Sunday, December 20, 2009

Identifying The Good Bars And Clubs

There is a simple way to determine which bars and clubs are good for meeting women.

It's a simple test you can perform while at the place. Think of it as an assessment. It involves two basic steps, in order.

The first step is to be in passive mode and just enjoy the scenery. Keep your body language relaxed and open, and move around so you're as visible as possible. You can have a drink as you're doing so, as that can make it easier. As you're doing this observe what the women are doing around you. Are they giving you eye contact? Are they subtly positioning themselves near you, perhaps facing you? Are they giving you approach invitations by way of eye contact and open body language? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then you have something to work with.

Alternatively:

Are the women staying away? Or are they giving you mixed signals, in which they stand near you but are also facing away (e.g. backs faced towards you)? If the answer to either of these two questions is yes, then you have nothing to work with. The basic rule here is that No means No, and Maybe means No. The first case is an obvious no, and the second case is mixed, but is effectively no as well. Most likely this means that they dig the way you look and move closer as a result, but because they don't have the Will to do something about it, they keep themselves turned away.

However, if you are experiencing these situations it's not necessarily a lost cause. There is one more thing you can do to test the waters; kind of like a final acid test.

Start doing some approaching. Radiate a positive energy while doing so. It can help to have friends with you as this can boost your attractiveness a bit. This is active mode. Start talking to women, including those who might be giving you mixed signals, and those who are giving you no signals at all. This is your attempt to "unfreeze" the situation. If there are positive results from that (beyond just polite conversation), great, and if not then unfortunately the place you are at is a dud, and you should waste no more time there. You can still hang out there if you want, but in terms of meeting women the place is useless to you, at least that night. And of course, if the place is always like that, then it's useless to you all the time. Some places are like that, whereas other places only suck once in a while.

What it comes down to is this basic principle:

If the women aren't giving you anything to work with it's a dead end, and it's pointless to make further efforts. Now, it's certainly possible that you might get something (perhaps a scrap or two) if you work the situation persistently enough. But if you want to have at least a semi-enjoyable experience and not feel like you're pulling teeth, then you're at the wrong fucking place.

In fact, I would even take this one step further and say that if no woman approaches you or smiles at you on her initiative while you are in passive mode, then it's a lost cause Period, and there's no point even going into active mode, because the obstacles will be the same. Consider the following reason for this:

If no woman approaches you or gives you strong signals of interest, that tells you the women there are closed off to being approached themselves, for if they wanted to be approached there would at least be instances, on occasion, where they would refuse to wait around and "take matters into their own hands" (or at the very least make it very easy for men to talk to them). But if this doesn't happen then it is safe to assume that it's a waste of time to approach the women there. So choose your venues wisely. The only good places for meeting women are those places in which the women put some effort into meeting men.

So how long does it take to figure out what places are good or bad? From personal experience I find it takes about half an hour to an hour, and even that is probably being generous. The bottom line is, you can figure out what the deal is pretty quickly. No need to tough it out all night. The herd always speaks loud and early.

Friday, December 18, 2009

The Transition

With the new year just around the corner there comes the promise of change, and a chance to reflect on the past year and the years before that.

It's a time for optimism and also a time to move on to greener pastures. That time, where women are concerned, has arrived for me.

I wrote once before that the time will probably come when I blacklist women from certain parts. I am almost at that point. There are just a few more details to sort out in the months ahead before I commit to a course of action that will address the circumstances I presently face. This is not a one-size-fits-all solution I propose, but more something that is well adapted to my particular set of circumstances. After all, it is important to become a master of your circumstances.

And it's not a question of not being able to get laid no matter what. It's a question of what I'm willing to put up with in order to get laid. The answer to that is, not a heckuva lot. Looking back I've certainly had my share of experiences, but I am completely unwilling to go through the same old bullshit (or even a fraction of it) for sub-par companionship.

The pattern has always been: Easy in the beginning = great time and great sex, whereas, Lots of game plus effort = shitty women and equally shitty sex. The times I was at the so-called height of my PUA game I hooked up with crappy women. The techniques were themselves skillfully played out, but the end product was very lacking. And the reason for this is because "game" only works on women who are operating at lower levels of consciousness. The same way you can get a heroin addict to suck your dick for the promise of a hit, you can get shallow, animalistic women into your bed with the promise of validation. And of course, the techniques used to do this are praised by the PUA community because they tend to work on the hottest girls. And there is some truth to that if you consider the hottest girls to be the ones who spend the most time and effort looking good. Then it is only natural that a creature of artificially enhanced beauty can be "obtained" by raising doubts about the very beauty she worked so hard to create. So you are using artificial methods to get artificial women and then passing that off as a genuine accomplishment.

But why work so hard to land an illusion? And then work at least as hard to keep it? Artificially enhanced women are very high maintenance, after all.

The problem, as I see it, is that men's sex drive tends to cloud their judgment if they are not careful. And with the modern age of cosmetics and fashion, men's judgment can be clouded well beyond natural limits. Makeup and sexy clothes can really do a number on a man's head, for the simple reason that these things are beauty enhancers which make women more attractive than they actually are. This is one major reason why so many men act so needy for pussy. Our sexual sensory input is overloaded.

The cruel joke, however, is that men in general have difficulty in getting sex on a level proportional to the amount of sexual stimulation we are exposed to. You can't even login to your web-based email account without occasionally seeing an ad with an attractive woman displayed on it. You can't go into a convenience store without seeing scantily clad women on the cover of magazines.

But the good news is that, in large part, this is all an illusion that will collapse like a house of cards the moment any logical thought that questions it, comes up. Logic is a necessary reality check when the feeling of sexual sensory overload arises.

The bad news is that, genuine connections between men and woman suffer as a result. Men are forced to pay dearly for the cost of the illusion that women have created for themselves at the sacrificial altar known as the makeup counter (among other things).

The problem is, every bitch that spends serious time and dime on looking good thinks she is owed oh so much and deserves the very best. Now, there's a difference between a woman who spends some time on looking pretty in order to better attract men, and a bitch who makes it her life work to look hot with the expectation that she will get special treatment as a result. Makeup and attitude go together like peanut butter and jam. And prostitution, covert and overt, is usually not far behind. With the application of foundation, lip-gloss, mascara, and maybe a boob job, it is only natural that a woman feels the price of her pussy should go up as a result. With most women it would never cross their minds to think they are prostitutes for doing this, but the bottom line is that when it comes to sex they will only give it up to the highest bidder.

It's important to make the distinction between the women who enhance their beauty in order to better attract a man, and the women who do so to get the finer things in life. Ask yourself this: Does she look like a woman who genuinely wants someone to talk to her, or does she look like a stone-faced gatekeeper? The latter we have all seen and recognize. It's the kind of bitch you see in clubs, particularly upscale ones; that has a certain air of superiority when she looks at men (if she looks at them at all). And most men, with their judgment clouded by her artificial beauty, never question the sincerity of her motives. All they see is hot tits and ass with no hope in hell of getting it (cheaply, that is).

Thankfully I am on the verge of forever taking myself out of this kind of market; the kind of market that charges Ferrari prices for beat up Ford Escorts.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. And I no longer wish to be insane, in anything where women are concerned. I've made a lot of progress over the years, from quitting the PUA shit, to focusing much more on my life, to where I am now. But I need to take another, perhaps final, step. And that is to completely blacklist women who fit certain criteria. This includes not even trying to sift through the dirt to find the gems. There has got to be as much detachment as possible from the typical bitches I seem to have grown very allergic to. Keep them out of my sight and off my radar as much as possible. These are the garbage women who do not even know they are garbage, and that is the worst kind!

But I have to be careful to not weed out the few good ones out there. So, like a good real-estate agent I have to put extra emphasis on location like I never have before. Gone are the days when I would tough out a place in hopes that maybe, just maybe, some bitch will throw a bone my way. From now on I walk in, look around, have a few conversations, make myself visible, smile etc. and if the fish aren't biting I leave early. And this goes double if I see an excess of stone-faced gatekeepers (since I have become quite allergic to them).

Online game, I feel, will become more and more a staple of how I meet women. It used to be that the ratio would be about 50/50, for women I meet from the internet and women I meet out in public. But gradually, that ratio has shifted towards online. I was puzzled why this is at first, especially here where I live where the internet has become very popular for meeting people. But then it hit me that the reason is because it's so tough here to meet women in public gatherings (like bars/clubs, the mall, various daytime venues, etc.). Online dating is simply filling a very real void.

It is highly stupid that women would hold all kinds of prejudices towards meeting people in the most reasonable of places; the only places they can meet people who aren't part of their social group. But nope, stone-faced gatekeepers are also stupid, taking rumor and gossip for reality, and consistently shutting themselves out of good opportunities because of where those opportunities take place. So if I win the fucking lottery in a bar I can't accept it because it's a bar... and I don't like those places. Yeah right.

In short, meeting women from online is a necessity for me but only because women here seem to be more and more closed off to meeting in public places. It's either that or I've just become increasingly intolerant of the bullshit. It's probably a combination of both.

