patrick.net

the difference between cute and creepy is whether the girl likes you or not.

Yes, but she is a lot more likely to 'like you' if you have a good physique and at least average face. If course, a lot of money can add points to those characteristics.

That's been proven. You show a guy's pic to a group of 100 women, they might give him a 4. Put a blurb under it that he's a doctor, lawyer, successful businessman and show it to another group, they rate his "attractiveness" a 7.

When I was an Army Cpt. and stationed in the Southeast and Midwest I looked comparatively well paid and high status. To say the least I got away with things I would never do now (and probably thrash a boy who did these to my daughter). They just thought I was 'high-spirited'.

This seems too obvious for even a red pill site. You mean that girls / women really judge guys based on appearance? I'm shocked!

Shocked!

YesYNot says

This seems too obvious for even a red pill site. You mean that girls / women really judge guys based on appearance? I'm shocked!

You miss the point. Remember that video about a woman being catcalled by men while walking in New York City? Well, it turns out that it's only objectifying women when low status men, read not rich or handsome, do it. The guy in the article demonstrated that a good looking can say very offensive, objectifying, and purely sexualized things to a woman, and she will not be offended, but even greatly interested. The same holds true for rich men as Trump demonstrated with his pussy-grabbing comment.

The take-away isn't that women take no offense to objectification by rich or handsome men, but rather that all offense is really due to men with lower social market value attempting to start a relationship with the women. Women are not offended by the catcalling, but by the lower status of the men pursing a woman above their station.

Dan8267 says

Well, it turns out that it's only objectifying women when low status men, read not rich or handsome, do it.

I think that if you pictured the same thing happening in reverse, it would make sense. As a single guy, how would you treat two really forward women that approached you in a bar, talked smutty, and rubbed their tits up against you. One is a 10. The other is a 2. Would you treat them the same? Or would you only complain when a nasty woman did it?

YesYNot says

As a single guy, how would you treat two really forward women that approached you in a bar, talked smutty, and rubbed their tits up against you.

1. Physical contact is different from flirting. Physical contact, especially what you described, should be consensual.
2. I would not take offense if a woman beneath my station flirted with me. Even with zero interest in her, I would not falsely accuse the woman of objectifying me or being a pervert. That's the hypocrisy.
3. There is not male equivalence of female hypergamy.
4. If piggy is to be believed, five two's is the same as one ten. OK, bad example.

The point here is that women lie about what they want. They say they want to be treated respectfully at all times, but what they really mean is that they want the option to use the excuse of "disrespect" to reject lower status men, and to force employers and universities act as their personal sexual gatekeepers, while they are in fact quite excited by the potential of being "disrespected" by the few high-status men that they really want.

What the article proves is that female deception is the rule, not the exception.

Men on the other hand are extremely honest and straightforward. All straight men are attracted to young and beautiful women and they do not attempt to deceive anyone about this, or complain about sexual advances from women.

Actually even for men there is some class consciousness at work. My mom was genuinely annoyed with some of my girlfriends calling them White Trash, or in the case of my ecdysiast girlfriend, Georgie's 'little stripper.' But I was equally guilty because I did not foresee or intend to marry any of these women. My ecdysiast girlfriend ended up marrying chiropractor with a ranch in Nevada. My brother told me she asked him why I as involved with her. My retort was if she does not understand why a 43 year-old man appreciates 20 year-old blonde bisexual nymphomaniac, I am beginning to understand father better.
Seriously I remember cringing when one young lady I took to a formal military function said, "When was kids."
"One is a 10. The other is a 2. Would you treat them the same? Or would you only complain when a nasty woman did it?" No, not complain, but not accept and because of my upbringing, politely proffer some reason why it was not possible. But I would not marry the ten if she lacked sufficient social grace, because career you know. So men sometimes treat women as sexual objects, and women sometimes treat us as financial objects.

Laws are not going to be made fair any time soon, because the ruling class has decided that all men are to be presumed guilty without evidence.

