How Female Ambiguity Promotes PUA and Poor Dating Advice

I was recently ranting about the ambiguous signals of women, which are partly due to nonsensical dating advice, but also to their narcissist wish of wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. They know that they can only get male company if they fuck the guy, but since they don't want to fuck any guy that comes along but still want to have some losers around who bolster up her fragile ego, they just string them along.

An interesting corollary of the female unwillingness to clearly let the guy know whether they are interested or not is that this behavior enabled the spread of the inane PUA culture. PUAs take the words of women at face-value. Instead of realizing that if she doesn't allow physical advances (one of the main points of Minimal Game), she's probably not interested in you as a sexual partner, PUAs are happy as long as women talk to them, and search for techniques to turn the interaction sexual at some point.


However, women can easily string PUAs along since many of those guys are afraid of their own sexuality. Instead, they engage in "cocky/funny" emails and text messages. As long as the girl replies, the PUA thinks he has a shot. He never had a shot, but of course he doesn't want to make a move either and force a decision. Apparently it's easier for the egos of weak men to hope that something will happen somehow, somewhere, instead.

If women immediately said "no" to the PUA, they'd just move on. However, because they then let the guy stick around and feed off the attention they get, the PUA keeps going. He might even ask for her number, and if the guy is non-threatening enough, he will not get a fake number but a real one. Then he texts and calls her, and maybe she'll ask him to join her girlfriends the next time they go out. It's a win-win for her: she's got some dude to come along, paying for drinks, and giving the girls attention, and as long as he gets a hug out of it or a kiss on the cheek, he'll be happy. This arrangement is perfect for her. She will ignore the fact that the PUA, or any of her male "friends" only sticks around because he wants to get laid. Depending on the guy's ambition, or lack thereof, it will now take several weeks or months, and anything between $50 and $10k or more before he'll eventually hear from her, "... but I thought we were just friends!"

So, Jezebel and other feminists hate sites, before you try shitting on PUA again, think about what you've done to enable this trend in the first place. If you women would have learnt to say "yes" and "no", we wouldn't had have to witness grown guys walking around with feather-boas and plateau boots, we wouldn't have guys in their 50s like Vince Kelvin making a complete fool out of themselves, and we wouldn't have Jeffy from RSD with his "rape van". He'd probably still hit on fatties, but he wouldn't pollute the internet with stories of his failed attempts.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!

The Ambiguous Signals of Women

There have been some heated discussions in the comments to Sexual Harassment vs Dating in the Real World I and Sexual Harassment vs Dating in the Real World II. Some feminist tried to defend standard female behavior of not clearly indicating disinterest and therefore leading guys on. There was a consensus that women, when it comes to dating/mating as opposed to mere socializing, often don't clearly show when they are not interested, but also when they are. It's all too convenient for feminists to excuse "female laziness", as Alek Novy calls it, and demand of men to read the mind of women. However, since women hardly ever make the first move, this step is up to you. But beware: feminists are quick to cry "Sexual harassment!!! Attempted rape!!!!". Compliment the wrong girl on her dress, and you've sexually harassed her.

Presumably any man no matter how good or bad looking has experienced that a "no" from a woman can mean "yes, but you've got to jump through some stupid hoops first", while a "yes" can easily mean "no, but I'll lead you on anyway and cancel our date for next week five minutes after the meeting time". It's easy to see why men are getting fed up with this. Of course, then there are all the girls who play games on principle. Let's say she's flirting heavily with you in some social setting. You call her up the next day, and then she brings up some bullshit excuse. But because you've got more women lines up, you don't bother and move on. If you happen to have some mutual friends, you may now hear that "Jennifer totally wanted you to take her out. Why didn't you take her out then?" If you now say that you don't like girls that play games and, in fact, prefer those that don't, you immediately become the asshole, of course.


Think about how much less of a pain dating would be if women learnt to clearly say "yes" or "no". Paraphrasing Alek Novy, "How come that something a two-year old can do is too challenging for an adult woman?" Part of the reason is surely that the average woman has her head full of bizarre dating advice such as, "Call him ten minutes before the date to ease him into talking to you." (I had this happen to me years ago and looked it up afterwards.) I don't know what kind of idiot came up with that, but if you're sitting in your car, looking for a parking spot, and a chick wants to make small talk starting with a dose of guilt-tripping because she poor social skills and also because she just has to be true to herself, like with, "Are we still meeting at X? I\m on the way but I'm kinda worried since you confirm again  earlier today.", I can understand if you think, "screw this shit!, turn your car around and drive to the nearest strip club or brothel instead.