But take heart if online dating doesn't work for you. Remember that the ease at which you can meet women from online is somewhat proportional to how difficult it is to meet women offline. In some places, online dating is probably unheard of just because the women are friendly and receptive when out in public. But in good 'ol Ontario, Canada, this is a different story. Ya gotta be a master of your circumstances.

But don't be fooled. Online dating is fraught with garbage women. It's just that the few good ones will rise to the surface much more easily on the internet, much the same way a newspaper ad can reach thousands of potential candidates much more efficiently than individual interviews can.

Also keep in mind that women on internet personals are looking for something they aren't finding in real life. Kind of obvious, BUT there are two very important distinctions to make from this. Let's call these distinctions categories one and two. The first category of woman is one who is eternally single, and is approached all the time when she goes out, but due to high levels of narcissism no man can ever measure up. These women are basically standing in their own way. In fact, it's pretty common to see an uptight cock-blocking bitch who is a club regular post a personal ad.

The second category of woman (the one you should focus on) is one who genuinely can't find someone who is her match in real life, not due to narcissism but due to valid circumstances. She might not like bars/clubs, or maybe she lives in a small town and there are few good men there, or maybe she is so damn different from other women that she has to resort to the personals to meet the man who is as unique as her. To meet these latter types of women you have to be very honest and direct in your profile. You have to know who you are and communicate it forcefully. This is the type of woman I hook up with.

The good news is that there are always women in this second category who use the personal ads. The bad news is that there are only a few of them at any one time. This leads me to the next point.

You must be willing to travel to different cities (not necessarily far away) to meet these category two women. I figure that every reasonably sized town/city has at least a few of these types of women trolling the personals, who may be a match for you. And every few months some new ones sign up.

However, you will quickly exhaust the "potential" of one locale. This is why you have to travel, in order to keep the hook ups going. Spread your net. You can be in town "on business" or whatever. This also allows you to see some different places, which is always a good thing. And it's also possible in some of the better cities to score offline hook ups in the usual public gatherings, using your "traveler" status as a sort of aphrodisiac. Where are some good places in town? is a good way to start a conversation.

So, how do you establish contact with these women on the personals?

You don't. You let them contact you first. There's far too many category one social rejects for you to filter through if you are the one doing the messaging, and it will only piss you off! So make life as easy as possible for yourself and let the women message you first. This is also a good filter since the category one women never message first. Their sense of entitlement strictly prohibits it.

There is also the following reason why it's better to let the women message you first: When a woman reaches out to you first she is more likely to say "yes" because she is looking for reasons to prove that she was right in picking you. But when you reach out to a woman first she is more likely to say "no" because she is looking for reasons to prove you are just like the rest of the guys who message her (i.e. not good enough). This subjectivity in how women use the personals practically demands that you never message a woman first. Such a Pavlovian response is typical in the modern, animalistic western female.

So, never message the women first. Let them message you first, and as a result the messages you receive will usually be from the category twos. The cream of the crop.

After a few weeks or months you'll stop receiving messages and things will dry up in your city of focus. At this point you can move on to the next city (simply change the city listed in your ad). Keep repeating this. Then after maybe 6 months to a year, you can start fresh with the first city you started in (since there will be a fresh batch of women). This is only a guideline of course, as there are no magic bullets here. But the key to all this is the FIND part. You don't fix, tolerate, or adapt. You FIND the ones who are right for you with as little effort as possible. And location is extremely important for this.

Some might think it's stupid to do this given that there are so many women walking around pretty much everywhere. Well, all I can say is that extreme circumstances require extreme solutions. The current situation is as real as it is surprising. The society of modern women is like an army of well-trained soldiers who are taught to act against your best interests. But you are not interested in these "soldier women". You are interested in the outcasts, the free thinkers, the rebel soldiers.

And to do this, you must focus on the Find.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Men Wanting Hot Women Is Different From Women Wanting Dates

It's easy to believe that women are justified in wanting men who take them out and spend money on them because men want women who are attractive. So you could say it's a fair trade-off.

But this is not the case.

Men want attractive women for the simple reason that it turns us on more. Simply put, attractive women are more sexually appetizing to us.

However, taking a woman out on a traditional date is generally not sexually appetizing to her. Therefore, this does not increase a man's chances of sleeping with her. This has been proven to be true, and continues to be proven every day.

Women are not justified in demanding dinners or expensive dates because these things do not turn them on sexually or make them want to be with a man more.

But men are justified in wanting attractive women because it turns us on sexually and makes us want to be with them more.

So there is a functional difference between the two. The end result of what men want is sex. The end result of what women want is, well... basically nothing. So there is no end result. The experience (and her fun) ends at the end of the night, and she moves on.

You pick her up. Take her to an expensive place. Pay for an expensive dinner or whatever. And then you go home (usually empty-handed). That's pretty much the extent of it. Of course, there's always the chance that she might put out but that's hardly a sure thing. You have to do this sort of thing a lot to get any results. But it's a very poor strategy for mating and garnering a woman's company.

Look at it this way. Let's say a woman gets in shape, wears sexy clothes, and attracts men as a result. It's pretty much guaranteed that men will be more inclined to have sex with her. It is also pretty much guaranteed that men will be more inclined to ask her out on dates. So no matter what, she gets what she wants; either a free dinner, a night out, entertainment, or even sex if she wants it. All for the price of looking good.

Men aren't so fortunate. There is much more uncertainty that they will get what they want (sex) by taking a woman out on a traditional date, for the reasons just mentioned.

This is why there is a big difference between men wanting hot women and women wanting to be taken out on dates. One is much more guaranteed to get what they want after fulfilling their end of the bargain, while the other risks big losses and disappointment after fulfilling their end of the bargain.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

With Women The Self Comes Through

The quality of a woman goes down the harder you have to work to get her. The reason for this is pretty straightforward. A woman's sexuality and views towards sex influence her in large part on who she is as a person. Unlike a man who can compartmentalize different areas of his life, including sex, and keep them fairly independent of one another, a woman's sexual views cannot be kept separate from how she behaves towards men, especially those men who are romantic prospects. If she's holding back at the beginning, chances are real good she will hold back when you fuck her. It's laughable to assume that it will be worth the effort. It's only backwards rationalization that would cause men to think they must have gotten a good deal just because they paid a lot for it.

A cold woman who is hard to engage and has a bitchy demeanor in general, has a high chance of being frigid in bed, whereas a friendly woman who opens up right away has a high chance of being much better in bed (and a better lover to boot). So why bother talking to a woman who puts up walls and plays games. Even if you break through, the quality won't justify all the effort it took.

Some men look at hot, bitchy, hard-to-get women and assume they rock in bed. In fact the opposite is true. And this is because a woman's sexuality tends to diffuse through her whole personality. She can't help it. The way a woman's body is more closely linked than a man's to sex (both in overall appearance and receptiveness to touch), so will her degree of sexual open-ness strongly correlate to how she acts towards men in all stages of interaction. It is the way women are.

Women are unable to relate to men in ways that strongly contradict their sexuality. But a man can be a total sexual prude and still be an easy-going guy in person. However, with women, the self comes through much more forcefully. It's practically impossible for them to play "hard to get" and be a great lover, since the two are so contradictory. They can only play hard to get at the expense of their sexuality. So there's no final "reward" for putting in the work to get these types of women, since that implies compartmentalization, which women are not capable of.

Uptight women can certainly have sex, but the conditions under which it happens tends to be of the dysfunctional sort; in other words, very lame sex. It's more like going through the motions rather than sheer enjoyment of it.

Spending a lot of time and $$ trying to get a hot bitchy woman in bed is like investing in a clunker dressed up to look like a Ferrari. You'll get behind the wheel but it'll be shit driving, parts falling off, etc.

On the other hand, if a woman is fun and outgoing from the get-go, with no games, there is a good chance she will be great in bed. For women, a strong measure of mental health is how healthy her views are towards sex.

The only down side of this (for some men) is that chances are good that a girl such as this has fucked a lot of guys. But that shouldn't be a complaint, since it means a lot of other guys have had fun with her too. It's just the nature of the beast, and there's nothing wrong with that. But in contrast, the uptight hard-to-get girl will only leave behind a string of unsatisfied men who paid dearly to get into her pants.

I remember years ago reading something Tyler Durden from the seduction community said. He said that 95% of hot girls are getting fucked by someone. I remember thinking at the time how much sense that made, since sex is so easy for them to get. But now I realize that it can only be true if 95% of hot girls are open-minded and don't play games. And clearly that's false.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Balancing Your Life With Meeting Women

It's been on my mind for a long time how I can balance meeting women with maintaining a fulfilling life, which doesn't involve women. For a few years now I have strived to make women a byproduct of my life, while still being successful with them. My main motivation for doing this is to remove all the wasted effort and minimize the time spent with women who are a waste of time (which happens to be a lot of women). My first exposure to this kind of thinking was hearing Brent from the David DeAngelo interviews, in which he talked about not pursuing women and making women a byproduct of a naturally fulfilling life. He was the first person who actually talked about "non-pickup" as a way to meet women. It was a breath of fresh air, since I had reached a point where I was fed up with community concepts and wanted to be free of them, since they were far too draining on my mind and soul. It signaled the beginning of my paradigm shift, from being intently focused on getting women to not caring at all if I get them (while still meeting them).