But as long as it's possible to run uncensored websites, it's possible to publicly document all these bogus sexual harassment cases so that men can look up and avoid (or publicly shame) women with a significant history of using employers and universities as their personal sexual gatekeepers.

Dan8267 says

1. Physical contact is different from flirting. Physical contact, especially what you described, should be consensual.

OK, how about minus the rubbing part? Dan8267 says

Even with zero interest in her, I would not falsely accuse the woman of objectifying me or being a pervert. That's the hypocrisy.

OK fine. I wasn't justifying falsely accusing a person of anything. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be surprising if a woman gives some guys a pass for behavior that she holds another person accountable for.

Dan8267 says

Well, it turns out that it's only objectifying women when low status men, read not rich or handsome, do it.

Exactly, this is one reason why the whole "grabbing pussy" thing is really much ado about nothing

YesYNot says

I'm just saying that it shouldn't be surprising if a woman gives some guys a pass for behavior that she holds another person accountable for.

The point isn't about the pass. The point is that the behavior proves beyond any doubt that the offense isn't being sexually crude, but being a low status male hitting on a woman above his station. The women are insulted that someone clearly inferior to them has the gall to think he stands a chance. It offends her hypergamified self-worth. And yes, I just invented that word.

YesYNot says

OK, how about minus the rubbing part?

I've been hit on by many women I wasn't interested in. I never took offense at it, even if it was overt. I don't believe in punishing minor indiscretions. The proper response to flirtation from someone you aren't interested in is either ignoring it or simply stating that you aren't interested. The later can be done in code.

If a woman is not interested in a man, she will mention her boyfriend in conversation even if she does not have a boyfriend. If a woman is interested in a man, she will not mention her boyfriend even if she is engaged. A man can tell whether or not a woman is interested 90% of the time by this alone.

Dan8267 says

The point is that the behavior proves beyond any doubt that the offense isn't being sexually crude, but being a low status male hitting on a woman above his station.

Are you referring to sexual harassment cases at work? What types of 'harassment' behavior are you saying should be fine?
I already said that discreetly hitting on someone at work (who is not your subordinate) ought to be fine.

YesYNot says

Are you referring to sexual harassment cases at work?

No.

YesYNot says

What types of 'harassment' behavior are you saying should be fine?

None. That's a straw man.

Dan8267 says

The take-away isn't that women take no offense to objectification by rich or handsome men, but rather that all offense is really due to men with lower social market value attempting to start a relationship with the women. Women are not offended by the catcalling, but by the lower status of the men pursing a woman above their station.

Dan8267 says

The point is that the behavior proves beyond any doubt that the offense isn't being sexually crude, but being a low status male hitting on a woman above his station. The women are insulted that someone clearly inferior to them has the gall to think he stands a chance. It offends her hypergamified self-worth.

I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

More proof:
https://www.reddit.com/r/confession/comments/6b0rcv/im_really_mad_that_the_guy_who_likes_me_isnt_hot/

Dan8267 says

I've been hit on by many women

One thing that I've learned over the course of my life:

For men, there is an inverse relationship between talking about getting women and actually getting women.

YesYNot says

As a single guy, how would you treat two really forward women that approached you in a bar, talked smutty, and rubbed their tits up against you. One is a 10. The other is a 2. Would you treat them the same? Or would you only complain when a nasty woman did it?

Dan8267 says

I've been hit on by many women I wasn't interested in. I never took offense at it, even if it was overt.

BayArea says

For men, there is an inverse relationship between talking about getting women and actually getting women.

That's bragging? I was merely addressing the question YesYNot posed to me. If you took that as bragging, it's in your head.

In any case, sex is so cheap today that it's nothing to brag about anyway. Surely you know that.

Dan8267 says

You miss the point. Remember that video about a woman being catcalled by men while walking in New York City? Well, it turns out that it's only objectifying women when low status men, read not rich or handsome, do it. The guy in the article demonstrated that a good looking can say very offensive, objectifying, and purely sexualized things to a woman, and she will not be offended, but even greatly interested. The same holds true for rich men as Trump demonstrated with his pussy-grabbing comment.