It's not just bullshit dating advice or the "wisdom" of their friends that gets in their way: "Betty, this one time there was this one guy and I did this and it totally worked out and he came over and it was, like, sooo good!" Listening to a group of young women is dangerous since it may make your head explode with all their hasty generalizations and wild speculations. However, another issue is that many women want to be popular. Since their are two sexes, she can only choose from her scatter-brained and back-stabbing girlfriends, or from some guys who are afraid to make a move. Of course she would feel even more popular if she had some male friends, so she may be tempted to go down that road.

The obvious question then is how to get male friends? I think those women who are at least kind of cute looking know that guys are primarily interested in them for their sexuality and not so much because of their elaborate views of, say, the discrepancy between image and reality of contemporary Western "democracy", i.e. "post-democracy", or their in-depth knowledge of state-of-the-art machine learning algorithms. No, normally girls are well-aware of the fact that whenever a guy comes talk to them outside a professional setting --- and even that distinction sometimes can't be made in case of sales girls or trade-show hostesses --- it's primarily not because he thought that you're so awfully smart but because he'd like to check whether he's got a shot at you.

However, what is a girl to do that can only bring her sexuality to the table? It turns out that one option is to dangle her sexuality like carrot on a stick in front of those guys and string them along. Guys with less of a spine can be taken for quite a ride, not only giving the girl attention for months or years, but also dropping several grand on her, but not in exchange for sex but for her "company". This is what she says to herself. Of course, he wants to get laid. What does this lead to? To a justification for ambiguous signals since this allow her to enjoy both the attention of guys, and potential monetary favors, while also providing enough plausible deniability for her to excuse her behavior. She couldn't play this game if she was honest about her intentions.

This leads me to a relevant comment by Manuel Santiago from Sexual Harassment vs Dating in the Real World I:

When we call women, text them, take them to dinner, spend time with them, it's fucking obvious we're sexually interested in them, unless we had previously established some sort of friendship (in which case, it's the man's fault for not coming out clear and early in his intentions, if any, of having more than a friendship). On the other hand, women act this way with men to get favors from them or just to be goddamn social, and it's not a minority. 

Before feminists and feminist shills now cry "sexism!", let me just state that this can work both ways. My female "friends" all disappeared when they learnt that I'm actually not available or "really" have a girlfriend. Personally, I don't think that men and women make very good friends. It's certainly my experience that whenever a girl tried to befriend me it was because she thought she could get me in the long run, somehow. This can lead to all kinds of drama, including bizarre scenarios where apparently all her friends "know" that you've been tapped and that they are all convinced that it will all happen somehow, somewhere. Fast forward six months and you're the asshole again because she bumps into you in the club and sees you with some other girl, and the last words you'll say to her before she disappears from your life while trying to make a scene are, "Are you fucking crazy? All I ever did was talking to you." Why, oh why did I never encounter the alleged "sixth sense" women are claimed to have? Seriously, girls, why does all your "female intuition" only exist in pop-psychology?

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!

Reader Comment on the Sexual Power of Women

I'll post a couple of substantive articles later today and for the entire rest of the week, but as a warm-up, here's a comment a reader just left on Do women really hold all sexual power?

The first time that I saw this claim that women hold all the sexual power, I just knew that something was wrong with that statement. It is shown to be nonsense by being mocked by reality.

For example, many women, with “all sexual power,” are in relationships in which they are miserable and unhappy.

Many women, with “all sexual power” have been pumped and dumped have been the community mattress, cum receptacle, with their STD infested pussies, are damaged goods find that no decent man would ever touch them with a long stick.