And so I began my transformation. It was an important process, as it added an important dimension to my thinking, which up till then had been too one-sided. I think of it as going from Conservative to more Socialist in terms of shifting of viewpoints. Of course, neither side is completely right or wrong, but at least I was able to encompass more perspective in the way I viewed women and dating.

I think now I'm more moderate in my views. I'm much more capable of seeing a broader range of perspectives and separating reality from personal beliefs, simply because I'm the kind of person who questions things and is not averse to change. So I won't cling to an old way of thinking just to save face. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work, and I'll fix it.

I apply the same scrutiny to Brent's teachings as well. Even though he is, by far, one of the best guys to learn from just because of his healthy outlook, and empowering methods, there are still a few flaws in his thinking. For example, he says calling women is giving away your power. That's a blanket statement, and he doesn't seem to want to go any deeper than that. So for a while, after first hearing Brent, I had this nagging feeling that if I call a girl I am giving away my power. But after getting some more experience of my own I realized that this is not necessarily the case. Yes, there are times when calling a girl is giving away your power, just because of the particular dynamics of that situation (e.g. you are chasing her). But let's say a girl shows interest in you first and then gives you her number. According to Brent, you shouldn't call her. But I say that it's okay to call her because you are reciprocating interest. It's give-and-take. Of course, the problem is that most times there is no give-and-take. The guy has to do all or most of the work. So my view is that if you are giving more than you are taking then you are giving away your power, and it just so happens that calling a girl first is very common with guys who are giving away their power. But correlation is not necessarily causality. You have to look at the big picture.

My view is, if men apply the give-and-take concept, that will solve almost all their problems where women are concerned. The first thing that would happen is that men would stop chasing and persisting. The second thing is that they would expect women to do their part. So give-and-take is essentially forced equality.

The nice thing about this concept is that it alerts you to a sense of fairness where dating and women are concerned.

It is perhaps ironic that in learning about indifference I became more sensitive to the dynamics that go on between men and women, and more critical of things that I would at one time have embraced as being unconditionally true. So I feel that it is the paradigm shift of moving away from pursuer-mode, and not due to the nature of indifference, that caused me to develop the perspective I currently have. Indifference was just a catalyst for this process.

However, indifference by itself is not the only solution. It is a major part of the "salvation" you might say, but there are more issues to consider.

I have realized that total indifference all the time is not reasonable. Every single species, when looking for a mate, does so with intent. So it's not reasonable to take the extreme view that meeting women must always be a 100% byproduct of your life all the time. So adding some intent is only natural. However, you must not add too much intent since that crosses over into the needy/desperate category, and we know what happens when that occurs. So you have to add just enough intent to motivate you to talk to women you wouldn't talk to otherwise. And along with this intent, you also need a carefree mindset where you don't care too much if you get the girl or not. The desire is there, but it's on a low burn. So even if nothing happens, you are cool with it.

It's just a matter of getting the mix right. And for each person that comes down to trial and error.

The other thing is, you want to make things as easy for yourself as possible, such as only choosing a club that you enjoy going to, which has a fun atmosphere, and where the women are at least somewhat friendly. Not all clubs are created equal in this regard. So choose your clubs wisely. I have found that it's best to stay away from the more upscale clubs where people go to "be and be seen". They are full of pretentious snotty women. It's much better to go to a more casual place, that has good music, and has a layout which allows hookups to happen without everyone else in the club noticing; such as with separate rooms, darker, etc. In well-lit clubs that don't have separate rooms (i.e. everything is in the open) women are more self-conscious since they feel that everyone can see them if they hook up, and they will sabotage your efforts to meet them, even if they like you.


So how much of your life should you devote to meeting women?

That largely depends on you, but I think you should keep it to a minimum, since there are so many other things in life besides women.

I personally think it's a good rule-of-thumb to devote about 5% of your life to meeting women. This translates into 4-8 hours a week.

So I will spend 4-8 hours a week meeting women, with intent. And the best place to do this is at the clubs, since it's the most efficient. Clubs and bars have the highest concentration of women. Daytime pickup is out of the question for me since I have never gotten it to work (which I posted about before). And if it did work it would probably take a lot more time to get the same results as I would in a club, since the women are more "spread out". But with a club you can do a lot of work in a short time, and even create competition between women who see you talking to other women.

But like I said before, it's important to choose a fun club with friendly-er women, so even if nothing happens you at least have a good time. The important thing is to get as many things working in your favor as possible, while avoiding as many obstacles as possible.

You can also use the online personals to meet women, but it's best to let them message you and rarely send messages yourself.

The rest of the time outside of this 4-8 hour window I focus on my own projects and interests, and I don't even think about women. Furthermore, outside of this time window I treat meeting women as a 100% byproduct. In other words, I have no intent to meet women as I go to the mall, bookstore, etc. But if a good opportunity comes up I'll take it; such as a girl standing next to me, and eyeing me up and down. But otherwise, I won't make any effort at all to meet women outside this 4-8 hour window.

This is nice because it operates on the concept of schedule. You schedule an important part of life to fit into a certain time window (like exercise) and the rest of the time you don't think about it.

The difficulty I had before was that I would be focused on making women a 100% byproduct of my life all the time, so that if I ever meet them, I should never have any intent behind it (100% outcome independent). But the problem with this approach is the sheer randomness of it, and because there's no deliberate action to change your situation (since that would make you outcome dependent), you tend to get discouraged. The conflict is in wanting to meet women, but also in wanting to follow the indifference (outcome independent) way of life. Now, if women came to me, being totally indifferent would be okay. But they don't do that. They are far too passive in this part of the world, so this entails that I must do something, even if it's minimal. And the only way is for me to add some intent to the mix. This has the effect of making me more proactive, and in some ways more attractive, since I am deliberately talking to more women. But because I am not that attached to the outcome, people will see me as more of a fun person. And as a result, they tend to make it easier for you to talk to them. Some will even go so far as helping you hook up with their friends. Yes, this has happened before.

It's just a matter of getting the desire-indifference mix right, and getting as many things as possible working in your favor (e.g. choosing the right club).

Let's face it, women are a normal part of life, and it's natural to put in some effort to be with them. But I also know from past experience that I have to temper my desire with a healthy level of indifference, just not total 100% indifference. Think of it as going to buy a snack. You go to the store because you want a snack and that's where the snacks are, but at the same time you aren't needy for the snack. And if you don't find the snack you want, you won't be that upset. You'll just move on. This is the level of desire you want with women. Not too much, not too little.

Monday, October 12, 2009

How Does Feminism Affect You?

Feminism has mostly affected my life in the dating sphere. It has made it difficult for me to meet women by creating the presumption of guilt and inadequacy in women's minds where men are concerned.

Feminism has also contributed to fear and insecurity in the minds of women, by enslaving them to popular opinion and public approval rather than teaching them how to think for themselves.

It has encouraged passivity among females, who on the surface appear to be passive, but in reality are very active in doing nothing. So much energy is spent by women in doing nothing, or rather structuring things so that the man does all the work (and takes all the risk), while avoiding responsibility themselves (e.g. fear of rejection). The slew of these "doing nothing" tactics are: avoidance, subterfuge, resistance, etc. These are all defensive strategies, which women have been taught to do to thwart men's chances of getting close, and the justifiable male response (anger and masculinity) is discouraged.

The trap for men is, wanting to do more when women make it difficult for them to get close. The natural impulse of men is to do more in the face of obstacles. But what most men fail to realize is that the women are playing an active role in making things difficult for you. So by ratcheting up your efforts you are only causing her to ratchet up her own efforts to resist you. Contrary to belief, women who resist are not screening for "alpha" men, because persistence does not work. The cardinal rule is, if a woman wants to get with you she makes it easy for you. Period. And if by chance a woman likes to play "hard to get" then you should immediately respond with your own version of hard to get, which is moving on. Some will say that a real man would persist. Well, all I can say to that is that some "real" men would persist, but as a THINKING man I know that's a waste of time, and my time is better spent on REAL women who know what they want and aren't afraid to demonstrate it.

Feminism has done a lot of damage, by emphasizing the negatives of masculinity without looking at the positives. And this is especially true with regards to sexuality, where the sex act is demonized due to its penetrative nature. Radical feminists frame sex as a violation of women's bodies. But unfortunately for them, women enjoy sex too. So this creates a problem: The difficulty men usually encounter with regards to getting sex is not because many women hate sex, but because many women are taught to hate (or fear) men, or at least masculinity. And furthermore, men love sex. So there's that connection. It's bad to give the "enemy" what they like, even if you like it too. It must suck fraternizing with the enemy so often.


Acceptance Of Female Recklessness

In some ways, feminism has screwed over men not by what it does, but by what it fails to do. Feminism fails to correct reckless female behaviour, which in many ways is innate. If women are not taught a code of proper conduct the result is a lot of screwed up and self-destructive behaviour on the part of women. This is a common consequence of ideological bias, where one group can operate with impunity for reasons of political correctness, which skews the concept of "fairness" in order to further a political agenda.

It is obvious to anyone who has observed women for any length of time, and thought deeply about them, that they are inclined to be at the mercy of their emotions and baser instincts. And because there is nothing to control this (since it would be politically incorrect to do so), women are becoming increasingly reckless.

