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!

PUA Travesty on Kickstarter

While I certainly don't agree that literally anything is "rape" nowadays in the minds of some deluded feminists, including talking to a woman, I do think that the concept of "plowing" has been taken way too far in the PUA community. If you persist when the woman objects to your advances, you certainly met the criteria for sexual harassment. For an extreme example, look at my 2011 post RSD is cool with date rape.

Quite recently, I've been told about a Kickstarter project that was eventually banned, but only after it reached its funding goals. First, thanks to all those who pointed this out to me: Assanova, B., and an anonymous commenter. I don't follow the PUA scene much these days, so I'm grateful when people tell me about various absurdities. To recapitulate the story, Tofu Tofu, a guy from the seduction section on Reddit put up a Kickstarter project with the title, "Above the Game: A Guide to Getting Awesome with Women". Looking for controversy to get some buzz going, he mixed his mental masturbation with a good dose of sexual harassment. Here's a quote:

All the greatest seducers in history could not keep their hands off of women. They aggressively escalated physically with every woman they were flirting with. They began touching them immediately, kept great body language and eye contact, and were shameless in their physicality. Even when a girl rejects your advances, she KNOWS that you desire her. That’s hot. It arouses her physically and psychologically.

 I do advocate getting physical with girls. However, getting physical with girls who aren't interested in you is nothing but stupid. Yes, this constitutes sexual harassment. Yes, sexual harassment can have serious real-world consequences. Yes, if you force yourself upon a girl who is not interested and end up having sex with her, you are not overcoming "LMR" but are in fact raping her. Seduction requires mutual sexual interest. Steamrolling doesn't cut it. Here's another quote from "Tofu Tofu" to illustrate the problem:

Decide that you’re going to sit in a position where you can rub her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.

A comment from NeoGAF sums it up nicely:

There is bad dating advise and then there is criminal action date advice.

Tofu Tofu dramatically overplayed his hand, in his attempt to generate controversy. What an incredible slime ball he is was evident in the messages he sent to Jezebel, hoping to get some coverage:

I showed [Above the Game] to my brother's Jezebel-addicted ex-girlfriend and she went on a 3 hour diatribe about it. Your readers will eat it up! Come on, a bunch of nerdy guys on reddit live-blogging their exploits with women? You can't make this shit up :)

In case it isn't obvious: Tofu Tofu mocks the very people who had pledged about $15,000 on Kickstarter behind their back, and he also thinks that the Jezebel editor he has been emailing was completely stupid. Sure, his "brother's Jezebel-addicted ex-girlfriend [...] went on a 3 hour diatribe about it." Of course she did!

Resentment was building, though, and a petition was started that gathered over 60,000 supporters. Kickstarter responded, eventually taking down Tofu Tofu's project, and even updating their TOS to prohibit all seduction-related material. Well, I think the last step is a bit too dramatic, but it's not uncommon for "white knights" to over react and swing the ban hammer.

Let me now go off a tangent for a bit and point out that the petition was quite likely driven by a feminist mob. Coverage on Jezebel is one indication of that. Another are comments like by one Nora Hunt:

Horrifying! Thank goodness action against this was (finally) taken. That Reddit forum is equally troubling to me...guys with that terrible mindset frighten me. Do we really need a place for them to congregate (even online)?

Sure, Nora, let's just censor everything you girls don't like! Who needs free speech anyway. Oh, and with all the trouble Jezebel went through to (deservedly) bash TofuTofu, I wish they would spend some time so talk about low-lifes such as multi-millionaire Susan Wilson who scammed a good $20,000 out of the Kickstarter community so that her daughter "could learn how to code." At least she was playing contemporary "we need more women in tech" feminist sentiments like a pro. (For further info, read this, and this.)

Plowing is one of the most damaging PUA concepts

In the comments section of my recent article Hubris as the basis of the PUA scam, I had a discussion with Alek Novy about the existing social norms regarding approaching women, and what they imply for men.  In this article, I'm going to expand on it, and will eventually point out the overly harmful consequences of what PUAs call "plowing".

