or a sadist, or a creature with inborn violent tendencies. What men have is the natural coding of being born into a violent world where animals eat other animals and humans have had for thousands of years to survive through violent means as the only means of survival. But women love to forget history, how they ran to us for protection up to approximately one hundred years ago, or maybe they never studied it, they were too busy sitting at a Starbucks bashing men in their little groups.

Toronto women live in a bubble, sheltered, overprotected from reality by one of the best paid police forces in the world. And by the way, how do these women thank those men for protecting them from the real bad world ? They create the Slutwalk.

To be honest, I am so not surprised something as fascist and misguided as the Slutwalk was born in Toronto. This city screams “Death to the Male gender” through its every pore. The visceral hatred and scorn felt in this town towards men is quite unique. It’s like all the men-hating entities of North America moved here.

Even big girls hate you. Only in this city have I met fat girls who've told me they became fat by choice because they hated men so much they didn't "want to conform to the stereotypes of beauty". Jesuschrist, how much dumber more misguided lost soul can you be ?

In conclusion, even though Toronto can be a great city for many reasons, such as plenty of career opportunities, it is a terrible place to meet a partner and have a meaningful social life. Move here once you have a trustworthy partner. Life can be good.

But if you’re single...

Two things you must know:

1) There's nothing wrong with you. If there's anything gone horribly wrong in this city, it's the women.

2) Before you betray yourself, and sell your dignity, your self-respect, and give away half your money to an unappreciative ungrateful bitch.

At least once, just at least once, before you get married:

TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE CITY.

A woman is attractive by much more than her looks. And after you’ve seen other parts of the world... Trust me, you will never ever find a Toronto woman attractive ever again.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

So How Do People Meet Anyway?

I talked about this a lot in my other post The clique culture. Basically, the overwhelming majority of couples in the city are a result of meeting through school, work, or friends. The big three. These are the socially accepted channels through which you can best hope to meet someone. If you aren't connected through any of these channels, you pretty much have no alternative other than what I call "fringe game". Fringe game is just a catchy umbrella term I am using to describe the mechanism a man in this city must use to meet women who are not a part of the big three. It can be either the internet, high volume cold approaches in public venues, or just pure fucking luck where a woman metaphorically "trips" and falls into your arms.

Naturally, fringe game is usually treated as beyond the pale since it falls outside agreed upon social standards where you have to meet through a network of your peers, as loosely connected and fake as that network may be. But actually, internet meeting is the most socially accepted of the fringe strategies a man has at his disposal, since it is at least advertised in a somewhat positive light in the eyes of the public. Just look at the subway advertisements and chances are you will see Lavalife plastered on one of them.

Whenever I used to see an obvious boyfriend and girlfriend walking around, I would wonder how they met. I thought that chances are good that the guy has got some good game and maybe picked her up in a club somewhere. But through experience and wisdom gained I realized that most certainly they met through either school, work, or friends. And in fact, if the girl is a young, hot, twenty-something it is virtually 100% certain that she met the guy through her social network, and probably at a young age too, like when she was still in high school. Young attractive girls who are not very picky get snapped up very early, and they are only snapped up by guys in their immediate social network. This means that the remaining single, yet picky females form the pool of women which single guys have to choose from. But even within their social network these women are difficult to get with, and meeting them in public compounds the level of difficulty. This leaves only the internet, since to be on a dating site there must be at least a ghost of a chance you want to meet someone from online. So that strips away one level of difficulty. But unfortunately, the internet is also a catch basin for some of the pickiest females who can't meet someone through the socially accepted means (the big three). These females, frustrated with a lack of "good men" in their social circle, resort to the internet in hopes of finding their prince. Fortunately, you can always pick out (and avoid) the profiles of these women since they are the most romantic sounding, containing buzz phrases such as: "want chemistry", "want to experience passion", or whatever other bullet list they manage to come up with.