It is unfortunate that one of the most important checks and balances to combat this (masculinity) is not allowed or is severely restricted under the regime of radical feminism.

So anything masculine is demonized, and anything that can bring the two sexes together in a healthy way is demonized simply because half of that equation involves men (and masculinity). So in a way, feminists are screwing women out of happiness also.

The other problem is that, because feminist propaganda increasingly fuels women's sense of entitlement, you are getting more and more women holding out for higher and higher quality men (who statistically speaking, are in a smaller and smaller minority). Again, there are no checks and balances to reverse this trend. The result is that many women are screwing themselves over in their pathological and "socially downloaded" desire to find "Mr. Right".

If you are always looking for the right one, you get to enjoy no one. And that is becoming more and more obvious to me as time goes on. I see so many women who shut themselves out of GOLDEN opportunities because something didn't quite match up with one or more items on the "checklist". It's a sign of extreme vanity and near-sightedness when you can't even enjoy a brief encounter with someone because they didn't measure up in some small way. As men, we know that it's not a big deal to lower our standards somewhat to score a one-night stand. It's not a big deal to us because we know the time dimension is so short anyway, so it's hardly worth fretting over. BUT women (most anyway), cannot compromise even one iota when it comes to something short-term and casual. For them it's gotta be "perfect" all the time, even if it only lasts a few hours (which they would otherwise have spent sleeping or whatever). This can only be a result of extreme vanity and social myopia - the inability to see far.

I feel that the time will come when I completely blacklist women in these parts and outsource my libido instead, using vacations, and trips to other cities (i.e. friendlier demographics), using the "traveler status" to my advantage. And the rest of the time, when I'm home, I completely focus on personal projects. I think this is where I'm heading, since after almost 8 years in the game, the difficulty is still intolerably high, especially since I'm not the kind of person to wear blinders. If I was, then I would find reasons to "tough it out", like many guys do.

Let's put it this way, I am slowly getting tired of throwing pearls before swine (so to speak). And although I enjoy social interactions (for my own benefit), it is also dawning on me that giving people value who do not appreciate that value, is pretty stupid. When I talk to a woman and putting my best foot forward I am giving her value, and too often these women do not appreciate the value I am giving them. In other words, they act like swine that have been given pearls. It is something they do not appreciate, and furthermore it is too good for them anyway.

So stop giving pearls to swine. Put a price on your time and your value. I talked about this before. One way is to only talk to women who have a sexy confident energy that invites dialogue. Don't talk to women who won't even look at you or acknowledge you as a MAN. This is how we start taking back the power. Learning techniques to fuck the swine is not taking back the power. It only lowers your intellect and creates self-loathing.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

The Good Looks Myth

I regularly get compliments on my looks, from both men and women. Usually the people giving the compliments assume that it must be easy for me to get women, because I'm so "good looking". It's hard for them to imagine that this is not the case. And in fact, it is not the case. Most times women will give me a second look but that's where it usually ends, and things progress no further.

Now, to be honest, there are times when my looks will help, and women will make it very easy for me to have sex with them as a result. But there are also quite a few times when women will have their guard up as a result of my looks. They practically assume I'm a slick player who will "pick them up" if they're not careful. So up goes the shield. Most guys won't know what I'm talking about here since most guys don't set off the bitch shield just by their looks alone. So in a way I'm in a unique position. I get to observe how much good looks help, and don't help. And my conclusion is that good looks are a double-edged sword. They can help but also hurt, as proven by the fact that I don't hook up nearly as much as many people seem to think.

The problem as I see it, is this:

Many women look at me and assume that I am getting a lot of girls, and they feel threatened by that, so their natural reaction is to avoid me. But ironically, if all women were to think this way I would never hook up. Fortunately, not all women think this way. But many do, and the result is that many women avoid me.

The only group of women I hook up with are the ones who don't care who else I might be fucking. This is the cream of the crop of women (relatively speaking), since they are the most confident, intelligent women who are not possessive and have no agendas.

In some ways I feel that my looks have given me a unique vantage point on female behaviour. Since so many people assume you need looks to get girls, I am proof that this is not the case. Furthermore, I know that lack of attraction is not the main issue guys are up against in the dating world. If it were I would be getting laid like a rock star. And the fact that I am not means that the obstacles men are facing are mostly related to personality issues women have, and not how attractive women find them. Many (most) women in this part of the world have psychological and social issues, which prevent them from meeting men on a healthy level. Being good looking does not erase this fact, and can sometimes aggravate it, as I explained already.

This becomes most evident when I see that a girl is attracted to me (smiling at me, giving me signals, etc.) and when I make a move the walls come up. This tells me that attraction was not a choice, and that she couldn't help but show it, but when it came time to do something about it, she sabotaged her efforts due to her own personal issues; such as psychological problems, insecurities, timid-ness, etc. Some will think I'm full of shit, and that the girls aren't attracted and I'm seeing things that aren't there. And yet, this has happened to me many times in the past, with great consistency. So in other words, I was there and you weren't.

Here's something else to think about. If you're a woman, chances are you see attractive guys wherever you go. Why is it so hard to believe that one of those guys could have an opinion the same as mine?

Lastly, imagine a situation where you see a good looking guy, and you tell yourself that, although he's hot, you'd best avoid him, since chances are he's already getting lots of girls and you would be another "notch" for him. Now imagine if all girls were to think this way. What do you think would happen then? It isn't hard to comprehend that this guy would never hook up. It's the ultimate irony.

Remember, things aren't always as they seem.

Personally, I have found the solution is for me to embrace the guy that women think I am, just because it's who I want to be anyway — you know, the guy who sees different women; the guy who is a player. Any attempt to hide this is useless anyway, as it just means more work on my part and more bullshit. So ladies, what you see is what you get. If you can't deal with it, then step out of the way and make room for the women who can.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Most Women Are Prostitutes

I have concluded that most women are prostitutes. I know this because my sex life has been sporadic for years, and I can't rely on any woman for steady, reliable sex. It turns out I've taken myself out of the market for steady, reliable sex for one simple reason: I refuse to "pay" for it.

I tell women upfront that I don't want a relationship or commitment, and that I just want to have no strings casual fun. And as a result I only get occasional sex. The fact that I don't "give" anything in return for sex is the cause of this. And since most women are prostitutes, the result is that most women want nothing to do with me.

And the ones I do hook up with usually don't stick around very long. Apparently, it's quite a challenge for women to keep giving a guy sex in exchange for nothing. So some will do it for a little while, but the inevitable feeling they have is that I'm ripping them off if this type of arrangement continues.

But I realize this is the price I pay for being a free man. And I think that's entirely a good thing. The last thing I want is to be a slave to some woman's "relationship requirements" just so I can get some on a regular basis.

I think it's most disturbing that it is this way, but looking back, that is exactly what I am forced to conclude. Women, for the most part, cannot enjoy sex by itself. They need an economic incentive to keep it going, otherwise they might get very jealous of all those other girls who are getting regular sex with all the extra goodies.

Some women will argue that women get more emotionally attached to a man after sex so that's why they can't keep it on a casual level. To this I say bollocks. Prostitutes (hookers) are able to have sex with many men (some of them for years) and you never once hear them complain about getting "attached" to their clients. Are prostitutes special? No, but they are getting paid, which is why they can keep doing it.

Naturally, payment can come in different forms, and the relationship format is the usual payment option men exercise in exchange for regular sex.

A relationship means:

• Giving her lots and lots of attention

• Dealing with her shit constantly, and putting up with any new shit that may come up

• Listening to her problems ad nauseum

• Dealing with her insecurities that you might leave her at any time, and giving her constant reassurance that the "relationship" is going where she wants

• Doing things for her (much more than she does for you)

• Buying her shit

• Letting her control you (at least to an extent)


Of course, not all relationships are parasitic dysfunctional arrangements, but the fact is that in almost all relationships the man has to actively "give" something (whatever that may be) in exchange for sex. There is always that certain something the woman will be demanding in return for opening her legs. Very few women, it seems, can enjoy sex by itself for any length of time without some payout. And yet, many women make frequent use of sex toys, so you can see the hypocrisy. It would be better if men were used as sex toys, and then let them go free to do whatever they want, until the next appointment. That would be more honest. But it doesn't work this way. Women are far too opportunistic to not use sex (which men want) to extract as much value as possible for their own personal gain.

Of course, the ultimate form of sex-ploytation is the modern marriage. And I won't even get into that particular hornet's nest. I'll save that for another post, as it deserves a stand-alone discussion.

Some will argue that many women already make their own money, and as a result they don't need a man to pamper and provide for them in exchange for sex. That's certainly true, but it doesn't really change the whore-tendencies of women in a significant way. For many otherwise "well off" women, a man is simply a way for them to get even more material things without extra expenditure and effort on their part. There are few women who wouldn't cash in on the "man factor", especially if they are attractive. As far as they're concerned, it would be like saying no to easy money, and from their perspective that would be foolish.

