Tuesday, November 16, 2010

The Paradox Of Choice

The more choice you have, the less enthusiastic you are about your choices. This statement nicely summarizes the consumer attitude many women in this culture have towards men in the dating scene.

This video by Barry Schwartz (posted below), describes in detail how people in general react when faced with too many choices. But you can easily extend this to the dating scene, where women are concerned.

The paradox works like this: This culture teaches men to pursue women, while teaching women to hold back. This lopsided dynamic enables women to experience excess choice, which results in the paradox of them being less satisfied about their choices, which in turn results in them choosing less, and when they do, with less fervor. This negative feedback causes the men to (mistakenly) try harder and pursue even more, which causes women to become even more dissatisfied, and more "picky". It's a self-reinforcing feedback, and not to mention a lose-lose scenario. The only solution is for men as a whole to drastically cut back on the pursuing which will result in the women appreciating their (fewer) choices more, which ironically means that men will have more success with women. But I'm pessimistic in this regard, as men will generally see any reduction in effort from the "competition" as a sign for them to jump in and fill the void. The result is that the pursuing will remain at a steady high level. That said, the only solution is to switch to a different geographic location where the culture is more balanced between the sexes, and your rank in females eyes isn't akin to a cereal aisle with 100 different choices.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM

Friday, August 20, 2010

So What If I Just Want Sex

I've always been puzzled why it's such a bad thing to just want sex. What the hell is wrong with sex? So many people act like it's a bad thing to want sex as a stand-alone item. To me this is a strong indicator of a society that has not fully accepted sexuality as a normal and natural thing. This society is so fucked up in the way it views sex. It sees sex as inherently dirty but as long as you wrap it in a pretty bow, it's okay.

I find it funny how so many women get immediately "offended" if a guy communicates to them early on that he wants sex. Their jaw drops, and they become very indignant. It's like you just took a shit in front of them. It's so incredibly amazing to watch their horrified reaction as you breach this "delicate" topic a little too soon for their comfort. But what constitutes "too soon" is very subjective. Some women may get offended if you suggest a "sleep over" even after several dates have passed. Oh, the dirty pig! He only wants one thing!

Unfortunately, once a woman gets the idea in her head that she is on moral high ground for having a puritan view of sex, you will never, ever convince her otherwise. And the reason that you can't is this: She views any attempt to change her mind as an attack on her personal sense of righteousness. She sees it as someone trying to get her to eat the forbidden apple. And if you're a guy trying to convince her, she sees it as you sneakily trying to get into her pants. In other words, he would win, and she would lose.

Strangely enough, it is more socially acceptable to be a gold digger than a slut. But really, the act of gold digging is much more dishonest than the act of sleeping around, don't you think?

Furthermore, it is also more socially acceptable to just want money. Sure, you might get a few frowns from people if you say this. But it is nowhere near the level of horrified disgust you will risk if you say out loud that you just want to get laid.

Predictably, this means that many people will wrap their sexual desires in lies and bullshit, because that is still one of the most common ways to pass society's tests.

Women Are Not Justified In Being Very Picky

A lot of men (and some women) argue that women are justified in being very picky because they (unlike men) can get pregnant. So as a result, women are forced to exercise more caution in mate selection since a mistake is much more "costly".

Now, I will agree that there is some truth to this statement. Women are naturally going to be a bit more selective than men since they carry more of the risk, whereas a man can spread his genes without as much risk (evolutionarily speaking).

However, what these people usually fail to mention is that there is only 5-6 days of the month in which a woman can get pregnant, and the rest of the time there is virtually no risk of pregnancy. In other words, the majority of the time a woman can sex it up just like a man and not have to worry about any consequences related to unwanted pregnancy.

In fact, in one study* of chimpanzee populations (our closest relatives in the animal kingdom), female chimps were observed to be especially promiscuous (less choosy) when the risk of pregnancy was low. But they were choosier when the chance of pregnancy was highest. During this time they would mate more frequently with the higher-ranking males. This overall strategy would secure a high number of affiliations while also securing the best genes.

The results of this study make a lot of sense. Why should females be picky all the time when there is no biological reason to be? It seems to be a much better strategy to be picky when you have to be and the rest of the time just have fun, even with a guy who doesn't match every single criteria on your monster checklist.

But this is not what's happening.

Women in these parts are picky for reasons that have more to do with their own inflated sense of fabulousness, and less to do with any script dictated by their hormones.

The other thing is that, with the use of contraceptives such as condoms and birth control pills, there is even less need to be picky. On the one hand (with condoms) you are consciously communicating that there is a barrier between her precious eggs and your (potentially) low-value sperm. On the other hand (with the pill), those same hormones affecting women's picky-ness in the high-risk period should be completely removed so that at no point in the month will she be justified in behaving like a stone-faced gatekeeper.

But I realize this may just be too much for some to take in. But the jig is up. Well for me personally it was up a long time ago. I have long since realized that women's picky-ness is for the most part not a sign of anything virtuous (social or biological), but rather a sign of intense self-love brought on by decades of feminism and society-wide ego stroking of women.

* "The efficacy of female choice in chimpanzees of the Tai Forest, Cote d'Ivoire", by R.M. Stumpf and C. Boesch, 2006.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Jennifer Aniston: Women Don't Need Men To Be Good Moms

According to Jennifer Aniston in her interview with People, women don't have to settle with a man just to have a child. Her view comes on the heels of her new movie The Switch, in which she plays a woman who becomes a mother by using donated sperm.

Aniston, like so many feminized women, have swallowed the idea that "Women can have it all", which is often just a way of snubbing their nose at men in the typical "I don't need you" fashion.

Okay, fair enough. But what about the interests of the children? Does that ever cross the mind of these self-absorbed narcissistic women who insist that all children really need is a mom? Apparently not. Because the push to have it all is so strong that it never crosses their mind that those caught in the middle will likely have less than they should.

The truth is that the best family unit for purposes of raising kids is when the father and mother are present. The next best scenario is single dads raising their kids. The least ideal scenario is single mothers raising their kids. Statistics show that, on average, the single mother family messes up kids the most. If you want evidence of this read up on research done by Warren Farrell, who has thoroughly investigated this subject.

Another point to make is that women assume that they can bide their time finding Mr.Right, now that they can get pregnant using artificial insemination (i.e. without a man). So they act as if men will also not mind if the women take their time, even as the years go by and they pass their fertile prime. But hey, if the women in Sex And The City can do it, so can they.

But men tend to want their own kids, so even if a woman (getting on in years) was successfully able to pass on her genes via artificial insemination, the guy who ends up with her is likely not going to be able to do that. In other words, she will not be able to give him children. So he must just passively accept a shitty situation in which he is serving the role of father without actually being the father.

Rest assured, men will not be lining up to settle down with women who are past their prime and have turkey basted themselves into motherhood while leaving the man out to dry, genetically speaking.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Undeniable Proof That The Dating Scene Is Seriously Screwed Up

This one nugget of truth will prove how messed up the dating scene really is. Ahem...

It is much easier for a man (such as myself) to go out and pick up another man than it is to pick up a woman. That's it. That's all the proof you need.

If I was gay I could get tons of action on a regular basis, with no bullshit and no stupid games whatsoever. Now isn't that interesting. In this culture it is much easier for homosexual relationships to take place than heterosexual relationships. And this in spite of the fact that the vast majority of people are naturally wired for heterosexual relationships. It simply boggles the mind that it is 100x easier for me to get my dick sucked by another man than by a woman. But really, it is only made possible because the male-female dynamic has been seriously compromised, especially by way of dividing women against men.

So all I have to do is walk into a gay bar and, with very little effort, hook up with someone. Or I can put a personal ad on Craigslist and get sexual offers from men almost immediately. And this is true even if I post in the Men Seeking Women category. Yes, even in this category I will have a much greater chance of hooking up with another man than with a woman.