Many women, with “all sexual power” but not man, and not even a child, are desperate that they can't find a man. Some of them have passed 30 and remain childless. They get more desperate as they get older, less attractive and less fertile. Some of these women, with “all sexual power” but no man nor child, as they approach late 30s and 40s, have taken the desperate step of paying $15000 to fertility centers to extract and freeze their eggs and inject themselves (ouch) with hormones. This, in attempt to use their “all sexual power” to get a man to some day go to the fertility center, unbuckle his belt, pull down his trousers, bend down and jerk off in a petri disc to try to fertilize those near expired eggs.

Many of these women take good care of themselves and look good, but the problem is they have “all sexual power” but complain that they cant find a man. How very interesting.

Sexual Harassment vs Dating in the Real World II

As we've seen in Sexual Harassment vs Dating in the Real World I, feminist definitions of sexual harassment are to a large degree subjective. Remark to some woman that she's as tall as your wife, and you're on the hook for a five-figure settlement --- if you're a Republican presidential candidate. But let's have a look at what Joe Schmoe has to expect at Monash University in case he wants to meet girls:

What actions constitute sexual harassment? 

Examples of sexual harassment:
• uninvited touching;
• uninvited kisses or embraces;
• smutty jokes or comments;
• making promises or threats in return for sexual favours;
• displays of sexually graphic material including posters, pin-ups, cartoons, graffiti or messages on notice boards, lockers, desks, computer screens;
• sexual insults or taunting;
• repeated invitations to go out especially after being refused previously;
• flashing or sexual gestures;
• sex-based insults, taunts, teasing or name-calling;
• staring or leering at a person or at parts of their body, and
• unwelcome physical contact such as massaging a person without invitation or deliberately brushing up against them.

Sure, flashing someone or calling someone names is something I'd consider inappropriate. All the other bullet points are at least to some degree questionable. Let's start with "uninvited touches". You may now say that there is no way that this is okay, but look at dating in the real world: Assume you're talking to some chick in a bar, she's pressing her tits against you, and you may now as well touch her. She didn't first ask whether it's okay with you if she pressed her tits against you, and it would be pretty weird if she asked for permission first. Likewise, it would be pretty absurd if she claimed that you sexually harassed her if you proceeded with putting your hand on her ass.


Or let's talk about "repeated invitations to go out especially after being refused previously". Doesn't this seem odd to you? I don't know in which world you live in, but in the world I live in women sometimes play hard to get, and you can't always tell whether she's stringing you along or just wants to hold out because she's read some bullshit book like "The Rules". I advise guys to not bother at all with women who play games, but it is a fact that plenty of women do. Feminists apparently demand that men have to be able to read the mind of every women, without demanding from women to be clear about their intentions. This seems problematic to me, but let's not tax female understanding of logic too much and simply agree that I'm a sexist pig for pointing out those grave errors of reasoning.

An elderly gentleman once said to me, "If a lady says 'no' she either means 'no' or 'not yet', because if she said 'yes', she wouldn't be a lady." Don't dismiss this as a silly joke! It does point to the realities of social conventions. Despite "women's liberation", not so much has changed in recent decades. Women still think they are sluts if they give it up too soon or seem too eager. What they don't get is that they are not sluts for fucking a guy. Seriously, hardly anybody would think that you're a slut if you have sex or agree to go out on a date, which may mean the same thing. It'll only turn into a problem for a girl's reputation once she has to invent creative counting procedures to keep her number of your previous sexual partners down.

Lastly, let's talk about "staring or leering at a person or at parts of their body". Of course you can say that it's not okay if some old "creep" ogles the lush body of some 17-year old. Yet, let's not forget that women expose parts of their body to be noticed by men. Their dating strategy is decidedly passive. But if, dear "ladies", your strategy consists of attracting guys by presenting parts of your body and hoping that the guys will do all the work, then you just have to live with the fact that some of the guys you get the attention of may not quite look like your ideal man. (I've written about this problem in greater detail in Note to Women: If you Don't want to get Hit On, then Don't Dress in a Way that Communicates the Opposite, which discusses the case of a homely-looking girl that went to a tech conference wearing revealing clothes and complaining that she didn't get hit on by George Clooney.) What makes this worse is that it's not exactly rare that women hold a grossly inflated view of their market value, and don't realize that the guys they are actually interested in would never in a thousand years make a move on them.