The take-away isn't that women take no offense to objectification by rich or handsome men, but rather that all offense is really due to men with lower social market value attempting to start a relationship with the women. Women are not offended by the catcalling, but by the lower status of the men pursing a woman above their station.

You are generalizing a lot. Regarding catcalling: Some women might be offended by all catcalling. Some might be offended, because of how it makes them appear to others. Some might not care if they are in a group, but feel threatened if alone.
Some women will let some men fuck them in the ass, and they won't be offended by it. That doesn't mean that all men should be able to fuck all women in the ass at any time. If you want to argue that any non-contact behavior should be legal or something, that's fine. But I don't see how this particular experiment was enlightening in any way, and I certainly don't see how it should affect any policy regarding what is appropriate behavior.

Dan8267 says

That's bragging? I was merely addressing the question YesYNot posed to me. If you took that as bragging, it's in your head.

You could have made your point without saying that you've been hit on by many women. All you have to say is that you are not offended when you are hit on by women. If you use any opportunity to weave that into the discussion, it can appear as a brag. As for the amount that you get hit on, I doubt it is anywhere near as often or as aggressive as the average woman gets hit on by men. This is a setup, by the way. You now can respond directly to my question and let us know exactly how often and in what manner you've been hit on :-).

YesYNot says

You are generalizing a lot.

If I make a general statement, people who don't like the statement complain that it's general. If I make a specific statement, the same people complain that it does not apply to the general case. There are no statements that are neither general nor specific. If you accept these two contradicting requirements, you must reject all statements that have ever been made or will ever be made. Under that restriction, no knowledge can ever be gained about any subject matter.

If you want to make the case that 80% of times the general statement is false, then make that case. There is more than enough empirical evidence as well as justification in evolutionary psychology to back up the accuracy of the statement 80% or the time or more.

YesYNot says

You could have made your point without saying that you've been hit on by many women.

Your question was specifically how I would treat a "2" hitting on me. I failed to see how admitting that twos have hit on me is in any way, shape, or form bragging. Well, maybe for Call It Crazy it would be.

In any case, I used empirical cases to demonstrate that I was answering your question not in theory, but in practice. As such, my answer should carry great weight. If I had not used actual real world experience you could have made the case that I did not honestly answer the question or even could not do so because I wouldn't know how I would react until the situation occurred.

Quite frankly I don't get why every conversation on PatNet has to be about the persons speaking rather than the subject matter of the discussion. The messenger is irrelevant to the message. PatNetters are so egocentric that they have to make everything personal even when the other person is speaking objectively about objective content. This is a flaw in those who insist on reading into every post their own personal prejudices.

BayArea says

For men, there is an inverse relationship between talking about getting women and actually getting women.

Since you brought up this myth, we might as well address it keeping in mind that we are talking about the system, not about you or me.

Your supposition is blue pill thinking. The red pill directly contradicts this myth.

The fact is that men who have high social status, especially alpha males, absolutely do brag about their conquests precisely because doing so raises their social status among both men and women, and thus also increases their subsequent success. You can see this positive feedback loop being played out with every rock star. Women throw themselves at popular men because those men are popular, and that makes those men more popular. Both game theory and empirical data confirm this feedback.

Dan8267 says

I suspect this partly biological, partly cultural, and partly due to women simply not being used to rejection. Even the most successful man is rejected most of the time, with the possible exception of celebrities.

If men are rejected much more so than women, this proves my assertion that women deal with unwanted advances much more frequently than men do. That is at least part of the reason that they complain more than men about the topic. Personally, I've never been hurt by women bitching about this, so it's not really a concern of mine. I'm still not sure what your complaint is, if any.

YesYNot says

If men are rejected much more so than women, this proves my assertion that women deal with unwanted advances much more frequently than men do.