This is a very troubling phenomenon, and impossible to dismiss. I would love to post this in a PUA forum to see how they respond. But I have a feeling they would say that it's somehow my fault for putting out this negative energy which repels women (but which somehow attracts men instead).

Toronto Women Are Not Feminine

Toronto women are feminine only in the biological sense. Their behaviour and mannerisms are wholly unfeminine. Furthermore, they seem incapable of flirting. To them, the idea of giving an attractive stranger signals of interest is a totally alien concept to them. They just stare straight ahead with looks ranging from complete indifference to outright hostility at being looked at. It's a shame though given how physically attractive some of these women are. Their attitude does not do justice to their appearance.

The fact is that men are turned on more by women who act feminine. And the fact that so many women stupidly think that men should be attracted to "strong, independent" women (who also act more like men) is clear proof of society-wide brainwashing.

But to be fair, let's examine this one more closely. I personally have no problem with someone being strong and independent, including a woman, but the problem is the way in which it is acted out. Many women think that being strong and independent means acting more like a man, and less like a woman. Not surprising, this makes women less attractive to men. Such women become basically like men walking around in female bodies. That doesn't quite "get it up" the way it should, if you get my drift.

But try telling women that. They immediately respond in a knee-jerk fashion. They say stuff like:

"Only a real man can handle a strong woman".

My response:

"I don't mind a strong woman, but remember, I want to fuck women, not men. And technically a man is stronger (and more independent) than the average woman, but that doesn't mean I would rather fuck him".

So there needs to be consideration on what strength means for a man and what strength means for a woman. It's called masculine strength and feminine strength. The details of which can only be sorted out by the individual, according to their gender, not by some crazy feminist theories. By the way, if you want a good idea on how a woman can be strong and feminine have a look at this website: www.takeninhand.com. It's run by a woman.

You can write a book on the cold bitchy looks many women have when walking around, especially the younger more attractive women. But this bitchy look is perhaps not too surprising given who their role models are. Just look at the magazines on any store shelf. Many times the women on the front cover aren't smiling either.

Nature will weed out the genes of two kinds of people, people who are very unattractive and can't meet anyone, and people who are too picky and standoffish and feel that no one is good enough for them. So if a woman wants to be a selective uptight stone-faced bitch then she should know that she also risks genetic extinction. There are two main reasons for this. The first reason is that much less men will approach her, and the second reason is that the men who do approach her are much less likely to be a "match".

Relationship, Inc.

Most women in this culture approach relationships like a business, a for-profit business. And just like in a business they demand long hours, hard work, and unwavering company loyalty. This tyrannical view that women have towards relationships is responsible for much of the friction that couples experience.

Women basically treat relationships as a third party, or separate entity, which is distinct from her and the man. Demands are typically made by the woman on behalf of the relationship (which happens to coincide with her personal demands). And if things don't go her way, the integrity of the relationship is always brought into question. For example, if you can't spend time with her that weekend she will get upset because you are ignoring the needs of the "relationship". But make no mistake, only she can decide what the relationship needs, not you. She is the CEO after all, and you are nothing but the worker drone.

Many women are cold calculators when they are on the hunt for relationships. Their sense of fun and carefreeness completely vanishes when they have this goal in mind. Things become regimented and take on a certain cold corporate chill, like an overbearing supervisor who is keeping his eye on you in case you fuck up.

Just like a corporation, relationships are constantly hungry. They must always be fed. Feed me asshole! Feed me! Feed me! Sustenance typically comes in the form of constant "I love you", obscenely long phone conversations and time commitments, going to exotic places, and the constant buying and paying of shit.

Relationships in this culture are monsters, and the women in this culture are equally monstrous when it comes to their upkeep. They are constantly checking the "pulse" of the relationship like a neurotic doctor, and analyzing all the stupid shit imaginable to see if anything is a bit off.

Needless to say, women here take relationships VERY seriously, almost as seriously as marriage, at which point you completely sign away your soul and become the workhorse of the business, with no chance of escaping unscathed. When you sign up for Marriage, Inc. you can no longer just leave the "company" and start new. You will most certainly have to give up half your shit to the company coffers.

The institution of Marriage, Inc. is simply an extension of Relationship, Inc. with these additional points:

• For many women getting married is all about the wedding and not the marriage.

• She runs a high risk of being unsatisfied and you being made out to be inadequate no matter how much you do and how little she does. And society will always frame you as the "loser" who didn't measure up.

• She becomes "the boss" of the household, both as a joke among peers, and as a matter of how she acts towards you.

• People will usually hear her side of the story in which you're an asshole and she is the victim, and the reason people don't hear your side of the story is because you're too busy working or no one cares what you think. Funny isn't it?

• Sex becomes a reward for your good behaviour and by withholding it, a punishment for your bad behaviour.

• The marriage becomes in many ways like the marriage on Everybody Loves Raymond. He's the idiot who begs for sex and she's the queen bitch who never smiles.

• If you get divorced there is a high chance she will get half your stuff and primary custody of the kids (if there are any), and god forbid you can't make the alimony payments.

• As her resentment towards you grows a divorce becomes very likely, and this is where things really get interesting. The law is biased in her favor, so there is a high chance she will get half your stuff and primary custody of the kids (if there are any), and you'll be saddled with alimony payments to boot. If there's kids she might make a false accusation that you physically assaulted her in order to make you come across as an "unfit parent" to help guarantee that she gets primary custody of the kids. She will also likely try to poison the minds of your children against you, as part of her greater overall strategy to get back at you for not living up to her expectations.

Lying To Delusional Women Is Sometimes Okay

I've always strived to be as honest as I can with women. But I also came to realize that there are instances where lying to women is acceptable.

You see, women lie to themselves all the time, and many of those lies are delusional. For example, some common lies women like to tell themselves are:

• I can hold off indefinitely until I find Mr. Perfect and I'll always have my pick of the litter even when I'm 50.

• If a man isn't attracted to me he must be gay.

• My boyfriend should never fuck other women. I should be enough for him.

• I'm beautiful even if I'm fat.

Such lies help many women get through life and maintain their fantasy world. And in fact, the fantasy is what many women are faking for. Never mind reality. But when women can't cope with reality you pretty much have to lie to them sometimes, at least to the extent that you don't want the truth to ruin things between you. And make no mistake; telling the truth to women can sometimes get you punished. Consider the following example. A guy is making out with a girl and they are getting hot and heavy. She asks, out of the blue, if he is seeing anyone else. He tells her the truth, and says that he is. She then grows distant and says something about the mood being ruined. The next day she breaks up with him.

Now let's see here. First of all, she was an idiot for asking such a question at that point in time. A question which permitted only one possible answer that would allow things to progress the way she wanted. And he was naive for telling her the truth, which of course spoiled the mood for her. What he should have done (assuming he wanted to fuck her) was tell her that he was not seeing anyone else. He doesn't even need to sound that convincing. He just needs to utter the words "I am not seeing anyone else", and that will be enough for her to keep going.

Now, I don't mean that men should lie anytime it's convenient. I'm saying that, as a general rule, it's good to keep lying to a minimum. But there are times that a woman simply cannot handle the truth (even though she might say she wants to hear it). In these situations it is acceptable to lie. And the way I see it, many women lose the right to hear the truth simply by being stupid and delusional.

The downside is that the more you have to lie to someone (for the reasons stated), the more you lose respect for them. But that is not really a problem for me since I don't respect most women. Let's just say their stupidity, uptightness, and fantasy-prone behaviour makes lying to them pretty easy from a moral standpoint.

Wing Women

There's a website called Wingwomen which allows men to sign up for the Wing Woman service. This service pairs up men with one or more women when they go out on the town. This is done in order to boost men's attractiveness in the eyes of other women, thereby making it easier for the men to hook up.

I know from experience that being seen with other women makes other women take more notice of me, so in that sense this service is sound. However, this is merely a band-aid solution. It might help open a few doors, but the fundamental problems will remain unfixed. What I'm saying is that (most) women have psychological problems that run deeper than the initial "hello". Sure, you might get a woman a bit more into you by raising your social proof, but that doesn't mean she won't flake on you after. And if she doesn't flake that doesn't mean she will fuck you. And if she does fuck you that doesn't mean it will be any good.