As you see, the feminists at Monash University dream up complete fantasy scenarios, and if you previously thought that my statement that feminists demand from men to be able to read the mind of women, I've got a nice surprise for you. If you now think that you could at least try asking a girl out once, think again! Monash University writes:

A single incident of sexual harassment is enough to constitute an offence.

Of course, "sexual harassment" is to be understood in their very generous definition. Smile at a girl? Sexual harassment! Ask her out? Sexual harassment! Ask her out because she gives you "fuck me" eyes? Sexual harassment because she just wanted to feel desired for a moment or two! For more on that, go to Mating Selfishness and read Asking for a date now illegal, flirting as well… (Thanks for the link, Alek Novy!)

If only all of this were satire!

Instead of only lamenting the sordid status quo of feminist rhetoric, let's now talk for a moment about what should constitute sexual harassment instead. Surprisingly enough, Monash University has the answer to that:

Some types of harassment can be offences under the Criminal Law and should be taken to the police. They include: 

• physical molestation or assault;
• indecent exposure;
• sexual assault;
• stalking, and
• obscene communications (phone calls, letters, etc.)

I would be perfectly fine with just this list. Pretty much anything else, though, could be labelled as normal dating behavior. If you ask a girl out, and she giggles and denies, and then you ask her out again in two weeks, and she blushes and giggle some more, then you're not committing an act of sexual harassment but are dealing with an immature girl. Sadly, you can expect that kind of behavior no matter whether she's 16, 26, or 36. That's just how far too many women are. If you encounter such immaturity, then a woman like that should have absolutely no right to complain about a guy "sexually harassing" her. Dear women, if you're not interested, then just say "no" with a stern face for fuck's sake! Given the ambiguous communication patterns of many women, I don't see how a "reasonable person" could blame men for trying two or three times before moving on.

Not everything is sexual harassment, though. Monash University writes:

Flirting, attraction, sexual interaction or friendship that is invited, consensual and reciprocated and conducted in private or in a way that would not cause offence to others would not constitute sexual harassment.

Boy, just look at the structure of this sentence! I really would like to know what "flirting" is in the mind of feminists. I'm glad to read that "attraction" does not constitute sexual harassment. Just imagine chicks getting mad at you because they fancy you but you ignore them. Oh, wait, this reminds me of some drunk Jane Plain ...

I put "reasonable person" before in quotation marks. This was because Monash University uses this phrase when describing the "reasonable person test":

In determining if sexual harassment has occurred the question asked is "would a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, have anticipated that the person harassed would feel offended, humiliated or intimidated?
(...)
The power relationship between the parties is given serious consideration when determining the likelihood of sexual harassment. Age, gender, and position are all potential power issues.

Subsequently, they waffle about "power relationships" and similar hogwash. I guess this is what turned Michael Cain's remark to a woman that she was as tall as his wife into sexual harassment. Please note that you as a guy are fucked by default --- just because you are a guy. After all, you're part of the collective of men that has been subjugating women for millennia. I guess if you're a feminist, this is the only "reasonable" explanation there is. To them it's "obvious" that we men had all the power in the world, and if you pointed out that this only applied to the absolute elites of men, while the average man has had and still has a fate far worse than the average woman, they throw a fit, ask you whether you're a virgin or when the last time was that you got laid, or try mocking you for "mansplaining" things. But, hey, why bother about "reason" when you can just claim that you've got the right to redefine the term due to your unique insight into power structures. This now leads to the feminist concept of "rape culture", but let's talk about that some other time.

What's your opinion? Let me know in the comments below!

Sexual Harassment vs Dating in the Real World I

After dissecting Stoya's cry for attention in What exactly is Sexual Harassment?, I asked myself whether there is a plausible definition of sexual harassment. As I have written in that article, one could probably agree on drawing a line physically aggressive maneuvers when it is clear that this is uncalled for. I do not intend to paint men in a bad light, however.

It's apparently quite popular to depict men as sexist swine who commit countless acts of "street harassment" and grope unsuspecting women. However, speaking from my perspective as a reasonably attractive slender 6'3" guy, I can tell you that I've had to endure countless acts of "sexual harassment". I can't even count how many times women have rubbed their tits against me as they were walking past me in the club. The more daring (drunk) ones have little qualms pinching the ass of men that are clearly out of their league. (Why is it almost always the absolutely plain and average if not unattractive looking women who do that?)