This is like complaining that you are given too many job offers. You simply reject the job offers that aren't as good as the best you can get.

The mating market is first and foremost a market. In a market people have to determine the value of goods and services. This can only be done by making offers that get rejected. You cannot determine the market value of anything if every offer you make is accepted.

There is a big difference between flirtation and harassment. Without flirtation, there can be no short-term or long-term relations.

The point of this thread is that things are often falsely classified as harassment not based on the actual actions but solely based on the social status of the actor. The rules should be about how flirtation happens, not on the status of those who flirt. Asking for a little consistence and honesty isn't that high of a standard.

The bottom line is that if society is to have cordial relationships between men and women, which clearly is not typically the case today, then the rules must be
1. Sensible
2. Fair
3. Applied evenly to all persons
4. Based on action, not status

Most of the troubles with relationships could be alleviated or avoided if we established modern courtship rules using the above guidelines. The actual rules themselves aren't as important and establishing a consistent culture of what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

Dan8267 says

establishing a consistent culture of what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior

You're thinking like a man. Very clear and straightforward.

Meaning that women will absolutely reject this. They greatly prefer the inconsistency that lets them choose to use certain rules at certain moments to reject undesirable men, while not enforcing the rules for men that they desire. (While keeping the rule in their back pocket as an ace to use with HR enforcers if the man fails to call the day after...)

Dan8267 says

The rules should be about how flirtation happens, not on the status of those who flirt.

I agree on this. On the other hand, some people are going to get away with breaking the rules, and that is fine, IMO.

As I see it, the problem comes down to this: The rules as they are specified and enforced by various institutions to not align with what is done in practice and what is shown in media such as the movies. Women want a decisive guy who is forward about his desire. This is reflected by what is on TV, in the movies, in books, etc. On the other hand, they only want this from some guys. If a guy takes a chance and behaves like the lead in a movie, only to find out that the woman doesn't want it, then he's pretty much guilty of assault. That creates confusion and a big dilemma for a guy. How much of this is defined by biology versus culture is an open question.

The OP doesn't really address any of this. It is just a narrow experiment with results that would be expected from people of either sex, really. The only difference is that a guy might let a girl down easier than the women did. OTOH, that experiment wasn't done, so we don't know.

"If men are rejected much more so than women . . .", "establishing a consistent culture of what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior . . . ", When I went through my sexual harassment nightmare (with a woman I had no sexual interest in, but mere accusation is absolute proof of guilt) one of the allegations was that I had stared at her breasts and buttocks (totally not worth even a first glance). I laughed and said, 'when I was single I was a much smoother item than that. The game is played by a fleeting glance, if you make eye contact hold it for just s second and look away. Then glance back, if she is looking at you, you are in there. If not, move on, there is a lot of amateur talent. Anyway, she is not my type." We cannot be everyone's type and they all thought I was Asian obsessed. Not true, but a useful mistake under those circumstances.
They greatly prefer the inconsistency that lets them choose to use certain rules at certain moments to reject undesirable men, while not enforcing the rules for men that they desire. And that is what makes the game interesting and worth playing. But note, I met my wife under very different circumstances and she is no or low drama. That is what you want from the woman you invest your life (and finances) in.

georgeliberte says

she is no or low drama. That is what you want from the woman you invest your life (and finances) in

I think a lot of guys don't figure this out until too late.

I think a lot of guys don't figure this out until too late.
Obviously I did not, and I paid the price multiple times.

rando says

You're thinking like a man. Very clear and straightforward.

Meaning that women will absolutely reject this.

Ah, but some things are better handles with logical, rational thinking even if such thinking is considered "male".

Women want contradictory things, and this causes a lot of problems. Women want plausible deniability that they wanted sex, but that is utterly incompatible with "no means no" and even more obviously with "yes means yes". If communication about sexual consent is clear, then plausible deniability by definition cannot exist. So, which is more important, stopping rape or being able to deny being a slut? I would think the former is orders of magnitude more important.