The problems with the women in this culture run much deeper than men simply not being attractive enough, or not having enough social proof. This becomes obvious the more time you spend with a woman, even if you managed to attract her. You can think of it as a rabbit hole. The deeper you go, the more likely you are to discover things that you don't like very much.

The fact that there is such a service as Wingwomen speaks volumes about the sad state of affairs in the North American dating culture, and it is just one more way of trying to cope with women's shitty behaviour, rather than try to fix it.

And what do you think will happen when women start to figure out that some guys are using the Wingwomen service? It will render the practice less useful. It will be like just another overused routine that some guys use on women in an attempt to attract them.

The Real Reasons Women Get Dressed Up

This one got me thinking — maybe a better title for this post would be: The one reason women would never use to get dressed up, when going out on the town.

The reason is this: To attract and meet men.

Women in this culture never get dressed up to attract and meet men when going to any public place. I know it might seem like they do, but their actions clearly prove that they don't. The real reasons they get dressed up are: (1) To compete with their friends and other women (such as in bars and clubs), (2) To feel better about themselves, (3) To get male attention (without actually wanting to meet them).

Think about it. Women spend all this time on making themselves more attractive in public places for reasons that have nothing to do with mate selection, but everything to do with admiration, both from men and women.

Now, I will say there are times where women will get dressed up to please their boyfriends or dates. That's a totally different case. What I'm talking about is that there are very few women who will get dressed up for purposes of meeting a man in a cold approach environment (i.e. an environment where the men are strangers, such as stores, bars, clubs, or any other public place).

The public places where women get dressed up the most are bars and clubs. This is where female competition is the strongest due to the high number of people there. Women in this environment are vying to outdo each other in the attention department, both from men and women. But more from men since the attention is more evident and therefore directly measurable.

However, there is a dilemma for these women. They want to be admired by men but they don't actually want to meet them. This confuses men because our set of values is different. In our way of thinking, we don't just want to look at the fancy car, we want to get in and drive the damn thing! This conflict of purpose forces women to act bitchy and standoffish despite their appearance that says they want to hook up.

It is for this reason that it's very easy to figure out which of these women actually want to meet you. It's the women that actually smile at you and have an inviting body language. Now, some will say that the fact that women are dressed up means they want to meet men, and you just have to figure out how. PUAs typically fall into this camp. But this is false thinking. Women go after what they want, just like men. Otherwise stores would not exist, and we know how much women like to shop for what they want.

Once in a while I will see a woman at a daytime venue (such as store, mall, or whatever) who is all dressed up and looking hot. From experience I know that this woman is most certainly not dressed up to attract and meet men. I can see that from her body language. She is dressed up because she has to go somewhere that requires her to be dressed up. This could be a place of work (such as a Salon), or she has to meet someone for a date. But it will most certainly not be to meet you — the guy who is checking her out, while she pretends you don't exist.

Monday, August 9, 2010

My Experience With Ontario Women

A search on the internet reveals a lot of negative opinions on the behaviour of women in the U.S. But I can tell you that Canadian women are not better. And in some places, such as Toronto and area, the women are among the worst of the worst. It's something that has become more and more evident as time went on. The thing is that the coldness and aloofness of women here is so COMMON that it becomes accepted. Women go out of their way to avoid contact with others while out in public. They might appear passive on the surface, but believe me they are VERY active in the art of avoidance and subterfuge. It's gotten to the point where I'll size up a situation quickly and not bother to "tough it out" and see if something good happens. I'll just leave and go elsewhere.

About 8 years ago I was what many in the seduction community would call an "AFC". It's not a term I like, but it gets the point across. I was at that point where PUA and related concepts became very important to me to get out of this dating rut I was in. Back then "game" seemed like the ultimate answer to a poor social life and lack of women in my life, but after years of experience and trial and error I have come to realize that "game" is only a life raft. If you are sinking and don't know how to swim it can help you overcome some of your biggest mistakes. But it's all relative. If you're starving even a shit sandwich can seem appetizing. But admittedly I did have a fair degree of success with PUA material. The only problem was the level of success was in many ways abnormal; the women were shallow, manipulative, stimulation seeking, emotionally unregulated drama queens. PUA material was merely a way to navigate a broken system, a way to get results, no matter how lacklustre those results are, and then call it success.

It's worth mentioning that the best women I met were the ones that didn't require game. Everything was normal, and went seamlessly. So it's completely untrue that good game gets good women. Overcoming obstacles is not the path to getting good women. That's why I now only screen for women who make it easy for me. The law of returns works in my favor. The same goes if you only want sex. The best lays are "fool's mate" lays, contrary to what Mystery et al believe.

Over time I began to see that the seduction community has two major flaws: The first flaw is that it teaches you the very contradictory message that you have to learn to be masculine and be your own man while catering to women and their actions. So no matter what she does, it's up to you to calibrate it for best effect. If she wants cocky and funny you better be cocky and funny. If she wants an asshole you better be that too. If she wants entertainment and you aren't entertaining then she will move on to the next guy who is.

The second flaw is that the seduction community never or rarely addresses those things that women are doing wrong. It's like a child who throws a tantrum and instead of disciplining him or her you take the position that you have to find out what it is they want and give it to them. There's this intense fear that if you call out women on their misbehaviour you are a chump or weak or unable to take it like a man. So rather than do that, many guys prefer to just take the "spoil the child" approach to getting laid. Game is basically a coping strategy for women's rotten behaviour. If a woman has attitude and is unresponsive god forbid you tell her to open up. It's your job to figure out what buttons to push.

It's not hard to see that game and PUA material is a downward spiral. I digress...

It has become crystal clear to me that the best women are elsewhere, in less feminized countries. Although I have not traveled much I know for sure that women abroad are better. In fact, some of the friendliest and most open women I have met came here from overseas. And I've known guys who moved here and have taken a serious hit in their social life. So some might say that the traveler status helps, and when guys say they do better abroad it's because of that. Now, there is likely some truth to that, but like I said, I've known guys who have moved here from overseas who suddenly found themselves dateless and having a hard time making connections.

In my neck of the woods, women follow this rigid structure on where and how to meet men. As a result I've only ever met women at clubs and through the internet. Despite many, many attempts I have almost never met anyone through daytime pickup; either at the mall, bookstore, bus stop etc. You would think it was easy. Well you would be wrong.

Some might say that I wasn't gaming right or I was doing something wrong. That may have been more true in the beginning. But now I know it's the women that are closed off. It becomes most obvious when I get much better reactions from women when I meet them through friends or acquaintances (the accepted channels), but when I meet them out in public there's this wall that comes up. Hard to explain, but it's like this polite on the surface, but wanting to get the hell out of there vibe. And yet I am the same person everywhere, but the location makes all the difference. The PUA stuff is not a solution to this. It can help a bit but they already have to be into you. I resisted this notion for the longest time but eventually I concluded that if you have overcome your shyness and are comfortable talking with strangers then PUA won't help. PUA only helps if you are very introverted; in which case PUA gives you material to work with, kind of like training wheels. There's also probably a placebo effect where you feel good about it and that shows in your overall vibe, making you more attractive.

So the only real benefit of PUA is that it's a template to get you talking, but it's no more useful than religion is to make you a better or more attractive person. Guys who cling to this are simply in life-raft mode, scared to move on to solid land or to greener pastures.

It's a shame that these so-called PUA gurus are getting so much attention, with guys spending tons of money on their products. But none of these gurus talk about the dysfunctional dating culture in North America. To do that would admit a weakness that can't be marketed, and these guys have money to make. Take David DeAngelo for instance, who does provide some good information, but also some very bad. He seems to underscore all his good advice with this one sentence: "Do this to get women". Learn hobbies, be funny and interesting dot-dot-dot because it helps you get women. You have to wonder how far along he really is in his personal development.