Women's liberation is largely to blame. As a result woman are now, more than ever, slaves to their emotions and selfish baser instincts. And they can' t be fixed. The current generation of western women is completely incurable in this regard. And how funny that they will act as if they are completely within their rights, doing what they do, and always reframing their actions to take focus away from the damage they cause.

No, educating the current generation of women is not the solution here. But training them might be, since training implies that we are dealing with an animal. And an animal can't be reasoned with, but it can be taught to do certain things and not others. This seems to fit well with the typical animalistic western woman who herself is beyond education due to her spoiled upbringing and tainted views towards men. These women can only be trained by men who refuse to take their shit any longer. This will no doubt result in them treating us better, but most likely it will not fix the core problem, given they will revert back to their former state given the first opportunity. So it's better to keep these women at arms length, as they will forever be damaged goods. Have your fun with them, but reserve your greatest sympathies for women who were not raised under the wing of feminism and the women's movement.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Male Vs. Female Ingenuity

The following is a typical list of notable female inventions you might find online.

Alphabet blocks Adeline D. T. Whitney 1882
Apgar tests, which evaluate a baby’s health upon birth Virginia Apgar 1952
Chocolate-chip cookies Ruth Wakefield 1930
Circular saw Tabitha Babbitt 1812
Dishwasher Josephine Cochran 1872
Disposable diaper Marion Donovan 1950
Electric hot water heater Ida Forbes 1917
Elevated railway Mary Walton 1881
Engine muffler El Dorado Jones 1917
Fire escape Anna Connelly 1887
Globes Ellen Fitz 1875
Ironing board Sarah Boone 1892
Kevlar, a steel-like fiber used in radial tires, crash helmets, and bulletproof vests Stephanie Kwolek 1966
Life raft Maria Beaseley 1882
Liquid Paper®, a quick-drying liquid used to correct mistakes printed on paper Bessie Nesmith 1951
Locomotive chimney Mary Walton 1879
Medical syringe Letitia Geer 1899
Paper-bag-making machine Margaret Knight 1871
Rolling pin Catherine Deiner 1891
Rotary engine Margaret Knight 1904
Scotchgard™ fabric protector Patsy O. Sherman 1956
Snugli® baby carrier Ann Moore 1965
Street-cleaning machine Florence Parpart 1900
Submarine lamp and telescope Sarah Mather 1845
Windshield wiper Mary Anderson 1903



I did a search on a few of the items listed. Kevlar and liquid paper look legit.

But it seems that women did not actually invent some of the items. For example,

rolling pin - J.W. Reed (man)
rotary engine - Felix Millet (man)
circular saw - toss up between Samuel Miller and Walter Taylor (men)
ironing board - W. Vandenburg and J. Harvey (probably men)

So there appears to be some attempts by feminists to rewrite history. Revisionist history I think that's called.

Another thing I discovered is that none of the inventions in the list are recent. Is that because nothing new and significant has been invented in the last 40 years? I highly doubt it.

So unless I'm mistaken, the last 40 years is when women have become the most liberated, so why aren't there more recent female inventions to reflect that?

So I decided to look into this more. I found a website that does list some more recent female inventions: http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0768070.html You can see that only 11 of the (supposed) inventions by women were in the last 40 years. This is out of a total of 58 listed over the last 140 years or so. This means that the rate of female inventions have decreased a bit, especially in the last 40 years; strange given that women have been most liberated in this time period.

This leads me to believe that some of the inventions are wrongly credited to women, especially back in the earlier time periods where there was greater uncertainty as to who did what; due to old records, missing documentation, etc. Therefore, it's easer to fill in some of the blanks with feminist revisionist history.

Now for my personal thoughts on the matter. When it comes to the kind of intelligence necessary for inventions (i.e. genius) men are overwhelmingly going to outnumber the women. Genius is essentially a male trait. Now, this does not mean women cannot be intelligent. There are definitely intelligent women, but at the highest end of the scale you're going to have mostly men.

For example, the best screenwriters are men, even though mostly women enroll in screenwriting programs.

Mastery in the kitchen is usually men.

Again, it's the genius factor, possibly related to spatial aptitude. So men will overwhelmingly be the geniuses of society. Hence, great inventions will usually be "man made".

Feminism, in all its wisdom, likes to blame men for female shortcomings. So anything that men are better at is because they have oppressed women. It kind of explains where all the hate comes from since there are so many things men are better at.

As an interesting exercise, go to YouTube and type "invention" in the search box. All the videos that come up in the search results will be of men that have invented something cool. Now why would that be? What could possibly be preventing women from uploading their own videos of worthwhile things they have created? The answer is, the lack of women who have created something worthwhile.

But on the other hand, plenty of women will upload a lot of nonsensical crap on YouTube, such as videos of them dancing around in skimpy clothing. So it's not as if women are not well versed in the media elements (case in point - Facebook). I have no doubt that one of the greatest wastes of bandwidth is women uploading videos and photos for purposes of vanity.

Women have rarely ever contributed to technological advancement. I have often struggled to understand why, and I now think the reason for that is this: Women will unquestioningly accept, in a passive manner, the way things are. As long as something is functional she will accept that and work within those confines. She will do this and seldom give it a second thought. Men, however, will seek out ways to do something better, and herein lies the main difference. Men will seek to expand the framework in which one lives, but women will work within that framework.

Women can and do contribute positively to society, but rarely where true technological evolution is concerned. Instead they will mostly contribute within environments that already have established frameworks. For example, a woman will research cures for disease using lab equipment invented by men, and within comfortable air conditioned rooms made possible by the inventions of men. It is quite rare, compared to men, that a woman will get into the nuts and bolts of something, get her hands dirty, and invent something truly novel using nothing but raw materials.

Most men aren't inventors. But virtually all inventors are men, and this is important to keep in mind.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Start Saying No

There's a saying that women are the choosers. That may be true if men are always willing to say yes, but as soon as we start (selectively) saying no, then it's no longer true.

As men, it's important to get out of the "pursuing" mindset where women are concerned. It can only help us.

Keep in mind that many women reject many decent men for petty reasons, so it's only fair that men start rejecting women for good reasons. And there are many. I put together some of the reasons for rejecting a woman.

• After you state your intentions, she doesn't go along willingly. She seems "unsure" of the situation and seems to want reassurance of some kind. It's best to let her go. Women who want the same thing as you don't ask a lot of questions. They want to take the quickest and shortest path to get there. If she doesn't do this, move on.

• She rejected you years ago when she was slim and attractive. But now, years later, after putting on weight (less attractive), she wants you. Next.

• She is not enthusiastic when she is with you. But being a gentleman you may naturally want to fix the situation and "win her over". Resist this urge. Next.

• She doesn't ask you questions about you, despite you taking an interest in her life. Finish the conversation, and move on.

• She asks you "what do you do?" early in the conversation. She's a ho. Move on.

• She likes you but is too shy to act on it. If she is very young it's probably okay to keep her as a friend, since she might mature later on. But for an older girl (e.g. over 25) let her go. Her views are probably firmly cemented and she's not worth the effort.

• She gives the impression that it's up to you to make it okay for her to do something. In other words, she won't take responsibility for her actions. For example, she implies that she wants you to be a jerk towards her so that she won't "fall for you", but at the same time she wants the sex to be good. What is she, a child? Next.

• At the club, on the dance floor, she dances near you but refuses to look at you. In some cases, the girl will back up into you and grind up against you, but will refuse to turn around and look at you. She is not taking responsibility for her actions. Next. However, in the case where she grinds up against you, it's probably okay to grind with her a bit, but then move on.

• Girls who are cold and unreceptive to meeting men. These women are easy to spot as they avoid eye contact at all costs. They are also experts at avoidance tactics. It's as if they, not only want to avoid contact, but also want to avoid proximity with males who might try to establish contact.

• Girls who make a big deal out of needing "chemistry". These women are usually eternally single and have a laundry list of requirements. Next.

• Girls who want you to travel a far distance to meet them.

• She flakes and the reason for it wasn't a matter of life and death.

• She asks you to buy her a drink.

• A girl who wants you to have a threesome with her and her boyfriend. Chances are this is an extremely selfish woman who wants to be treated like a QUEEN at the same time by two men. Such propositions happen more often if you're a good looking guy, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but the fact that such women will view you as a "trophy" of sorts, is a bad thing.

These are a few of the reasons for rejecting a woman. You might have more, but for me personally it comes down to what I want and how much work I am willing to put in to get it. I don't want girls who play games and don't make it easy for me, especially now that I have the KNOWLEDGE that women CAN make it easy if they want to.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Performance-Wise Men Are Better Than Women

It's hilarious to hear the justifications for why women do some of the things they do, such as why they hold grudges much longer than men — it's often said it's because women have a better memory than men. Wrong, they are just pettier and less forgiving (in general). Another commonly held view is, since the female brain has more communication between the left and right hemispheres, women are better at multi-tasking. Wrong again, it just means that women have a harder time distinguishing between logic and feeling, due to the extra "chit-chat" going on in their heads.

In the performance sense, and on average, men are better than women. Now, some women are better than some men at some things, but as a whole men are better than women at everything. There is not one single thing that women are better than men at, either through physical or mental prowess. At best, there are a few things they are just as good at. But there is nothing they are better at.