In fact, I never, ever hook up with these women. I only hook up with women from online who write simple direct profiles which don't drip with romantic bullshit. Furthermore, I never hook up with women who are looking for anything in particular (unless it's sex). It's the women who look for boyfriends and something "genuine" and "real" that I have a very hard time meeting, and if I do, it's a crap-fest anyway. This is one main reason why I restrict myself to only offering new women sex, since I am almost never good enough to be the boyfriend (again, working from the picky pool of single women I have to work with). You see, sex is just one thing, which I can deliver. But the boyfriend role has many expectations that go with it, and quite a bit of bullshit to boot. So as a result, whenever I meet someone new it's only ever as a sex prospect.

It might seem like I'm taking an overly extreme position by screening for 100% sex. But Toronto women force you to take extremes. For example, if you said you were looking for something between a casual and serious relationship, the women will try to push you towards the serious relationship end of the spectrum (along with all the bullshit that goes with that). So if you give them even the possibility of an opening they will try to take it, hence the reason why I have to take the extreme position that I do.

However, if by chance she is nice enough then more can develop, and it will be much more REAL. But I never start off with the possibility of "more" because it always invites the scheming types.

By the way, when women say they want something "real" and "genuine" in their internet profile, they actually mean something that is socially stamped as such, such as dating, dinner, waiting for sex, and whatever other relationship stipulations this society tells women they deserve and as such should demand from a mate.

But like I said, I reject such fake bullshit, and I therefore never, ever start off as anything but the sex prospect, because if I do it usually never goes anywhere (meaning I am not her type). And the few times where it can, it does so in a direction I don't like, with fake courtship rituals or other market-value related bullshit where I have to pay to play, but at the same time not look like I'm doing that.

Also, it's easier for me to meet an attractive woman for sex than as a prospective boyfriend, again because sex is just one thing, but a boyfriend must be many things.

There is another interesting facet of the whole meeting dynamic that is worth exploring. This is the complaint both men and women often have that the people they meet who they like don't want to see them again, and the people who they don't like want to see them again. Why is this happening?

Since women here generally have an inflated sense of their own attractiveness and what they deserve, they usually end up going for guys that are actually more physically attractive than them. So it makes sense that in this instance the men don't want to see them again, since they sense the discrepancy and justifiably feel they deserve more. And this explains the complaint women have where they say that when they meet someone they like (someone who is more attractive than them), that person doesn't like them back.

Now, when women complain that when they don't like the guy, but the guy likes them, it's more commonly because the guy is closer to the woman's own level of physical attractiveness, but because of her own inflated sense of attractiveness she sees him as not good enough.

Guys are more reasonable in their expectations. So when guys complain that when they like a girl, that girl doesn't like them, it's more commonly because the girl is closer to his own attractiveness, which justifiably explains why the guys are surprised and frustrated. But when guys complain that when they don't like the girl, but she likes them, it's more commonly because the girl is significantly below the guy's own attractiveness and she's just overshooting what she thinks she deserves.

This means that women more often reject men closer to their own actual level of attractiveness, and men more often accept women closer to their own level of attractiveness. But hook ups can only happen when both parties like each other, so the end result is that less attractive women hook up with more attractive men more commonly than the reverse situation, since women tend to stick to their guns more than men and are willing to go for YEARS without sex until they meet the man who doesn't mind going out with a woman less attractive than him. They can hold out for the overshoot more than men can resist the undershoot.

So it looks like the man is getting a raw deal, which is true, but only if he's monogamous. The way I see it, I don't mind being with a woman who is not quite as attractive as me, as long as I can still be with other women. To me, that's the equalizer in what appears to be an unfair situation where men are concerned.

Friday, August 19, 2011

Why Is The Male/Female Dynamic So Skewed?

I think the best starting point for this discussion is to imagine yourself (a man) being in a place surrounded by attractive women with none of them approaching you or giving you signals of interest. If this continues you will either say "screw it" and not bother trying at all, or you will start approaching the women yourself and try to make things happen that way.

In fact, this is the default situation for men in this society. Women (those who are at least somewhat attractive) will almost always do nothing to meet men, and men, faced with this reality, buck up and make almost all the effort to meet women.