Then there's Mystery, always teaching coping techniques on how to deal with any and all adverse dating situations. His classic line is: "Men must learn to attract women or their genes will be mercilessly weeded out of existence". Great line by the way, plays on fear. And once the fear is primed a solution is offered. Very cult like. The only problem with this classic line is that it's relatively easy to eventually propagate your genes with someone, even in this dysfunctional culture, as long as you go out enough and talk to enough women. And the whole notion of "HB10" or "beautiful women" is biased because in Mystery's and his followers view, only dolled up 18-25 year olds are beautiful or "perfect 10s", and since the techniques play on these women's insecurities (typical for girls this age) they are lauded as superior; i.e. they get the "best women". If the techniques don't work, and they won't on older more intelligent women it is said that these women are not the best anyway. Yada yada and you can say that the techniques are engineered to get the highest quality women and they won't work on the lower value women (anyone over 25). It's PUA sleight of hand basically. The thing is, with evolutionary psychology arguments you can prove just about anything. Lots of makeup is called superior beauty and immaturity is called exceptional femininity. Therefore, the (dysfunctional) techniques work on the "most beautiful, most feminine women".

Interestingly, Mystery comes from Toronto, Ontario. So his techniques are a kind of adaptation to the type of women there. It's very telling and I would say useful from an academic point of view. However, such techniques do not work well on women who have not been exposed to feminist and media-inspired dogma. The techniques can only work on stupid immature women, although very inconsistently, but still, if they work on anyone at all it would be the stupid immature women.

Toronto is extremely politically correct, and feminism thrives there, ruining relationships between men and women. I can attest that it's a very bad city to meet women. Even the best women, relatively speaking, leave a lot to be desired. But if I post this complaint on a PUA forum the majority of responses are going to be, do more push/pull, qualifying, compliance testing etc. That will not work when you are up against indoctrinated fear and hatred of males. This is one main reason that I moved away from Toronto, and things are better where I am. But since I'm still in Ontario, the problems still exist, but to a lesser degree.

Don't get me wrong, I do think men honestly need to look at themselves and be willing to fix their issues. But we also can't ignore that women need to do their part too. THAT is what is missing from this culture: criticism of females. The assumption is always that men need to do the self-improvement part. But learning how to meet women will only go anywhere if the women are willing to do their part. Why should I put my best foot forward and go to all these lengths to meet women when they have already made up their mind that they don't want to meet me. Why throw pearls to swine? Sure, you can argue that maybe I'm doing something wrong. And that's possible, but if it is always assumed that the guy is at fault, then is it not likely that, in the absence of forced female introspection, women will become increasingly blind to their own shortcomings? And as a result, is it not likely that the true fault will eventually shift to women for the most part.

But nope, don't criticize women. Instead cope, be a man, and keep a positive attitude. But a positive attitude won't help if women have an axe to grind. One thing I've learned is that a positive attitude helps but not with women who act like stone-faced gatekeepers. I've gone into many situations with a positive attitude and gotten burned. Shit happens. Just tell that to the survivors of a natural disaster who seconds before were living and enjoying life. You do not have control over everything. It's a certain new-age bullshit that has creeped into many people's thinking that has made a mockery of rational thinking.

Another point I want to make is that good looks don't help that much in this feminist climate. I know this because I've gotten many girls and a few guys tell me I'm very good looking, but that doesn't help that much. Most girls when they see me automatically assume I'm a player who will only use them, so even though they might be attracted they are indoctrinated to resist "alpha" males. So it's very ironic that if every woman assumed that I get all the girls — but as a matter of principle I won't get her — then I will hook up with nobody! Fortunately, I do hook up once in a while (definitely not often) but only with those few women who don't care that much who else I might be fucking. It's funny how that works, but it's basically sexual politics. If you are a Liberal, and by definition the strong alpha guy is a Conservative, then you will refuse to be with them because they are your political enemy. Men, or rather masculinity, in this feminized country, is the political enemy of the extreme Left. The result is a socialist unspoken tyranny against men. You see this everywhere, if you just keep your eyes open. This tyranny is most played out in divorce courts, custody battles, domestic violence, funding of women's programs vs. men's, and the whole dating sphere.

So in closing, I have eventually concluded that I need to travel to meet quality women on a consistent basis. It is not necessarily overseas, but it can just be in other cities in the province; places that for whatever reason might not be as strongly indoctrinated in feminism and male-hating. Of course, I'm sure the real improvement will be to go overseas. The truth is that I can't improve myself more than I have, so all that's left is to go where the women are themselves improved.

Teen Sex Is Generally Good

What is it with this insane preoccupation so many people have with teenagers having sex? What's wrong with teenagers having sex? I personally believe it's perfectly normal and acceptable for teenagers to engage in consensual sexual activity, especially with each other. It's called experimenting and having fun, and as long as teens strive to do it in a responsible manner (birth control, condoms, etc.) then there is no harm; at least no more potential for harm than there is with adults having sex.

The anxiety that many adults in this society have with "our kids" having sex basically comes down to unresolved feelings of guilt and shame they themselves have with sex. So when "our kids" do it, many adults see it as an extension of themselves engaging in something they are not that comfortable with. It's a desire to protect them from the "dirt" even though they themselves don't mind digging in it once in a while (especially when they get horny). So in some ways it's a form of possessiveness, but also hypocrisy.

I read somewhere that a survey was done which revealed that most parents believe their teenagers are not having sex, while also believing that most other kids are. How the fuck does that work?

This irrational and hostile view towards teens having sex is strongly rooted in this culture, where sex is too often associated with negative context, such as abuse, rape, unwanted pregnancy, disease, and the umbrella term: "immorality". But it is not that often that sex is depicted in the media in a positive context, such as having fun, closeness & sharing, intimacy, and mind-blowing orgasms.

These retarded views become even more obvious when you consider the conflicted ways in which many parents try to talk their teenagers out of having sex.

To their daughters they say: Guys will only want one thing from you.

To their sons they say: Girls will get themselves pregnant and get their claws into you.

Invoking fear is the last refuge of someone who can't give you a good reason why you should or should not do something. Needless to say this fucks up a lot of young adults unnecessarily.

From my experience, I was a very late bloomer, so I regret not having sex much sooner. But strangely enough, I learned to drive much sooner than I ever got laid, but I hardly think having sex requires more responsibility than driving. But that's how fear and propaganda works, never mind the statistics which show that there are much worse things out there than having sex. But this society is fucked up when it comes to male/female dynamics and sexuality. It is not a truth-seeking society in those cases where political and religious dogma holds court.

Society should get a grip. Parents should get a grip. But not on the kids, instead on themselves.

Now, some idiots will think that I'm saying that kids should have wild sex, abandon their studies, and become outlaw junior sex league members. I know that some will automatically think that because that's how idiots like to think, in black and white terms. But what I'm actually saying is that sex is a normal part of life that young adults, teenagers in particular, should be exposed to. But not in a holier-than-thou, shaming type of way. Instead, in a way that educates and presents the facts.

Still not convinced?

Consider the fact that the U.S. has the highest teen birth rate and one of the highest rates of STIs among teens in the industrialized world (despite its many efforts to teach abstinence-only sex education). And in contrast, many European countries teach sex education in an open manner and therefore have some of the lowest incidents of teen pregnancy and STIs.

In other words, when it comes to sex and sexuality, we still have a lot to learn.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Boycott Ladies' Night

Ladies' Night is a time-honoured bullshit, which has never done anything good for men. It is just a way for women to get something for free while pretending that they are entitled to it based on the propaganda that "men have it so much better than women, so Ladies' Night is the least we can get as compensation". It's just another form of chivalry gone wrong. It might work in a patriarchal society but not in a society where women are, in general, treated better than men. It just adds to the princessy, snobbish attitudes already infecting so many women today.