What is the reason for this? I think it's because of natural selection. Women, on average, have always mated with men who are physically bigger and stronger than them. In addition, women, on average, have always mated with men who have more resources and more social status than them. These two things often correlate with higher intelligence. Hence, the fact that the average man is better than the average woman, in the performance sense, directly ties into women's hypergamous instincts. Men, by way of women's mating choices over thousands of years, have quite simply been selected to be better. And men, not being as picky as women, have not had this kind of influence on women, so as to balance out the disparity.

By the way, just because I'm male doesn't mean I should be thought of as a member of the "winning team" and hence be looked upon more favorably. Conversely, it also doesn't mean that my views should be dismissed either, just because they might appear to be coming from a braggart who, through his own arguments, is part of the "winning team".

The fact that men as a whole perform better than women as a whole does not mean that individual men should be given more advantages than individual women. In fact, they are not, far from it actually.

What I am talking about is statistical averages, not how individuals should be treated based on their gender.

And since individual men obviously cannot tap into the collective "power" of the entire male group then they must rely on their own individual talents to achieve anything. So, men as a whole being better does not help individual men do better. Ultimately it comes down to what we do as individuals that gets us anywhere.

Remember, for every man that is great at something there are countless women out there who are better than him at other things.

So equal opportunity between the sexes should indeed be allowed. Give men and women equal opportunity to succeed. But the mistake we make is twisting and lowering the standards so that more women can compete with more men. To draw an analogy, consider that the fastest sprinters are almost always black. So you can say that white sprinters aren't as fast as black sprinters. That's certainly true at the highest levels (at least as far as historical evidence goes). But I would not want someone to say that I'm not allowed to train for sprinting because I'm white, since my chances of reaching the highest levels of competition are remote. I would want the same opportunity to show what I can do regardless of my skin color.

The same goes for women. Give them the same opportunity, but do not expect that they will be able to compete with men, in general. Exceptions will exist of course, but there's no way there will ever be true equality between men and women, only true equal opportunity. It is stupid to skew the system to create the illusion of parity between men and women.

Feminism threatens to become more and more tyrannical and unfair to men because of the natural inequality that exists between men and women. Feminists, in their quest to achieve parity between men and women, can only do so by putting men at a disadvantage. That is the only way their agenda can ever be satisfied. Only a culture-wide bias in favor of women can create the "equality" feminists crave for. It's tantamount to giving women a "head start" so that they reach the finish line at the same time, or sooner than men. So whatever the cost, feminist ideology dictates that women must prevail, and this inevitably sows the seeds of unfairness men currently face in western society.

The other problem with feminism is that it does not seek to better civilization. It's main goal is to out-do men. This is female pettiness at work, putting all of ones efforts into one-upping the other person. Because feminism is influenced by selfish female thinking it will never rise to a loftier goal than simply doing better than men. So any true social progress will always be limited at the hands of feminists. One consequence of this is that you will have lots of women taking high profile positions, such as CEO, engineer, etc, but not out of true passion for the field, but instead to compete with men. So in a manner of speaking, this is all simulated empowerment, by mimicking what men do in an effort to show they are better than them. This is merely pettiness at a higher level.

It is true that when men rule, they may destroy things in the process, but along that path there is always positive progress, albeit slow at times. So it's self-regulating. The reason for this is because men have the cohesiveness and integrity (usually) to create civilizations and foster technological growth. But this is not nearly as true with women. Women (in general) lack the cohesion men have when forming social bonds. They lack the teamwork skill and the ability to manage situations for the greater good. They are too busy trying to one-up each other. And furthermore, compared to men they overwhelmingly lack genius, the necessary trait to invent things, which is how technological progress comes about.

Some will say that what I'm saying is biased and untrue, and that men and women are just different, so my view is only a male view. I might accept that if women got along well with each other, understood each other and worked well together (just like men), and it's just that men can't relate to the way women view the world. However, this is not the case, women do not get along with each other as well as men. They have a weak concept of "word-is-bond". They lie and backstab each other. They do not trust each other, especially upon first acquaintance. This is unlike men who can form solid friendships immediately after the first handshake, which by the way is usually more warm and sincere than when two women greet each other for the first time. So, it's not only that women are different, they are also somewhat deficient, since even in the company of one another they are problematic.

Feminism is dangerous because it does not acknowledge this fact about women. And because women are the way they are, it is easier for them to abuse the system to their advantage. There is less restraint with feminism because it is rooted in the more corrupt female psyche. There is less accountability in feminism because women are less accountable in general. So you have to be careful granting power to someone who has a weaker sense of justice and a weaker ability to see the consequences of their actions. Power should be granted to the most responsible beings and this will for the most part, be men. Because we are dealing with absolutes here, not preferences, it is simply a fact of nature that it will usually be men.

Women are society's helpers with the occasional leader, but they can never compete with men in equal numbers. Trying to force equality can only mean putting men at a disadvantage, and that will only generate a backlash, the way it is happening now with MRA (Men's Rights Activism).

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Some Seduction Community Fallacies

The seduction community likes to tout that women are the same everywhere, which means that you should be equally successful or unsuccessful anywhere. I totally disagree with this. Women are not the same everywhere, just like cultures are not the same everywhere. Turn on the news and see just how different some parts of the world are. Even in one city there can be great differences between different areas. So, cultures are not the same, and therefore women are not the same. The only thing that is the same is what generates attraction, which is rooted in human psychology. But how people act on attraction, what rules (if any) they follow, will depend on the culture. So it is simply not true that a woman who is attracted to you will always fuck you. Just like there are some women who won't fuck you only because they are not attracted.

Why is it so hard to believe that not all women who are attracted will fuck you? People resist their urges all the time. And some even do it as a matter of religion (e.g. priests, nuns). And the degree to which they do is very related to the culture in which they reside, and their personal beliefs.

Why is the seduction community so resistant to this idea? Is it because they don't want guys to rest on their laurels? So the second you start saying something is outside your control you revert back to AFC, and the seduction community is all about empowering men. Just like when a girl doesn't respond well, it's always the guy's fault, because thinking this way empowers guys. But it's overkill. It's like using a nuke to kill a bunny. And it's just flat out wrong. The truth is not always black and white. That's the nature of personal growth, recognizing those shades of gray when they exist.

I'm Better Than Her

I'm better than her because I am approaching.

But I approach to see what she's like, not because I want to get with her. I have to find out what she's like first. So my mind isn't made up one way, or the other.

I approach and engage her in conversation, and if she doesn't hook relatively soon I move on. I don't think about what I could have done differently. Experience has taught me that all you can really do to engage someone is talk to them normally, and see if they will engage back.

The hard part can be knowing when you've done enough. The temptation is, if you talk to a bunch of girls and they don't respond well, you need to "up" your game. IOW it's your fault, so you need to ratchet up your efforts. That's a trap, and it's easy to fall into because there are so many socially repressed women. So it's easy to feel that the weight of evidence is stacked against you. But in reality, that's not the case.

Take me for example. I know from experience that I live in an antisocial area and I'm one of the select few that are approaching. This is a direct observation, and not a figment of my imagination. So from that perspective, the problem isn't mine. Furthermore, when I talk to girls, I talk to them the same way I would as if I met them through friends, or in other equally intimate settings. But in these settings they are generally much more receptive. But when I'm a stranger in public they are not nearly as friendly, in general. So when I consider both these factors I know it's not my fault. It's the fault of the women who are biased against meeting a stranger in public. It's the fault of the women who behave like herds of sheep when out in public.

But nonetheless, approaching can be therapeutic. Just socializing in general can be therapeutic, even with antisocial types. This is because you're not letting yourself stagnate. You are not letting yourself get trapped inside your head. And as an added plus, you are the better person because you are more social. And as long as you're just having fun, it doesn't matter much if they don't engage you back. I'm driving my convertible with the top down and even if no chick gets in with me, so what. I'm still driving my convertible with the top down.

Clearly, my views are very different from those in the seduction community, which usually lays blame at the feet of men. I disagree that it's usually men's fault, simply because there exists no equivalent community for women. So it makes no sense for men to carry the burden of getting it right, when women aren't trying nearly as hard.

According to the seduction community, if the girl doesn't respond well it's my fault. Um no. Maybe at one time I had a role to play in that, but at this stage I have accumulated enough acumen, so the problem is not mine. It's usually theirs. It's not arrogance. It's a fact. But who knows, maybe there is a way to get her, but usually that involves identity level personality (or appearance) changes, the kind the seduction community encourages. But that totally takes the fun away from approaching and socializing. If I have to neg, then I'm no longer socializing, I'm scheming, and that sucks the life out of the situation (and me). I simply cannot do it, and I have tried. But I cannot. I can only talk like I normally do and see if she is worth it for me. However, in some cases it may be that she secretly likes me but is too timid to show it. So what. She played her hand badly and I moved on. As far as I'm concerned I'm a walking lottery ticket and any girl who doesn't snatch it up with enthusiasm, it's her loss.

Like I said, I will approach, but not with the mindset of getting girls, but to have fun and screen. I approach with the mindset of enjoying myself and also seeing what she's like. I might structure my initial approach to be as smooth and natural as possible, but that's just a normal social calibration, the same way you wouldn't jump on a customer to make a sale. And once the conversation begins I am monitoring her reactions to see if she digs me, and at all times I am weighing that against my own efforts, and if I see that I am not getting a good response relatively soon I move on.