Sure, feminists claim that it's always men who approach women who are not interested in them but, believe it or not, any guy with options knows full well what it is like to be hit on by a woman you couldn't fuck with all the Viagra in the world. If it is true, as women claim, that men are much more visual than women, which I doubt, then it is infinitely worse to be a guy who gets hit on by an ugly chick than the other way around, but let's not shove too much logic down the collective throat of feminists.

On the other hand, in the presence of mutual physical attraction, things can move pretty quickly. I'm not going to tell one of my X-rated stories, but only want to draw attention to the fact that those women certainly appreciated my initiative. Of course I wouldn't go around grabbing the ass of some woman who doesn't seem to be interested.

Just due to the way dating and mating works in Western society, the man has to make the initiative. Women hardly ever approach you, and at best you get mixed signals. Women would rather keep the option of telling themselves that they weren't really interested in some guy who turns them down or just ignores them than clearly show their interest and deal with the not necessarily pleasant feeling of rejection. This is reality. Now, let's look at the fantasies that feminist brains develop.

As I wrote in the introduction, I did some research on definitions of sexual harassment. I thought that I should look for a country that has a reputation of being a feminist nanny state, ideally English-speaking. Australia turned out to be a prime candidate. Then there is the fact that universities are a hotbed of feminism, while sexually healthy women in the real world normally don't think that much of it. After a few minutes, I hit a gold minet: A publicly accessible "online training course" of Monash University on the topic of sexual harassment.

Look what I found:

Sexual harassment occurs when a person's behaviour is:
• unwelcome
• of a sexual nature, and
• a reasonable person would consider could offend, humiliate or intimidate.

This is all rather vague, so let's have a look at the elaborations on that website:

What constitutes UNWELCOME behaviour?
Unwelcome means that the behaviour is uninvited and unsolicited and the person subjected to it finds it undesirable, offensive, humiliating or intimidating.

I think the key word here is "undesirable". In case some feminist head case reads this and starts hyperventilating: no, I don't promote clearly invasive behavior in the face of opposition. However, because women do not give you clear signals at all (!), you can't know whether she's really interested without approaching her.

Feminists seem to picture sexual interactions as some kind of negotiation in which both sides clearly tell the other what they want, and in which perfect information is a given. But the last time I checked, women didn't have bright neon signs hovering over their head that indicated whether they were available, how old they were, how they were like in bed, or whether they were mentally stable. Feminist porn starlet Stoya thinks that a guy who compliments her on her dress is sexually harassing her --- if she doesn't find him attractive. If she does, then all is fine and dandy. I guess nothing of this strikes you as problematic if you're a woman. Of course, Virginia, you totally have a right to be indignant because the guy that just said that he likes your smile didn't look like ten million dollars. What a disgusting pig!

On the other hand, as a guy you're in quite some quandary. You know you have to approach because girls are just so incredibly passive. No, ladies, glancing at some guy for a fraction of a second and then looking down at the floor for a minute or so does not constitute "hitting on someone". That some of the women you hit on won't be interested in you is just a fact of life. Just as I quickly ignored the average-looking women who dared to hit on me in clubs or on campus, and didn't think much of it, so can a woman just move on if she doesn't like a guy. After all, it's not as if they've got dozens of Quasimodos hitting on them day after day.

Let's hand the mike to Monash University again:

Under the law, it is irrelevant if the behaviour does not offend everyone or has been an accepted feature of the work or learning environment in the past. Individuals react and perceive behaviour in different ways. A person may think their behaviour is harmless and innocent while the recipient of that behaviour may find it distasteful and hurtful.

OK, but how the f*ck is a guy supposed to know? Some days ago, Black Pill mentioned in a comment that former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain was accused of sexual harassment for remarking to some woman that she was as tall as his wife. I guess anything goes if you want to feel "sexually harassed" and make some money on the side through settlements. I hope I don't have to spell out in detail why this is problematic.