Now, some dudes will immediately say that Ladies' Night is a good thing because men go where the women are, so making it easier for women to get into a bar, or club means that more men will go there; the point being that it will be easier to meet women as a result. Well, to me that is nonsense given how standoffish and uptight women usually act in bars and clubs. So Ladies' Night is just a way for these women to get in at lower cost. Do you seriously think having women not paying for something is going to make them easier to pick up? Just ask any guy who has ever bought women dinner and then went home empty handed at the end of the night. Ask him if a woman not paying for something helps his chances with her.

But so many men think with their smaller heads where women are concerned, so it is highly doubtful that they will embrace this idea of boycotting. Because as soon as some guys stop going to Ladies' Night, other guys will immediately think "awesome, more women for me", which will of course keep the number of guys going at a steady high number. But you know what, with uptight bitches, it doesn't matter if you are one of only a few guys there, they will still ignore your ass. Try it and see.

To tackle the root problem we need to, as a whole, stop pandering to women in those instances that favor them above men. Ladies' Night is just one of those instances. But it's among the low-hanging fruit on the path to eliminating (or at least reducing) the uptight bitch phenomenon in this society.

Ask yourself, what will women do when men stop going to Ladies' Nights? Well, first of all, many of them will call us "gay" or "cheap". A perfectly normal knee-jerk reaction to a dethroning process. But as long as guys stick to their guns, women will eventually start getting introspective, and maybe just maybe, they will start respecting us a little bit more.

However, I honestly don't think we (as men) are even close to reaching this point at present, even though in legal terms Ladies' Night is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. But in more practical terms it's a concept that lets women (and not men) get something for free, while exploiting men's overperception bias that they will get something in return, where in reality they don't.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Dimitri The Lover

I'm sure by now a lot of people in Toronto have heard of Dimitri The Lover (real name, James Sears). He calls himself Canada's greatest seducer. I've listened to and read some of his stuff and it's a lot different from the usual PUA crap. His style is similar to that of Paul Janka; basically just approach tons of women and by the law of averages you will get laid. And that's certainly true, but what makes him stand out is his outrageously controversial points of view. He frequently talks about releasing women's inner slut and how so many sexually repressed Toronto women secretly crave cock (which I agree with). He also talks about how uptight most Toronto women are (which I totally agree with). I think he's a breathe of fresh air, although it's unfortunate that his main message is getting lost somewhat in the outrageousness of what he says. People seem most drawn to Dimitri, not because they acknowledge that there's a problem with society where the male-female dynamic is concerned, but because of the outrageous lines he uses on women and against feminists. But I guess that's what it takes to get noticed these days.

Although I don't necessarily agree with Dimitri's style, I just think there needs to be a strong resistance to the bullshit that has permeated the Toronto (and North American) dating scene. Dimitri is simply a product of this fucked up society, the way criminals are a product of society (whether people like to admit it or not). Not that Dimitri is a criminal. He is not. But he does push things as far as he can while still not doing anything illegal.

I personally think Dimitri is willing to endure constant rejection by bitchy Toronto women, not because he only wants to get laid, but because (to him) that's a way of protesting society's bullshit. In other words, him approaching and hitting on lots and lots of women is a form of activism for him. In my mind there's no other reason to want to put up with so much rejection and uptight, bitchy Toronto women for proportionally little sex in return. So basically he just goes around hammering on women's bitch shields. And no doubt he's mapped out the hot spots in the city where it is relatively easier to meet women. But let's face it, this guy is a doctor who lost his license for hitting on his female patients. Do you think he's just going to stop doing that sort of thing? Hell no, he's going to re-channel that energy, and he's going to do so in a way that makes it count. He's going to make it a mission in life to go against the very thing that was responsible for him losing his license in the first place, which is this fucked up society. And as a perk, he will occasionally get laid with a cock-craving slut.

I would probably do the same thing, assuming I was interested in dedicating so much time and energy chasing after the elusive tail of inferior quality women. But I have other things I want to do with my life. Still, the activist approach does have its appeal. But I prefer, not the Dimitri approach, but a low-effort, minimal energy investment method, which involves as little bullshit as possible. In this manner, I'm boycotting the bullshit rather than flying against it. I want chicks that are fun and easy, which immediately disqualifies 95% of the physically desirable women out there. And I'm sticking to my guns. There's actually websites out there, such as www.happierabroad.com which encourage North American men to look elsewhere. Why work so hard to get inferior quality women when you can consistently get hot, sexy women from less feminized parts of the world? I certainly fall into that camp. But for men like Dimitri, I say keep up the good fight. Like the Joker said, this town needs an enema.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Monogamy Is A Joke

This culture is sexually uptight, and one example of this is the insistence that monogamy is the only model for relationship success. Anything else and you're a failure. The justifications for monogamy are basically just appeals to ego, and the use of shaming language whenever possible. There is really no rational reason why people should feel like they have to be monogamous. I mean, sure the one-man/one-woman model is a nice fantasy and sounds great on paper, but nowhere in human history has monogamy been the norm. People (men and women) have always wanted variety in sexual partners. Some more than others of course.

The fact that monogamy is so ingrained in people's expectations but not in their actions is an indication that something is very wrong

The truth is that the vast majority of people cannot handle the thought of their partners getting it on with someone else. In other words, those feelings that he (or she) is enjoying with you should not be enjoyed with anyone else. To that I say, why the hell not? Are good feelings like someone's intellectual property? Why the ban on someone else sharing them? Is it because you no longer feel that it's a special thing just between the two of you, and if there's someone else that makes it less special? Well, in that case, following that logic one can easily say that it was never special to begin with, for the simple reason that you both fucked other people before you met each other.

I find women in this culture cling especially hard to this notion of monogamy. The reason is because it is part-and-parcel with wanting it all. This culture encourages women to go after things and hold on to things and get more things. And it's all about YOU, girl. Therefore, the idea of sharing any of that wealth, either in the form of something shiny or in the form of feelings, with someone else, is unacceptable.

Women (and a lot of men) get insanely jealous if there's even a chance their partner is seeing anyone else. And that is all ego and pride-based, make no mistake. In their deluded minds, the good feelings they have with that person cannot be shared with anyone else. They belong solely to her (or him). In addition, because sex in this culture is still viewed as kind of dirty, that compounds the problem — i.e. "You're doing something dirty with someone else. You should only be doing it with me!"

However, a lot of people, sensing the bullshit, try to sneakily get around the monogamy restriction. They become serial daters. In other words, they enter into serially monogamous relationships, which end after a few months. And then on to the next one. This is still basically sleeping around, but without the overlap.

But the monogamy fantasy persists, and so very few people are able to overcome it, preferring to lie to themselves and pretending to want something which goes against their nature. And that's why we get all the cheating and sneaking around.

There are quite a few reasons, or rather, rhetoric thrown around as to why people should be monogamous. Let's examine them (and tear them apart):

Rhetoric: If you want to sleep with other people you're just being selfish.

Response: You can easily argue that it is just as selfish to want someone to only be with you, and restrict them that way. So the only difference is that Disney approves of one and not the other.

Rhetoric: If the other person is allowed to see other people it gives them license to screw around.

Response: The analogy here is that you will be letting an animal out of its cage and it will do "damage", or worse, get a dreaded taste of freedom, which will be impossible to reverse. So in that case you're right, it's better to not allow a "slave" to taste freedom because they just might like it, and that would be bad news for the slave master.

Rhetoric: You're just spreading disease.

Response: The magnitude and danger of STDs is greatly exaggerated by fear-mongers who have religious and moral agendas. My suggestion is to get educated from doctors in the sexual health field, as to the actual statistics and risks arising from sexual activity. You might be surprised! But in any case, always use condoms just to be as safe as possible.

Rhetoric: We're more than animals. You may as well kill and steal too since that could also be considered "natural".

Response: Promiscuity is far, far more common than murder or theft, or even crime in general. And promiscuity is basically just like making more friends, with physical intimacy added of course. It's not even close to being like killing or stealing.