Now look at this from the other side. If you're a woman who is at least somewhat attractive, men will approach you and make you dating/sexual offers on a pretty regular basis. So you will have no motivation to do anything proactively since opportunities are handed to you. And if you're in situations/places where men are not regularly approaching you and making you dating/sexual offers it's because you are preemptively rejecting them through your body language. After all, men are greatly encouraged to pursue women and when they don't it's because the women are standoffish to the point that the men don't even try.

The dynamic is self-reinforcing. Men pursue women because women do almost nothing to meet men or make it easy for them. And the women don't pursue because they don't want to labeled as easy and because they are accustomed to men doing the pursuing anyway. There are just too many men pursuing too much for this dynamic to ever change. If most men all of a sudden were to hold back then women will be forced to do more of their share. In fact, the more men chase, the more women can afford to do nothing, which men pick up on and which creates an even bigger push for men to pursue. It's basically a positive feedback, a self-sustaining system, which starts from something less extreme, but which gradually snowballs into the great imbalance that exists right now.

Think of it this way. Let's say I'm your business partner and you're more ambitious than I am. I can do less work and you will take up the slack, and the less work I do the more work you have to do to compensate because you want the business to succeed and you NEED me as your partner because I have something you want which you cannot produce yourself. This is the way it is with women. Women slack off when it comes to meeting men and men take up the slack because they WANT women and what they provide (female company and sex), and this is enforced by cultural norms. This culture tips the scale in the direction of men doing more and women doing less, which becomes the slippery slope which we now know as men doing too much and women doing too little, due to the effect of cultural conditioning and positive feedback which pulls even more men into the loop.

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine a hot woman who is used to being approached all the time by men and who never does any approaching herself. Imagine if this woman were suddenly placed in a culture where the reverse dynamic takes place, in which women habitually approach men and men rarely approach women. This women would suddenly find herself dateless, and unless she were to start approaching men herself she will remain so. In fact, you can bet that after enough time has passed this woman will eventually start approaching men herself. The dynamic is stacked against her and she has no other choice but to play along.

This hypothetical situation lends support to the positive feedback theory I mentioned. If there are enough people in an environment enforcing a certain dynamic, that dynamic will continue unhindered and draw in new enforcers (who will miss out if they don't play along). However, if there aren't enough people enforcing a certain dynamic then that dynamic will never take off and it will never become a noticeable part of the culture. Hence, to create a social dynamic (like the one I talk about), you need a minimum number of enforcers of that dynamic, and to diminish a dynamic you obviously need to remove the number of enforcers of that dynamic.

A culture can condition its citizens to be enforcers of a certain dynamic, and once a critical number of enforcers is reached that dynamic becomes self-perpetuating. It is only when the society-wide harm done by this dynamic becomes so intolerable (relative to any gains), that large numbers of people start to forcibly take themselves out of the loop. In other words, these people recognize that any gains they receive by enforcing the dynamic (playing along) are no longer worth the misery that goes with it. As a result, they stop being enforcers and the dynamic begins to shift.

Consequently, the only solution is for men to start collectively doing less where women are concerned, and start expecting women to be more proactive. This is one of those situations where a few independent minded individuals won't make any difference in the collective female behaviour. As such, the only real power an individual has is to refuse to play the game and to operate on the fringes of what works, such as by selecting only for those few females that aren't part of the collective bad batch.

But if we want women to start acting better as a whole, then men as a group have to start acting in accordance with that wish. In other words, we have to collectively exert selective pressure on women to force them to change, and if they don't, weed them out. And this in turn becomes selective pressure of the biological kind in which their "bad behaviour genes" don't make it to the next generation.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

What If The Situation Was Reversed And Men Were Unapproachable?

What if the situation was reversed and men were the ones who were opposed to meeting women in public? What kind of excuses would men use to avoid meeting women in public? Using the same excuse format women use, along with exaggerated statistics and focusing on the negative, I came up with a hypothetical excuse list that men would use:

• When I'm out somewhere I'm too busy to make small talk with some chick who wants to chat. I got better things to do than hook up with some random slut. For all I know she's on the rebound and she's got some jealous ex lurking around the corner. I don't need the trouble!

• I'm just protecting myself from bitches and gold diggers who only care about my wallet. Just because I dress well and look good in a suit that doesn't mean I automatically want to take some chick out to an expensive dinner.