And if she is digging me I then do another check. I check to see if she wants the same kind of relationship as me. And if she matches that criteria, I'll go for the close.

But she has to warm up to me first, which essentially means she's attracted to me and isn't hiding it. Nothing happens without that.

Now, there are things you can do to help her warm up to you a bit better, from the beginning, but that comes from the social pre-calibration, to avoid setting off stalker alarms or whatever; like getting her to notice you first, or maybe by way of her seeing me hanging out with buddies and being popular. BUT if at the point I am chatting with her she does not engage me back, I move on. She had her chance, and the more work I have to put in the less I get out. Less is always more where women are concerned. The more effort you put into getting with her the less you get out, so the ROI drops off really fast if she doesn't open up real soon. This is because, when a woman is difficult it's because she has issues, or she doesn’t like you. This is unlike a legitimate challenge where you have an honest payoff after you put in the effort. So difficulty with a woman is never a sign of something good.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

So Where Are The Best Women?

Good question.

But the question shouldn't be "where", but "who".

Who are the best women?

What do they do?

What are their interests?

Well, I have a theory, and so far it's holding up pretty well.

The best women are the ones who have a serious passion and are courageous enough and intelligent enough to pursue it, no matter what.

In other words, entrepreneurial (self-employed) women. These women are willing to forgo the promise of a steady paycheck and follow their dreams. It takes guts to do that. That's certainly what I'm doing. I don't want to work for The Man. And any woman who feels the same is more likely to be a better match for me than a woman who ONLY cares about security in life. This is the worst kind of woman, who demands that rules be followed and that everything must line up just right. This is the kind of woman who is a slave to her baser survival instincts and is unable to just enjoy something for what it is. Nope, in her mind, it's always "how does this fit into my master plan of achieving xyz?"

These women are the first to use sex as a bargaining chip and are the last to enjoy sex by itself. These women will push and manipulate you in all manners of speaking, just to keep their "nest egg" safe.

These women will take jobs (assuming they work at all) that are most secure and have the most benefits. Nothing wrong with that right? And there isn't, except that often times these women hate their jobs, and are only putting up with them for the perks.

For example, government jobs. Some of the laziest, most pretentious, most uptight, rules-based women (and men) work in government offices, doing practically nothing all day. But the only reason they are there is because of the security the job provides.

Another example is teachers. Now, some women become teachers because they genuinely like kids. But I would say most of them are there just for the perks and the three months of paid vacation per year.

I never hooked up with a teacher. But I have hooked up with a few entrepreneurs. And the reason for that is because I'm a no-strings sex kind of guy, and teachers generally don't like that arrangement because it doesn't fit in with their business like attitude on life. If something doesn't add to the bottom line, and promise some return on investment, they don't bother. Kind of hard to enjoy a sunset with that attitude.

So if I want to fuck, one thing is for sure, I won't go to PTA meetings. Instead, I'll hang out where entrepreneurs hang out. There I will see women who are more open minded, more courageous, and definitely more fun to be around.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Women Are 50-100 Times More Likely To Be Approached Than A Man

Out of curiosity I used the Google Keyword tool, and typed in different keywords to see how many people were looking up how to approach men, or women. Google Keywords is very useful because it gives you the search volume for keywords you specify, which is useful for internet marketers, and guys like me who just want basic info.

I typed in common keywords people might type in Google, such as: "approaching men", "approaching women", "how to pick up men", "how to pick up women", "how to approach men", "how to approach women", etc. And to get as much accuracy as possible I set the match type to 'Exact'.

What I found was that there are many more searches on how to approach, or pick up women, then there are searches on how to approach, or pick up men. Looking at the numbers, I found the difference to be around a factor of 50-100. So, for example, if 100 people are looking up how to approach/pick-up men, there are 5000-10000 people looking up how to approach/pick-up women. Now, the Google Keywords tool obviously can't specify the gender of those people performing the searches, but it's safe to assume that men are doing the looking up where women are concerned, and women are doing the looking up where men are concerned.

The difference between 100 and 5000-10000 is huge, and it confirms what most of us already know, that men are generally putting much, much more effort into chasing after women, than vice-versa.

Without too much of a stretch you can argue that (on average) women are around 50-100 times more likely to be approached by a man, than the other way around. This level of skew is unheard of, even in the animal kingdom, and especially where primates are concerned (our closest relatives in the animal kingdom). So there's no way this is natural, not one bit.

In fact, it's pretty much a result of negative socialization, chivalry gone bad, etc. And it confirms how much of a time waster chasing women is, just because of the level of skew you're up against. The numbers themselves suggest deliberate subterfuge on the part of the women. So it's like two competing teams, where one is completely on the offensive and the other is completely on the defensive. So by chasing women I'm essentially playing offense, and she is doing everything she can to block my shots. Fuck that!

I see only one way to fix this insanity. And that is to refuse to play offense any longer. Refuse to play ball with any woman who doesn't show clear signs that she wants to get with you. And if there's any resistance on her part, you walk off the field.

When Is It Your Fault?

I've often wondered how much I am to blame for the bad things I've experienced with women, especially those things that have repeated themselves over and over. Was I the cause of that somehow? It's definitely worth considering. There's a saying that goes, if the same thing keeps happening to you over and over, the common element is YOU. And there is a lot of truth to that. But a lot of times, due to pride, we are reluctant to point the finger at ourselves.

However, to figure out where the truth lies, you need to put aside your ego. I like to call this taking an observer state, where you pretend you are observing things that are happening to you and have happened to you, in a detached way. This is useful because an observer is not invested in any particular outcome, so his conclusion will be unbiased.

Years ago I went through a pretty misogynistic phase when I was living in Toronto, as a result of my experiences. I grew very resentful towards women. As this anger grew it affected some of my interactions. But I reached a point where I could no longer take the gut-wrenching emotions, so I just decided one day to stop hating and work on improving myself instead. I was a few years into the pick-up scene at that point, but it didn't matter. I was willing to start over with new beliefs, even if it meant admitting that I had been wrong all along. And as things progressed I did notice somewhat of an improvement in my interactions with women. I was attracting some better woman, and my experiences were noticeably better. But, I found that no matter how consistently I put my best foot forward, I would still run into crappy situations quite often. So essentially, I ran into a "wall" where I could do no more from my end. And in fact, some of the things I was experiencing were the same as before when I was in my misogynistic phase. So my perceptions were not entirely wrong before. They were maybe just exaggerated in some ways. So the shit sandwich really was a shit sandwich after all. And I was, in many instances, reaching the same conclusions about women as I had before. This spoke volumes.

So you can argue that it's all in your head, but really, if we are experiencing the same basic things over a range of mental & emotional states, then they must be real. The mind can't consistently fabricate sensory feedback. It's more likely that we are picking up on something real (like gravity). And if we didn't have this ability to perceive reality, we wouldn't have (successfully) evolved to where we are today. And we certainly wouldn't be able to walk around and drive in traffic without colliding into things.

That's part of the argument. But there's another equally important fact to consider.

Observe how women respond when men complain about the things women do. Women usually tell them that they have a bad attitude and they should fix themselves. Now, this isn't bad advice. BUT the problem is that you seldom hear women accept any blame, and admit that they need to fix themselves. This implies that all the so-called "improvement" must happen on the guys end. So, the problem isn't that men shouldn't work on improving themselves, but that women aren't as willing (in general) to do the same. And that goes a long way towards explaining why men are getting screwed over so much more than women. The politically correct culture of feminism discourages criticism of women's actions, and loves to blame men for failures between the sexes. And this imbalance creates a culture of impunity for women, where they are allowed to be reckless and irresponsible in their behavior, while men carry the burden of blame.

For example, you often see the dynamic in clubs, where the women are on the defensive and closed off to men approaching, and the men are trying to break through the bitch shields. And the common response to this is usually some sort of dating advice (for men) telling them how to up their "game" and learn how to get the girl anyway. But you hardly ever see any serious advice for the women, where they are told to make it easier for men to approach. So on the one hand you can blame the guy for not having the "game" to break through, but on the other hand why does she have the bitch shield to begin with? This lack of acknowledgement is an example of the culture of impunity where women's actions are concerned; and where men have to suck it up and learn to COPE.

But sooner or later, men are going to wise up to this. I mean, why spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars learning how to pick up from "dating gurus", when all the bitch has to do is smile and be approachable? Maybe she should be taking the fucking bootcamp instead!

For everything we strive to fix about ourselves, we should demand reciprocal effort from women. And until that starts happening in a big way, the situation will not improve.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

The Proof Is In The Prostitutes

Prostitutes prove that women can be just as casual about sex as men. They're completely cornered in this regard, there's no way they can deny it. In fact women can be even more casual about it, capable of having sex many times a day. And it will not be nearly as physically draining for them, for obvious biological reasons.