Rhetoric: If that person wants to be with someone else that means you're not good enough.

Response: People like sexual variety. It has nothing to do with someone not being good enough.

Rhetoric: You want your cake and eat it too.

Response: That's a stupid saying whose only value is that it sounds catchy. But that doesn't make it a solid argument. It's like saying that commitment is akin to having the cake, and sleeping around is the same as eating it.

Rhetoric: People saying that they are wired for monogamy and giving the usual stock reasons for it (as stated above).

Response: It's funny how so many people are wired to use the same basic reasons as to why people should be monogamous. That hardly sounds like people's unique points of view on the subject. It sounds more like a socially conditioned perspective thrust on to a feeble-minded populace.

In my view, this society is not even close to coming to terms with promiscuity. It just hasn't fully matured yet. However, places like France, for example, are way ahead of us in their views towards sex. We would do well to take notes from them, and not our neighbours south of the border.

In closing, here's a final irony which many in the monogamy camp will probably not understand. The more you try to hold on to someone by way of restricting them, the more likely you will lose them.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Roissy's Advice For Men Is Mostly Toxic

Over at http://heartiste.wordpress.com a blogger named Roissy has earned himself quite the following among wannabe PUAs. His strategies on how to game women in order to get laid are cut from the same cloth as most everything you can find in the PUA community. He pulls no punches, and in his view, men are perfectly justified in pulling out all the stops in order to acquire sex from hot women. Manipulation ala Mystery Method seems to be his central strategy. According to him, things like negs, manipulation, and passing shit tests are all fair game. Although I can understand the desire to want to get this part of your life "handled", Roissy and PUAs in general do a great disservice to men by teaching them to go through all this stuff. There are several reasons why. The first reason is that "game" is essentially a coping strategy for a woman's shitty behaviour. In fact, the more shallow and immature a woman is, the more game seems to make sense. But even working at maximum effectiveness, game usually just garners female attention by making women feel less than desirable. It's a way of getting women to prostitute themselves (in a manner of speaking) in order to feel better about themselves (in your eyes). However, it does not mean you will get laid (it usually doesn't). And if it does happen to get you laid the sex is usually subpar, for the simple reason that the target women are after the self-esteem boost, not the sex. But in a gamer's world, any result is a good result.

The second reason is that game only focuses on what guys should be doing or should not be doing, which of course gives very little incentive for women to change their ways. Because, even if a bitch of a woman knows there are guys out there running game, all she has to do is keep doing what she's doing, with the understanding that it's up to the guy to somehow find a way to break through her bullshit defenses. So essentially, a gamer (PUA) is a female apologist. In his mind, it's always up to the guy to get the girl, not for the girl to make it easier for the guy. So game actually encourages women to become even more selfish and less proactive in their interactions with men, for the simple reason that there are guys out there that have raised the bar on what men should put up with from women, namely PUAs. This has a ratcheting effect. Girl plays hard to get. Guy learns game to get the girl. Girl resists guy's game. Guy goes back to the drawing board. And on and on.

The third reason is an extension of the above reason. Basically, game puts men at the mercy of women's actions. By learning and synthesizing behaviour to attract women, guys are becoming more like bitches and less like men. This can take a toll on a guy's self-worth and throws off that sense of give-and-take, in which you are only ever able to meet someone halfway. Otherwise nothing happens. This is common wisdom in the business world (i.e. equal partnership) but not in the general dating world (guys have to do most of the work), and certainly not in the PUA world (guys have to do all the work).

Roissy and his ilk are helping create an army of guys that are extremely apologetic for women's shitty behaviour because of their deluded view that by simply running proper game you can get most every woman. Game is basically self-reinforcing, and all a woman has to do is sit back and watch the fun, knowing that it is totally in her power to reject a guy for not having enough game. Back to the drawing board you go, male-bitch! Let's see what ya got next time!

Related post: The PUA Scam

Monday, July 12, 2010

Lori Gottlieb - Canary In The Coal Mine

The book Marry Him: The Case For Settling For Mr. Good Enough, written by Lori Gottlieb, has created quite a stir. In this book she humbly and systematically gives an overview of the train wreck that is commonly known as the western woman. As a 40-something woman herself, she provides keen insight into why so many women reject good decent men because they aren't "good enough". The book reads almost like a diary, but not of a woman dreaming of her future prince, but of a woman who now regrets missed opportunities, and feels compelled to warn other women what can happen to them if they go on thinking that there is always a better deal out there. I personally liked the book. It reinforces what I have known and written about on this blog. And it is very refreshing to read a relationship book written by a woman that doesn't drip with self-righteousness, narcissism, and Princess complex. Although I disagree with the implication that happiness for women means getting married (before it's too late), the book is so good that I would recommend it to any man who finds himself adrift in the dating world and is wondering just what the fuck is going on with women.

The book is a sobering journey into the psyche of the modern western woman with regards to men and dating. It is almost a journey that should come with a warning "enter at own risk", as it is both fascinating and troubling. Fascinating because it is like looking at a different world. Troubling because it is a world filled with contradictions, pettiness, stupidity, logical fallacies, and a special brand of glue (called women's rationalization) that somehow holds it all together despite all the evidence telling these women that they are on an inevitable collision course with reality.

The traits of the typical woman showcased in Lori's book reads like a brilliant piece of fiction which unfortunately is anything but. It is like a tragic comedy where you can't help but feel sorry but also vindicated (if you're a man) at what lies in store for these women if they continue on their path. It also points to an interesting irony, where in some ways it is better to be a man in this dysfunctional dating culture than a woman, because as a man you at least have a reasonable chance of figuring out that there is a serious problem and can do something about it, either by learning to properly screen for women who do NOT possess certain traits, or just avoiding the women in these parts altogether. But for women in this culture there is a high chance they will be in for a very rude awakening, which will arrive too late (i.e. when they are past their fertile prime). And believe me, this culture does everything in its power to encourage the Princess complex in women by artificially raising women's value to the bubble-sphere, which will ultimately burst. So seductive is the feminist inspired propaganda that women can "have it all" that very few women seem able to resist it. Reality, when it hits, will be most painful for these women. Men, on the other hand, not cushioned from reality but facing it everyday, will have ample time to act and take measures to get the hell out of dodge if necessary.

This book is a warning sign, a canary in the coal mine so to speak, and it is only the beginning. As more and more women's quest for "Mr.Perfect" ends in a bitter realization that their best opportunities existed when they were the pickiest, more books and news articles will appear, lamenting the mistakes these women made. But don't blame the media or Sex and the City, honeys. Blame your own weak minds for falling for it.

It is fitting that only a woman can get the message across most powerfully. Only a woman can fully explore the female mind and provide rich insight into the thought processes of the typical American (or western) female, and explain why so many women reject good men, often in favor of emotionally unavailable, narcissistic, self-absorbed men.

Many men are already aware that women often go for the "bad boys" and reject "nice guys". But the question is, how come? There is the evolutionary explanation that bad boys are more exciting, risk taking, and strong willed (all fairly legitimate). But there is also another explanation, a cultural one. In the media, nice guy traits are often framed as weak, submissive, and approval seeking. These traits, such as, emotionally supportive, chivalrous, even intelligence, often belong to those men who are labeled as nerds, wimps, physically unattractive, or needy losers. But traits such as aggression, selfishness, lower IQ often belong to those men labeled as ladies' men, exciting, and heroic. Women tend to make quick associations, so if you have any nice guy traits many women will screen you out by process of association. And if you have bad boy traits many women will be more likely to want to be with you, also by process of association.

As a result, the bad boy achieves more dating success than the nice guy. And the bad boy doesn't necessarily need to stand out or be unique in his own bad boy way, either. He just needs to fit a certain badboy archetype, such as drive a motorcycle, drive a Corvette, be a surfer, be a scuba diver, or whatever.