• I just don't want to deal with some chick who maybe has kids and is looking for a father who also doubles as Mr. Money Bags. You hear so many stories of men being taken to the cleaners in a divorce, or men being wrongfully charged with sexual assault. How do I know that the minute sex is over she won't call the cops and file a phony rape charge? I'm just protecting my interests.

• I've had plenty of bad experiences with women and their cockblocking friends, women who pretend to like you just to get free drinks, and women who just think they are all that. So if I come across as unapproachable to some chick I think I've earned that right.

Looking at the above ridiculous list you can see that there is not much difference between it and the excuses women currently use to avoid meeting men in public. It's a matter of bias and what you choose to focus on. Also enlightening is the fact that there are many more female gold diggers than male rapists but you don't hear men using that as an excuse to not meet women.

The fact is that men are very aware of the odds against them based on direct feedback from unapproachable females, but are still much more willing to APPROACH ANYWAY, at least until the reality finally hits them that it's a total waste of time and energy. But women, on the other hand, are risk averse and mostly rely on hearsay and whatever bad things they heard about men in the media to avoid meeting them, such as exaggerated rape statistics disseminated by the liberal media. But even given this very small (yet non-zero) risk why not just meet the guy in a public place and assess first hand what he is like, rather than exclude ALL possibility of anything happening by refusing to even take a chance in BROAD DAYLIGHT to go out with him. It's like refusing to go to a job interview because there's a chance the employer could turn out to be a sexual harasser. But in this cold economic-centric city jobs are naturally spun in a positive light so it's a non issue.

Furthermore, women in this city are very intolerant of male behaviour that is considered acceptable in other (less feminized) parts of the world. For example, looking at women here would be labeled as lewd staring. Incidental touching, like on a crowded subway, would be considered groping. And the occasional rude behaviour from a stranger man would be proof definite that all stranger men must be treated as potential perverts and avoided at all cost. You would think women here would learn to be socially astute so that they can differentiate the good from the bad. It's called life skills. But they have no interest in actively learning how to pick out the good from the bad where men are concerned, and instead prefer the one size fits all, throw the baby out with the bathwater approach to men and dating. And in spite of all this, women still tell guys that they should continue to carry themselves as gentlemen and keep trying to meet women, while at the same time not doing anything themselves to make it any easier for men. It's completely retarded and a form of mental illness, not that different from the tea-party rhetoric in crazy-town USA.

But anyway, I don't really have much more to say on this topic. This is my 100th post and I've said plenty already on this blog. Toronto women, at least the ones who are at least somewhat attractive, are not worth the effort to try and meet out in public. They're past the point of no-return on the delusion scale. So go out of town if you want to meet better women, or better yet go abroad to get a real feel for what real women are like, women who focus more on the positive aspects of men rather than the negative.

Related Post: Common Obstacles To Meeting Women In Public

Friday, June 10, 2011

Justification For Prostitution

I've been thinking about the merits of prostitution and it occurs to me that in the past I've had a somewhat biased view against it. I realize now that it's actually a good thing to have, especially for males who have gone for extended periods of time without female companionship. That said, these are the reasons I've come up with in favor of prostitution:

• You are only spending money, as opposed to money plus time plus effort, or time plus effort at the very least.

• It crushes the evolutionary argument that very attractive women always seek men with superior genes (mostly espoused by PUAs). So if you got money you can buy sex with a very attractive woman regardless of how much "reproductive value" you have as a man. This is a great thing and perhaps more fascinating than the use of "game" to get a higher quality woman since game is just a way to enhance attractiveness. But money is simply a shortcut to get the same result without any of the effort to boost attractiveness.

• Paying money instead of using game means you don't have to change who you are. If you want to get laid, you just pay money, and your personality stays basically intact. So a truly alpha guy is more likely to just pay for sex than change parts of his personality in order to get women to have sex with him.