So many times you hear women say that a strictly sexual relationship is harmful for women because they get emotionally attached more easily. Well then, I guess prostitutes are very emotionally attached to all their clients. And yet, they do their job so well. Some do it for years, having a long list of regulars, and you never hear about them whining about feeling "used", or complaining that the men don't want to "commit" lol. Some of these women make hundreds of dollars an hour, and contrary to popular belief, a lot of them are very happy with their work. They are after all, making money doing what they love.

So knowing this, why is it hard to believe that women are fully capable of getting into "friends with benefits" relationships? This is exactly the same as what a prostitute does, minus the getting-paid part, while having sex with far fewer men.

So you figure, if there are lots of women prostituting themselves for cash (given the risks involved), there should be at least that many women willing to have no-strings sex for free (with much less risk). And the fact that there are so many women opposed to this type of arrangement is largely because they are opposed to giving it away for free. So in one way, shape or form, they will demand payment for it, either through dating and dinners, or a "relationship" which is code for lots and lots of attention. However, these things can be passed off as "romantic" and "chivalrous", but cold hard cash cannot. But there's really no difference, other than perception (i.e. one is wrapped in a pretty bow and the other is not).

But remember, women enjoy sex too, and on top of that they are getting the extra goodies. So you are essentially paying her twice. And she is only paying you once. And if those extra goodies come at great cost to you then there is a cancellation effect, and you are essentially getting nothing. This is something to ponder for all of you business types who are big on ROI (return on investment).

I remember when I was living in Toronto, I had lots of difficulty finding women who would have no-strings sex, but I couldn't figure out why at the time. So I started experimenting. And I found that, although I could easily tease apart the women who wanted a relationship from those who didn't, and the ones who were prudes from the ones who weren't, I could not easily separate the women in general from the payment paradigm. So many of them implicitly demanded some sort of payment for sex, like dinners, dates etc. That is the main pain in the ass with women in the city of Toronto, and it is one of the main reasons I left.

Another common belief is that with sex, it's just gotta happen, so you can't plan for sex. However... prostitutes plan for sex ALL THE TIME. Do they have some special gift? Are they rare women? Hell no. I could go out right now and find a woman and pay her for sex much more easily than I could get free casual sex. The reason I choose not to comes down to the reason I gave above. I would be paying her twice. And that just does not sit right with me.

But it makes you think though, all the resistance women put up when it comes to having sex, is often just a charade to get shit out of you. I mean, once a woman reaches a certain level of maturity (like 30+), there's no good reason why she should ever hold out on you. So it's either shit or get off the pot. It makes me think of how all this effort that goes into making a woman feel "just right", can be circumvented by just placing a $100 bill next to her, and then watch the resistance evaporate. How can any man in his right mind work hard to get sex while knowing this?

This should give you a hint that the women who already have money and are financially secure, are more likely to have no-strings sex. In addition, this tendency is most evident in women that are happily self-employed, as that provides the greatest financial security of all. My own experience with these women certainly verifies this claim.

So in many cases, the difficulty you're experiencing with a particular woman can be explained by answering two simple questions: Is she a have or have-not woman? And, why wouldn't a prostitute make things this difficult for you?

So you see, I love prostitutes for the single reason that they have exposed so many of the lies. The jig is up girls, and you have no one but your sisters to thank, the ones who went directly for the cash instead.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

The Attention Whore

The attention whore is a female who craves attention, usually male, because it affirms that she is sexy and desirable. This type of woman will usually surround herself with less attractive female friends because they boost her self-image. In turn, the less attractive female friends hang out with her for the same reason a dog might hang out under the dinner table, to get the tasty scraps it might not get from the regular dog food. So it's a mutually parasitic relationship.

These women will also surround themselves with guys who want to fuck her (but never will). We call these men orbiters, because like satellites, they are in constant motion but always maintain a certain distance, never getting any closer. These women are sometimes so pathetic they will even go so far as seek out the approval of those they don't like. So in other words, although she doesn't like you, she at least wants to know that you like her.

Attention whores are incredibly needy, and although some would say they have a high self-image due to their looks, their self-esteem is actually at dirt level. This is because their view of themselves is on very shaky ground. It doesn't take much to make them question their attractiveness, and they are constantly managing the "system" they have built, to ensure maximum return. This means constant text-messaging, constant uploading of new pictures on Facebook, constant adding of new friends on Facebook, constant flirting with their guy friends to keep them hopeful and maintain their orbiter status, constant clothes shopping, and constant lookout for new and better sources of validation.

Some guys have learned methods to exploit the vulnerability of these females by using their need for validation against them. One such method is The Mystery Method. In this method, you keep the girl in limbo between not knowing if you really like her or not. So, in her mind it's a simple yes/no question she wants answered. This means that you have a fine line to walk at all times, because the instant she finds out you really like her, it's game over. She excuses herself for "a minute" and then ditches you forever. This is one major reason why Mystery Method sucks. You can screw up at any time.

However, if you screen for girls that genuinely want to fuck you, you are not walking a fine line. The reason for this is because the desire to fuck is not a yes/no question. So, if a girl wants your cock she will only be satisfied when she actually gets it, and she's more likely to come back for more (as well as being better in bed). This is why it's so much better to screen for girls who want sex instead of girls who want validation, and who might give you sex in return (if you dangle the carrot skillfully enough).

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

I Have Only Met Women At Clubs And Online

I have rarely connected with a woman anywhere else, and I've done hundreds of approaches in various daytime venues. It's extremely unlikely in my experience to meet girls anywhere but at clubs and through dating websites. I pondered the reasons for this for a long time, and eventually it occurred to me why this is.

In this neck of the woods women are only open to meeting men in structured environments. Anything that falls outside the straight and narrow, women will AVOID. It's a very tribal mentality, and not to mention a cowardly and socially stale way of looking at the world. But where I'm living, it's the order of the day.

I know guys sometimes meet girls at various daytime settings, but after extensive research I know that for me personally I'm wasting my time with that approach. Instead, it's gotta be through friends or at clubs, or through dating websites which are there for the well-understood and socially accepted purpose of meeting other people. If you don't follow (constrain) yourself to this you won't connect with people here.

It seems to be the Canadian way, to follow rules and strict protocol, or at least the Ontarian way. God forbid you take a chance and do something different. I can't speak from the women's side and what it's like for them to meet men outside the usual realms, BUT as a guy who's done this for YEARS I can say that if there was a significant percentage of women open to this I would have met a significant number of them by now. But nope. Chicks here are timid and often narrow minded about where and how they make romantic connections.

It's just plain stupid.

You might be wondering, what happens when I make an attempt to talk to girls at some place like Chapters or as I'm passing alongside them on the sidewalk? Nothing. We exchange a few polite worlds and that's it. No problem there. They don't HAVE to talk to me. But the complaint is not about individual responses, but rather the collective herd mentality, which is guiding these women as a WHOLE towards avoiding meaningful and potentially very rewarding interactions with men in the not-so common of places. And for all those women that say they would love to meet a guy at the store but no one talks to them, well, where the hell were YOU when I was there? You were too busy and pre-occupied with whatever it is you were doing to bother, and you kept your responses deliberately short with a hint of coldness as if to send me a signal that I was infringing on your personal space. Well, fuck you! I didn't have to talk to you, and although I can't speak for absolutely all women I will say that 99% of you are all sheep doing the same damn thing. So for that special 1% that is worth the effort, I'm sorry, there's just too many of you that are not worth it for me to put serious effort into this any longer. I am forced to rely on clubs and online dating for the staple of my romantic connections, because you're mostly all too clueless to understand that there is a whole other world out there that has its doors wide open for you but you're too stupid to walk through them.

So put back on your earphones and resume texting your buddies in that catatonic avoiding-eye-contact-trance you call daily life. From now on, you gotta come to me or at least make it real fucking easy for me to engage you by way of open body language and a sexy style which basically screams "talk to me", otherwise my mouth stays shut. And believe me, I have a radar for this. It's just that so many times I've gone against what my instincts have told me when I felt that a woman wouldn't be receptive, figuring that if I feel this way so often it must be a limiting belief on my part. But nope, my instincts have been right all along. My radar is not broken. I just have to get used to the fact that so many of you are unreceptive cowardly sheep and my radar will almost always pick up nothing. But that's okay. I can walk by a hundred of you and pick up nothing and know that you would all be a waste of time. How can I be so arrogant you might ask? Because, unlike you, I have a huge database of reference experiences and I know who's worth it and who isn't.

So, for those few women who genuinely want to meet someone in the non-structured way, be prepared to put your best foot forward and learn to send out good signals, otherwise we will be like two ships passing in the night. Furthermore, it won't be enough to just have the desire. Your actions have to speak loudly and clearly. So if you really do want to meet me but are too scared to show it, you will be no better than the girl that doesn't show interest because she's not interested. So you will have played your chance badly. Too bad for you. From now on I only screen for confident sexy women who aren't AFRAID to show interest. I already do this in clubs and online, but now I'm extending this to daytime venues.

But realistically, I have no great expectations in this regard. I know I will not encounter such confident women often. Why? Because the very fact that so many of you refuse to connect with a handsome and friendly stranger outside your comfort zone, on his initiative, means that you will be equally averse to taking the initiative yourself.

But at the same time, I don't need many women. Just one or two, maybe three really great ones. And I know you are out there.