However, there is also another factor in women's mate selection process. This is known as "the list". Women have these lists of what they want in a man, and they often disqualify any man who doesn't match "the list". And the list can be very large. Men it seems, are much more practical when it comes to dating, and women tend to focus more of their time and energy creating lists of what they want in a man than they do on actual dating. This tells you how utterly shallow women can be, and points to one major difference between men and women in this culture. Men have a large focus on physical attractiveness but there is usually a reasonable range of what constitutes "acceptable" for us. But women have a very narrow focus on what they want. For this reason it's not accurate to call men shallower than women because we select largely based on looks. Women in fact are much shallower because their range of acceptability is much narrower, even though they look at other things in addition to looks. It's because they look at more things on a more rigid level that they are shallower than men. You see; a degree of physical attractiveness in a woman is important to a man because it indicates youth and fertility. But physical attractiveness in a man (Brad Pitt level) is important to many women simply for decorative reasons. For them it's like choosing the perfect color of paint or the perfect lampshade. For many women, the perfect man is like having the perfect house. There are literally hundreds of factors that can go into making a house "perfect". But a house can be fixed up and altered. However, a man must come fully perfect in the eyes of many women. They approach men the way they do one-stop shopping, except that they expect to find the perfect house instead of the perfect lampshade or carpet, which is much harder to do.

One common selection criterion women have is the need to feel "butterflies", or "instant chemistry". Lori Gottlieb addresses this in her book. According to her findings, many women value the fleeting emotions known as butterflies and chemistry more than traits that will provide a benefit over the long term, such as trust-worthiness, compassion, supportive, etc. And many women will also break up with their boyfriends over the most trivial reasons, even though he may otherwise be a great companion, good in bed, etc.

The typical western woman is completely delusional in what she is looking for. According to a survey described in Lori's book, a sample group of women came up with around 300 things that a man must have, while men came up with around three things a woman must have to be considered date-worthy. Now, it's tempting to try and go deep into women's psyche in order to try and understand how you can possibly be so picky and superficial as to require so many things from a potential partner. But I don't even want to try, as it's so far removed from my current level of sanity that it would be like getting a lobotomy to try and understand the universe better.

If a typical western woman has "only" 80% of what she wants in a man she considers that settling. So to them it's either 100% or nothing. These women are intensely afraid of settling. It has such a negative social connotation for them that it's like their worst nightmare. To combat this intense fear of settling, these women have a tendency to overshoot their choice of partners. So for example, they tend to choose men that are more attractive than them, make more money than them, etc. because it's the only way they can be sure they are not settling. But where do you draw the line? These days there are a lot of fat women who think they deserve Brad Pitt.

These women would rather be picky than happy. Men aren't so shallow, which is why so many men (in this culture) are hooking up with women less attractive than them. To these men it's better to be happy than picky. If men were as picky as women no one would hook up.

It's true that there are complaints from women about men as well, and there are some legitimate grievances in that regard. However, if you look closely at the complaints from both sides the following general pattern emerges.

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

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

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

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

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

This utter lack of balance and introspection in women's own desirability and date-worthiness is one of the main reasons why modern dating is such a train wreck and unfairly skewed in the favor of women. Western women are so driven by their need to fit in and get society's approval that they will drive themselves (and anyone close to them) into the ground in order to achieve the ideal they feel they deserve. To them it's either 100% of what I want or nothing. They cannot get past this. Women have a much harder time than men rising above their baser instincts. They will take their cues from popular media, magazines, and romance novels and from that create their checklist of what Mr.Right should be. This is a fundamental weakness in the female character, their lack of objectivity and reason.

Western women are very animalistic and one-sided in their tendencies, and their selfish, shallow, and subjective views are the stuff of parodies. To give you an idea of how fucked up these women are; here are some quotes taken from Lori's book, made by random women she interviewed:

"Greg (the ex-boyfriend) made me feel like I was the most wonderful woman in the world... so I started thinking, if I'm so wonderful maybe I should be with someone better".

"He was very loving but he wasn't romantic enough. On Valentine's Day he made a mix tape of my favorite music and gave me an hour-long massage, but all day at work, whenever I saw the flower guy going up the hall delivering flowers to my colleagues, I kept thinking, where are my flowers? I wanted a guy who sent flowers".

"He brought me flowers, but cheesy ones that just spoke to bad taste — and the sense that I wasn't worth something more thoughtful".

"He had long nose hairs and they grossed me out, but I didn't have the courage to ask him to trim them, so I stopped seeing him".

"There are guys who are smart but then you're shocked to learn that for all that intelligence, they're just not that interesting. They have to be smart in an interesting way. They have to be curious".

"Curious, but not earnest".

"They have to be a little edgy".

"But not too edgy".

"They have to be normal. But just not boring".

"He shouldn't wear a brown belt and black shoes, or vice versa".

This gives you an idea of the kind of selection criteria women use and how pointless (not to mention ridiculous) it would be to try and satisfy them. It's like trying to enter the gates of a whimsical gatekeeper. It is something not even worth entertaining.

That all important sense of proportion is also largely missing from women's mate-suitability criteria. What this means is that many women will lump legitimate deal-breaker criteria with petty stupid shit. For example, a man wearing a brown belt with black shoes is just as bad as him saying that her family sucks.

It's a wonder women ever hook up with anyone with their huge list of criteria of what they want in a man, since it's impossible for anyone to pass them all. This leads me to conclude that, in addition to the subjective criteria on the list, the usage of the list itself is also subjective. Under usual circumstances most every man would "fail" one or more items on the list. But if a man possesses one or more traits that she REALLY likes than the other items on the list would automatically pass. For example, a woman will backwards rationalize that a rich man has all these other 299 traits she is looking for, because he has the one thing she really wants (money). But for other women, some other keystone traits could be: "very exciting", "ex-con", "drives a Ferrari", etc. Yet another keystone criterion could be, "If I fuck him I will be sexually validated". I have personal experience with this one. There were two instances where I told these two women that I just want to be friends (after they flaked on me). The result, they seduced me with almost no work on my part. But had they met me without the need to feel validated I would probably have had to satisfy their 300 or so criteria on what they are looking for in a man. And of course I would have failed.

When it comes to mate selection, western women use the following basic hierarchy:

Does he match the criteria on my checklist?
• If not, move on.
• If however, he's rich, very exciting, very attractive, or he raises my self-esteem to be with him then my checklist is not as important. But if it is still important I will backwards rationalize that he must satisfy all my criteria after all.

This is the thought process of a lower life form. Men do not generally think like this, but modern western women generally do.

You may have noticed, there is no "yes, he passes all my criteria", since that's impossible. This leaves only the two possible outcomes as to what actually plays out in real life.

In some ways, the PUA attempts to be the guy who satisfies the above selection hierarchy, by either being the guy who gives her that excitement, lowers her self-esteem, or both. The PUA basically "plays ball" with these kind of women, which means doing things on their terms and according to their world view.

My approach is to refuse to play ball, period. If enough men do this women will be forced to raise their morality (and intelligence) and we will all be better off. But as it stands, too many men are trying to play by the rules women have set (either consciously or unconsciously), who in turn are playing by the rules of popular media and feminism.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

I Can’t Stand Clubs Anymore

This is probably long overdue, but the club environment has become too toxic for me. I cannot go into a club anymore and not leave without a feeling of disgust afterwards. This was never that much of a problem for me in the past, but now it’s like an allergic reaction, which I can’t shake. So what’s the cause you might be asking?

It’s the women!

Quite literally, the women ruin the fucking clubs! It’s their fucking behaviour. The way they act. The way they act around the men. Their nose-in-the-air attitude. Their outright dismissiveness towards any man who wants to get to know them. I just cannot stomach it anymore.

I guess my problem is that I don’t suffer from the ignorance = bliss mindset. I know what the deal is, and it’s been a long time since I saw all this crap behaviour as being something normal. And once you make the realization there’s no going back.