• Prostitutes compete with each other for your business/company, which helps raise the quality level of their service. This is unlike typical females in the dating game which feel no need to compete for a man, so like a tight trade union they collectively lower the quality of what they give to the man while expecting much in return. But for prostitutes, giving little means the man just "shops" elsewhere next time. This is a switch from the dating/courtship/pro-female/male-supplication model to an economic model for which payment for quality of service is the only criterion for the pairing between a man and woman.

• In the economic model where the man pays directly for sex, the seller (the woman) typically respects the buyer (the man) much more than women in the dating scene. The dating scene is also based on a buyer-seller model, but one which is cleverly disguised with fake courtship rituals and relationship quid pro quo, with the added insult that the sellers (the women) typically disrespect the buyers (the men). It's like walking into a store, and instead of being greeted by the merchant you are ignored, and even scorned just for being there. You are starting from a negative position which you must climb out of somehow. In other words, you have to prove yourself worthy before even ATTEMPTING to buy.

• Some men don't like prostitutes because the woman doesn't actually like them, and is just doing it for money. To me that wouldn't matter, anymore than I would care if my mechanic likes me as a person. As long as he can properly service my car, that's all I really want. I'm not paying him to like me. I'm paying him to service my car, the same way I would pay a woman to satisfy me sexually. However, I would want her to respect me. That is important, the same way it's important that my mechanic respects my wishes with respect to my car.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

The Clique Culture

The clique culture works like this. You form a close-knit group of friends as soon as possible and then everyone else can pretty much fuck off.

Cliques are typically formed early on in school and the workplace, but especially in school since the formation period usually occurs when there are a lot of new people and they don't know each other. So they immediately go into clique forming mode. Note that this is different from friend finding mode where you are open to meeting new people. Clique forming mode is a primitive yet uninspired survival mindset where you are determined to form a close-knit group of "cool" friends to make it through the rest of your time. It's a tribal forming period, a chance to develop the unmovable calcified network which is very resistant to new people entering.

The unspoken (and sometimes spoken) rule of this calcified network is that all relationships, both personal and romantic, must develop from within it. Anyone who breaks this rule will be subject to harsh criticism, especially women should they (for example) decide to meet a man who is a "stranger", which is basically anyone who does not have some tie to the clique. At minimum this man must know at least one other person within the clique network for him to be considered "safe".

The most common clique formation period is the first few weeks of school, either elementary school, high school, or post-secondary. And if you don't form your clique early on you are largely screwed, and you will experience a large degree of relationship starvation. There will of course be some opportunity for building close friends and having hook ups, but for the most part you will be relegated to having lots of acquaintances instead.

It is very common for people, decades after graduation, to only have friends whom they met in school many years before. In all that time no one new entered the picture, unless of course that person already knew someone from inside the calcified network, and that was their way in.

Some calcified networks are almost impossible to penetrate, even in the most "acceptable" social environments. For example, you could be at a house party and even though you know the host, the cliques present at the party will snub you even though you know the host. And the reason certain cliques will snub you even in this instance is because they carry an additional level of calcification in their clique structure: The time limit. These particular cliques form with the rule (spoken or unspoken) that no one else is allowed in after a certain time limit. This time limit can either be actual time (like days, or weeks) or the time at which a certain critical number of members is reached. After that, everyone else can keep the fuck out.

But one interesting thing about cliques is that they tend to get smaller and smaller over time. In other words, they naturally decay and grow weak over time. The reasons are usually that people within the clique just naturally drift apart, or they move away geographically, or they get married and as a result no longer have the time. But like real troopers clique members hold on to the belief that all new connections must happen from within the clique network. It does not matter that they may end up going without dates or sex for very long periods of time. The idea that they can meet someone new from outside the network just positively scares them, as it's a major social taboo in their minds, so they won't do it. Vibrators it seems, are a much better alternative.

If you want to know where disgruntled clique members often end up just look at the internet personals. The internet personals is full of formerly cliquish people who have finally thrown in the towel and are now open to meeting someone new because their cliques have finally dried up. Of course this will only happen if the person is not overly picky. Highly picky disgruntled clique members will never meet anyone on the personals because they can never seem to find anyone good enough for them anyway. This is especially true for women who may have plenty of choices from within the calcified network, but due to their inflated egos and sense of entitlement they never jump on any of those opportunities. So meeting these women online is more than just a clique away. It's damn near impossible and a waste of fucking time.