If you think that this was bad enough already, then Monash University would like to have a word with you because according to the feminists who wrote up that drivel, sexual harassment doesn't even have to be intentional:

The definition of sexual harassment does not require intent on the part of the person being accused but is based on the subjective experience of offence, humiliation or intimidation. Innocent intention cannot be used as a defence in sexual harassment cases and staff and students at Monash have an obligation to be aware of what is likely to constitute sexual harassment and to refrain from these actions. 

Sexual harassment is known to have severe consequences for those subjected to it impacting on their ability to perform at work or study and often on their personal lives. Complaints of sexual harassment at Monash must be taken seriously.

Yes, read that again! You're not guilty of sexual harassment due to clear objective criteria but simply because someone thinks some action constitutes sexual harassment, even if every sane person would only shake his head, like in the case of Michael Cain. Or think of that absurd Adria Richards case some months ago, where she first got some developers fired because she made a stink over an allegedly sexist joke that was due to her not knowing or pretending to not know that "forking" and "dongle" are technical terms. Later on she was let go herself, as a direct consequence of her bigotry and the bad light she put her employer in.

I think it's safe to say that we've established that there is a fundamental implausibility with the generous feminist interpretation of "sexual harassment". In part II of this article I will discuss more real world examples, which will further reinforce this point.

What's your opinion? Let me know in the comments below!

What exactly is Sexual Harassment?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sex as an Exercise in Seeking Validation

In one of my recent articles I tangentially made the point that guys who want to have sex with a great number of women are mostly driven by validation. They enjoy the thrill of the chase, a sense of novelty, and that women show sexual interest in them. I don't think many men will be able to put himself into a position where the latter is a reality, and the former should quickly lead to frustration if there aren't enough successful encounters. The implosion of the PUA fad is directly related to that. Approaching 1,000 women just for a date is idiotic. But even for those who were fortunate enough to have sex with many women, it's normally just a phase to go through.

While I was primarily writing about the male perspective, I think that the female perspective is largely identical. Think about it: it you only wanted to have sex, you're better off finding a nice girlfriend who enjoys having sex with you. Any guy who is single or only sees women casually will find it very difficult to have sex as often as someone in a committed relationship could. There is no difference between men and women. If she only wanted to have sex, she'd get some guy who turns her on and who enjoys boning her, and that would be it.


If women don't settle and keep chasing dick it's seemingly for two reasons. One is that they believe that there will be someone (much) better out there. They are serial daters, ready to jump ship at a moment's notice. Funnily enough, those women often seem to never be single at all. They need to have a "boyfriend" just to feel good about themselves, and while they're seeing someone, they flirt with guys and keep a close eye on the dating market. Who knows, maybe their stocks are rising?

Unfortunately, some women judge badly. Not willing to commit to a placeholder boyfriend, they enter their 30s as comparably unattractive prospects for any guy with options. If a guy is in demand, he'll probably prefer a younger woman over an older one, and not just because of looks. With a woman in her mid-thirties you're getting two decades worth of emotional baggage from failed relationships as a free pack-in bonus, and you might not be too keen on that.

Further, there are those women who lack self-esteem and fuck guys to feel better about themselves. This normally doesn't work so well since the guys who actually can pull-off a one-night stand don't always want to commit, and certainly not just to some random girl they've just fucked. This means that the girls are back at square one, complaining about some guy who pumped and dumped them. I've written before about the myth of the "cock carousel". While manosphere perceptions are quite off, it is not uncommon that women, after meeting a few guys who weren't willing to commit, eventually opt for a guy who can be more easily controlled. This is where the "betas" come in.

Promiscuity can't be explained with high sex drive either. I've mentioned this before, but I'll just point it out again: if you only wanted to have sex, you wouldn't go through the trouble of numerous short-term encounters. So, what's the upshot of all this? In line with my article Who came up with the "sex is the greatest thing in the world" nonsense?, the conclusion seems to be that people who engage in promiscuous behavior do so not primarily because they enjoy sex so much, but because they enjoy maintaining a certain image of themselves. Guys want to view themselves as big studs, and girls as desired. Some of those people who read my book Sleazy Stories commented that I seem to have documented my narcissism. While this goes to far, looking back at that time now, I'm tempted to say that this was probably a significant factor, quite possibly much more than the alleged joy of sex.

What's your opinion? Let me know in the comments below!