YesYNot says

On the other hand, some people are going to get away with breaking the rules, and that is fine, IMO.

Actually, that creates an intrinsic problem. How is a particular man going to know whether or not he can break a particular rule with a particular woman? He can't know this. So he has to decide whether or not to risk it. If he plays it safe, he loses a sexual opportunity. If he takes a risk, it may be sexual assault or rape.

Here's where evolution comes into play. Tens of millions of years of evolution has conditioned males to take the risk because losing a sexual opportunity means losing in the competition for reproduction, and that's the entire goal of life. So our genes makes not taking the risk an impossibility even though we are no longer rewarded with reproductive success because of birth control.

Understanding evolutionary psychology is the key to preventing rape, sexual assault, false accusations of crimes, and all the other problems with male-female relationships. You cannot change human nature. You can, however, accommodate human nature in ways that minimize strife and maximize happiness, stability, cooperation, and satisfaction, but in order to do that, you must first accept what human nature really is. That is exactly the purpose of red pill.

Ultimately our society is in bad shape because all the former structures and practices for courtship have been dismantled. Society needs to establish new courtship rules and practices that work in the modern age. These rules aren't meant to suppress people, but rather to guide young people in healthy relationships while allowing them to avoid pain and mistakes and to recover from failures. There is no such support system in our society today, and we are poorer for it.

Dan8267 says

So, which is more important, stopping rape or being able to deny being a slut? I would think the former is orders of magnitude more important.

I'd bet that many women would put being able to deny being a slut as more important than stopping rape.

Makes sense in a way. A rape is not necessarily publicly known, so may not affect their reproductive future. Being known as a slut is probably going to seriously harm their chances of marriage with a high-status guy.

rando says

I'd bet that many women would put being able to deny being a slut as more important than stopping rape.

Every woman in prime reproductive age from 14 to 35. Every woman past her reproductive age would have the opposite opinion.

rando says

Makes sense in a way. A rape is not necessarily publicly known, so may not affect their reproductive future. Being known as a slut is probably going to seriously harm their chances of marriage with a high-status guy.

Exactly. It's all Stone Age instinct. No prefrontal thinking at all.

The Red Pill is essentially a popularization of evolutionary psychology for the non-scientist.

People. life is a lot more simple, when you don't waste your energy, turning everything into a debate club.

Sex Robots will become mainstream ...

https://patrick.net/1305455/2017-04-28-thanks-to-worthless-bitches-like-kim-kardashian-sex-robots-will-eventually-trump-human-women

https://patrick.net/1301582/2017-01-18-the-end-according-to-rin

Once Sex Robots fulfill the needs of pretty much, 80+% of men, who don't give a rat's about what their sister or mother thinks of them, this entire thing will collapse.

Women will become lesbians, using strap-on dildos to pleasure each other, because they'll have no power to coerce men to do what they're told.

Rin, the voice of reason.

Rin says

Women will become lesbians, using strap-on dildos to pleasure each other, because they'll have no power to coerce men to do what they're told.

Why? Why not use Sex Robots too, who will do what they're told?

FP says

Why? Why not use Sex Robots too, who will do what they're told?

Women will be the last to succumb to the male (or female if they're half/half) Sex Robot because they'll spend at least one generation, asking for them to be banned while putting on some hoity-toity attitude for the popular press.

In the end, however, even women will want them

The Sex Robot will be the nicotine patch for boinking.

Rin says

The Sex Robot will be the nicotine patch for boinking.

maybe in a couple of generations boinking will not be necessary, if we can have artificial bodies

Dan8267 says

Oh yes, bring children into this because sex bots is all about objectifying children.

Hilarious, it's like ALL (read: greater than 80% of men) are pedophiles. Next time, I'll make sure that all my hoes are 5'2" or taller for fear that I'm accidentally banging a French-Canadian child, aged 28 or older.

What's really happening is that the Femi-Nazis' goose is cooked. They've gone out of their way to harass men and now, the roosters have come home to roost.