In summary, the clique culture is a loser culture. It promotes snobbish attitudes and exclusivity, and it kills spontaneity. It creates a phony sense of belonging and security while turning you into a head-in-the-sand nitwit who turns down outside opportunities based on twisted tribal logic. It is anti-freedom and pro-conformance. It turns you into a drone who believes that good things only happen within the clique, and in a way this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy since such a drone will only put their best foot forward while inside the clique's web, while shutting down all opportunities outside the clique.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Common Obstacles To Meeting Women In Public

These are the common obstacles you have to go through in order to meet a quality woman in a public place. They occur in the following order:

1. She ignores you when you try to start a conversation with her.

2. She doesn't ignore you but avoids eye contact and keeps responses short.

3. She gives good responses and is looking at you when talking to you, but only with polite conversation (not genuine interest).

4. She seems genuinely interested, but when you ask for her number she says she has a boyfriend.

5. She seems genuinely interested and gives you her number when you ask, but when you call her she doesn't answer, or she does but is too busy to get together.

6. She seems genuinely interested and gives you her number when you ask. You call her and set up a get together, but then you find out she is reserved, has issues with intimacy, or is uptight and wants to "wait". Another possibility is that you two get together, hit it off but then she flakes on you for a future get together (just as things are about to heat up). She flakes because she feels that she could still do better than you, irrespective of the fact that she had a good time with you on the date.

7. You get together and have sex but she sees it as a bargaining chip, which means you have to take her to dinner or something similar. Or she just feels guilty for having sex and is acting out some form of buyer's remorse.

8. You have sex, and get along great, but then you never hear from her again.

9. You have sex and genuinely enjoy each others company, and continue seeing each other without any games. This is the ideal situation.


To meet a quality woman from cold approaching, you have to get past eight obstacles (numbers 1 to 8) before getting to number 9. But if you meet her through friends then you start at number 3. But you still have to get past six obstacles (numbers 3 to 8) before getting to number 9. So most potential problems still remain even if you meet a woman through socially accepted channels.

When guys complain about how hard it is to meet women in public the response of women is usually something along the lines of, they don't owe the guy anything, you're just a stranger, she's too busy, she can't be bothered, she is not attracted, she doesn't like to be hit on, etc. But if you pay close attention you see that women generally view men approaching them as an annoyance like a stranger pestering them for change, so no matter what you say it's the wrong thing. The bottom line is that women do not want to meet men in public for romantic connections. This is 100% social conditioning, since there's nothing inherently wrong with it. So it's not that you're necessarily doing something wrong in the delivery, it's that women have preemptively made up their minds that they don't want to meet you. So the reasons women often give for not wanting to meet men in public are just excuses to cover up that they really don't want to meet you in the first place, and nothing you say or do can change that. To understand this better imagine a beggar complaining that people usually snub him when he asks for change, and in response people say that there's something wrong with his approach, or they're too busy, or he's too scruffy or whatever. And if he just changed his appearance and approach he would get much better responses. But that would be ridiculous since the real reason people are snubbing him is because he IS asking them for change. Would a shaven clean cut guy asking you for change make you want to give change more? And what if he had a cute back story before he asks you for change? Would that change your mind?

Another excuse women use is that they get approached all the time and that is why they have a right to act bitchy. But they don't get approached all the time. However, because of their bias, this is just another stock excuse they pull out of the excuse jar as to why they act so standoffish. It's easy to see that this is an excuse, and not to mention a lie. Go to any public place and watch how many times attractive girls get approached. Outside of a bar environment I've seen it maybe a dozen times max in my life. Most guys don't approach women because they instinctively feel they will be rejected. And they're right.



*** Just to address one of the stock criticisms often aimed at guys who complain about tough to get females, I don't imply that women should jump into bed with you right away. There are obviously steps involved, like getting the number, calling, getting together, kissing, and so forth. But these steps should be EASY to go through, transitioning effortlessly from one to the next, like climbing a flight of stairs, pretty easy to do for most.