First, let's just recapitulate how Western society works: In order to spare women the negative consequences of feeling rejection, it's the task of the man to approach her. However, the woman can't be too blatant about her interest, so you normally get mixed signals. This is all to allow for plausible deniability on her part. Let's say Jill Average gets wet for Joe Buff and sees him at the college bar. Joe is there as well, and looks for some new chick to bang. Jill thinks that now her time has come and makes a "move", but Joe ignores her. Then, she can still say to herself, "Oh, no, I wasn't flicking my long hair to get the attention of Joe Buff. He just happened to walk past when I did it, and of course I did it with no reason at all."

Let's say Janet Stunner does the same and happens to be Joe's type. Janet flicks her hair, Joe sees this and realizes that Janet is looking for dick. He takes her home, and they have sex. However, by merely sending out a signal as apposed to approaching the guy, Janet can keep telling herself that she isn't just some slut who is willing to any fit guy. Again, plausible deniability protects the female psyche.


However, because women normally don't approach you, you've got to make a move yourself. You hardly ever get a concrete signal. Well, it's just not particularly common, outside porn, that some hot chick would walk up to you in the club and grab your crotch. So what else are you supposed to do? Right, since you can't approach every woman in the place and hope that one will eventually take you, you have to be somewhat smart about the process.

One possible way, and the one I advocate, is to test the waters and see how it goes. If you get a bad vibe early on, just move on. I've talked about this elsewhere in great detail, so I'm not going to repeat myself. In sharp contrast, though, PUAs recommend "plowing", i.e. if the girl shows no interest, or maybe is even hostile towards you, you just keep spouting your PUA bullshit, hoping that something will stick. You don't know what "plowing" means? Don't worry, here's the definition from PUA Lingo, for comic effect:

Plowing is the idea of continuing to push through with a pickup, even if it doesn’t appear to be going well. Plowing is an important skill for PUAs to master because pick up attempts do not always go smoothly. Sometimes, the woman will be totally into the PUA and throwing IOIs left and right, but, more often than not, women who are being hit on will put up some initial resistance. Being able to plow through this resistance often marks the difference between a successful pickup and a failed one.

So, let's assume the woman isn't "throwing IOIs left and right" but instead looks away, turns away, immediately starts a conversation with her friend and cutting you off, or even tells you to go away. The right thing to do is to realize that she isn't just that into you. Don't waste more time and just move on. The stupid thing, though, would be to "plow", i.e. stick around, keep trying to start conversations, force yourself upon her, trying to befriend her friends, and all the other shit PUAs recommend.

There was another relevant comment to the "hubris" article:

Some nights I just approach whem getting signals, other nights I just socialize with everyone a little and others I "roll the dice" aggressive and dont give a fuck what they think. Why should I or everyone? Not my job to think about what they think. If it doesnt fit she isnt the right one.

There are good reasons to care, and you don't have to be spiritually inclined and believe in karma to see why such behavior is poisonous. Every PUA who "plows" fucks it up royally for all the other guys. First, girls don't like being harassed. They really don't. Sometimes, girls literally hide in the toilet with one of their girlfriends for ten minutes, hoping that the dude who kept pestering her will disappear in the meantime. This seriously ruins her mood, too. Just imagine some fat and ugly chick would keep harassing you and even if you told her to go away, she kept going back! How would you feel about that?

The girl the PUA was hitting on might have been in the mood to hook up with some dude, but not so much after a very unpleasant encounter. If I offered you filet mignon right after you finished throwing up, you probably wouldn't want to eat it either. Those guys who would have had a realistic chance to get with her will have to look elsewhere. There are even guys out there who completely lack "social calibration", and who even manage to make girls leave the venue --- without them, of course. You probably have witnessed this a few times as a bystander if you've got some female "friends". You bump into them as they are on the way out, and you say, "Geez, why are you leaving so soon?", and then she points out some creep to you ("There is that guy over there, but don't look directly at him..."), who may then walk up to her again and pester her some more. There are some real idiots out there, and the PUA scam increased their numbers considerably. We can thank "plowing" for that.

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