Quite simply, I find it unacceptable to be at a place where attractive women hang out and I am not allowed to talk to them. But of course I can talk to them if I really want to! But the problem is that in their minds I am (by default) a loser or unworthy until proven otherwise. So it’s an uphill battle. Even if you got the looks, that only buys you about 1 minute of “audition time”, and then the walls go right back up. At most you get to hang out with them as “buddies”, if you play your cards perfectly. And I say this even though I’ve had a few one-night stands back in the day. But those were in some ways anomalies only, and with women who were somewhat less attractive than me. So I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that it seems to have gotten even harder since then. Since even the women with less than stellar looks carry this attitude nowadays that they deserve someone so much more than what they are themselves. It’s a total fucking bubble.

I certainly can’t be in a place where even the fat chicks look down on me. And I certainly can’t be in a place where even if a girl does want me, she is promptly whisked away by her police-state girlfriends.

I also can’t stand being in a place where I see guys reaching out trying to strike up a conversation with the women and getting blown off.

These women; they get dressed up, look pretty, and when a guy wants to get close to them, they reject him. That’s pretty fucked up! So why do women get dressed up at all you might be wondering? Well, the reason is this: It’s because, in a club setting, women can get away with bringing attention to themselves, but at the same time not take responsibility for it. You see, the attention whore relies heavily on club dynamics, which puts a fence around her with a sign that says, "Look but don't touch”. And this is only made possible by having police-state girlfriends come along which enforce the hands-off policy.

Not too different from strip clubs, really. You pay but no play.

Well, sorry. But this situation just sucks major donkey dick. So no thanks! The truth is that I do want to touch, and in some cases fuck! And if I can’t do that, despite having the bait dangled in front of me, then I am a FOOL for sticking around. Only a FOOL would go to a candy store over and over again and not be allowed to taste anything sweet.

I see the various looks from women. It’s nothing but socially engineered hate and disdain towards men. It’s probably not that different from how a woman looks at a man after a semester of taking Women’s Studies. In a club, these negative views are perhaps amplified, given that there are so many men in one place. The concentrated “creep factor” unavoidably means that the shields simply must go up.

It's 100% pure defense mode. And they almost never take initiative themselves. But oddly enough, out of the handful of times I have ever been approached by women at a club, it was usually to tell me to smile more (on those occasions where I just could not hide the sucky time I was having). But all the countless other times I was smiling and giving out a positive vibe, no woman had ever come up to me (with very, very few exceptions). Apparently, I'm much easier to approach when I frown than when I smile. This seems to suggest that it's much easier for women to approach a man with the intent of pointing out his flaws than with the intent of complimenting him, or even (gasp) getting to know him. Ironic to say the least.

Another big irony is how so many women will dismiss a guy in a bar/club environment JUST BECAUSE he is part of that environment. Well to these women (bitches) I say this: If by association the guys in a certain environment are bad, and you are ALSO in that environment, what does that make you? I mean, aren’t you also part of that environment and as a result ALSO a piece of shit? Oh the hypocrisy.

I should mention that my own personal decision to avoid clubs is not just my reaction to the women in that environment. It is my reaction to how they BEHAVE in that environment. That is the difference. I am basing my views on direct and highly reproducible experience. The women however are basing their views on opinion, rumor, and socially downloaded anti-male propaganda. The difference between them and me is that I work in the lab and make my conclusions from that, while they just read the tabloids.

All you have to do is open your fucking eyes! You don’t need a PhD to figure this shit out. It’s all around you, and I guess that’s the problem. It’s too out in the open, and people often have a hard time seeing what’s directly in front of their noses.

It seems to me that a sort of boiling point is being reached with regards to Western females. Already I have noticed a definite decline in the amount of men actively approaching women in clubs over the years. I pretty much never see aggressive approaches anymore. The most I see is tentative approaches. The boldest approaches I saw recently were the ones I personally took part in a few months ago. I was winging with two guys at the club. We were hardcore, but despite being some of the most charismatic, outgoing guys there we were met with wall after wall. At most we got polite conversations (in traditional Canadian style). But that was it.

There’s still a kind of sliver of hope among many club-going men that they will connect with someone. But that too is on its way out. Unfortunately, this will help enforce the stereotype that men are too intimidated to approach. Funny how that works.

The typical woman’s mindset that men are up against is basically this:

You’re not good enough for me and I don’t need you.

This toxic mindset can only be dealt a deathblow by starvation. In other words, stop feeding the monster and the monster will starve. It will do no good to simply protest if many men are still:

• Giving attention to women who don’t give anything in return.

• Getting into “mutually beneficial relationships” with gold diggers.

• Trying to get into “mutually beneficial relationships” with gold diggers who only take the money and run.

• Supporting establishments that thrive on the simultaneous patronage and belittlement of men (e.g. strip bars and ladies nights).

• Marrying women knowing they’ll get ass-raped in case of divorce.

The list goes on.

So, you starve the monster and everything tied to the monster will also die out, such as the PUA industry, which serves to legitimize the monster.

It’s inevitable that it will happen. Esther Vilar was wrong. This is definitely a bad dream we can wake up from.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Men's To Do List

I put together a list of things men can do to fight back against modern day feminism, spoiled women, and the anti-male bias that exists in popular culture:

• Don't go to bars and clubs on ladies night. Boycott it. Ladies night is unconstitutional and discriminatory. It says that it's okay for women to get something for free, but not men. So by not going you are protesting this. Let "ladies night where women get in free" become "the night men go somewhere else". Help end this stupid practice. Also, the same applies if the establishments offer women reduced prices for drinks, or something similar to that. Boycott those nights too.

• Don't talk to women unless they make it easy for you to talk to them. No more "breaking into sets", or "getting past the hook point". See Dealing with Cold and Aloof Women.

• If you're on an internet dating site, don't message women at all. Let them send you the first message. There are two reasons for this: (1) Women already get too many messages from guys as it is; and (2) If you message a woman first there is a high chance she will stereotype you as a "loser just like all the other guys who message me", and you will be weeded out. To better understand this phenomenon see this post.

• Watch the movie Dimitri The Lover. As crude as it may be it's important to support a backlash against modern day feminism. Watching the movie is one way of taking a stand against prudish, uptight, bigoted, narrow-minded, puritanical, anglo-saxon protestant, man-hating women (cunts) and honorary women (manginas).

• Actively seek out foreign women from non-feminized countries for dating, especially those women who recently moved to the area.

• Don't waste any time on "fixer upper" women -- move on! It is especially important to do this if they are western women who have been living here a while. For these women: strike one and you're out!

• Ignore all the PUA crap. It's a band-aid solution at best, and in some ways helps promote female superiority. The pick-up (Venusian) arts is a coping strategy for rotten, spoiled female behaviour. Thus, it does nothing to change the status quo.

• Don't buy drinks for women at bars and clubs (whom you've just met). If they ask you too, or even hint at it, excuse yourself and walk away.

• Don't ask women whom you've just met out to dinner. Meet for drinks instead. if she hints at dinner, or even says something like, she enjoys good food, drop her like a stone and move on.

• Don't go to strip bars. You're only paying to be teased, and deep down most strippers think men are total losers for throwing money at them for virtually no physical contact in return.

• Don't pay for prostitutes, at least not in this part of the world. Instead, invest the money and travel to places such as Eastern Europe, Philippines, and South America (non-feminized countries). You can get prostitutes there much cheaper, or better yet, have sex with lots of nice, sexy, open-minded, local women for free.

• If you see an anti-male bias in a local newspaper, TV station, or magazine, contact the editors/broadcasters and complain about it. Just email them, it's the easiest way, and it gives you and them a record of what was said.

• Start saying no to women who don't fit the bill. Grow standards and start being more selective. If she ain't nice she ain't worth the price!

• Read books written by Christina Hoff Sommers, and Warren Farrell.

• If you wear a breast cancer awareness ribbon also wear a prostate cancer awareness ribbon.

• Stay away from women who say things like, "refuse to settle", "want intense chemistry", "looking for the one", "waiting for my prince", "friends first". These are like warning markers telling you to stay the fuck away.