Lately a lot of regular commenters have been getting their comments thrown into the spam brig unnecessarily. Late yesterday I activated a script that will automatically remove messages from the spam bin within a minute of them being posted. If your comments do not show up after sending them, just wait a minute to see if they show up before sending me an email or trying to post another comment.
From that Clueless: Autism and the PUA Community article in 2014(that explains a lot of the ”prone to latching on to such black and white dichotomies” Derek has spoken of in the manosphere ).
https://kirstenlindsmith.com/2014/02/21/clueless-autism-and-the-pua-community/
An example that embodies both of these issues is one of the most common elements of PUA literature, as well as one of the most controversial: the “HB” rating scale.
Practical in concept, albeit fairly problematic for (hopefully) obvious reasons, large portions of PUA approach and connection techniques rely on on the context-dependent status of the targeted individual. Put simply, this means that if the aspiring PUA wants to approach and “pick up” a woman, his methods, and how she reacts to them, will depend on her social status.
Common sense, right?
This method becomes problematic because PUAs distill this complex, valid concept into a high school romcom style 1-10 rating scale, called the “HB” scale. “HB” stands for “Hot Babe” (yes, really).
In concept, an “HB5” is going to respond to a direct compliment differently from an “HB10.” This is true, when one keeps in mind that in theory the status described refers not only to physical appearance, but also to social standing, presentation, and context. A pretty girl dressed in a t-shirt and sweatpants, listening to her iPod on the bus, is going to respond to direct approach differently from that same girl in heels and a cocktail dress standing at the bar in a club. Yet not only does this scale inherently objectify women by reducing them to “HB”s, and implying that the whole of their presentation can be condensed to a number from 1 to 10, but this scale completely warps the individual PUA’s view of women.
Take, for example, this self-styled PUA’s explanation of the HB scale:
HB6: would be glad to get approached, feel flattered by a decent compliment
HB7: appreciates flattering attention, but it doesn’t make her day
HB8: probably only wants compliments/cold direct approaches from guys she already has interest in. Will turn down most approaches politely
HB9-10: Expects free drinks at bars, expects to be hit on, interprets men asking for directions on the street as hitting on her (and she’s usually right), might hold out all night, shooting down with sass every guy that approaches, then maybe go home with the guy who impressed her the most that night.
A naïve autistic man who struggles with cognitive empathy will have a hard time putting himself into the figurative shoes of these hypothetical woman, and may nod along with this description: “Ah, I get it! That makes perfect sense! I’m probably about a 5 or a 6, and I would definitely feel flattered if a stranger complimented me!” Even many neurotypical men often think this way; it’s the catch 22 of privilege. “Flattering attention is always appreciated,” seems like a logical conclusion to these people.
Men often have a hard time empathizing when women don’t appreciate such flattery because they do not live in a world where their physical appearance matters more than every other character trait they possess, where they are raised to believe “men only want one thing,” where that “one thing” is given a very weighty social value that can make or break a woman’s standing, and where she is taught from childhood that men can, and may, take this “one thing” from her through force.
A man perceives a compliment on his physical appearance as flattering, an indication of potential romantic interest, and a comment on a positive quality about himself. While a woman may perceive a compliment from an unknown man on her physical appearance as flattering, in many instances it simply serves as a reminder of things she’d rather not think about (or worse, she may be intimidated). In addition, these condensed scales often ignore context. An “HB6” walking on the sidewalk is not universally “glad to get approached” by a stranger looking to compliment her; she might be late to work, preoccupied with her day and not looking to ward off the potentially violent advances of a cat-caller. Men often seem to forget that women are raised in a world where they are taught from a young age that male sexuality is a violent, uncontrollable thing, and she has no way of knowing whether a compliment from a stranger is really “just” a compliment.
That description of the HB scale also brings to light the toxic view many PUAs have of beautiful, “high status” women.
This PUA’s description of an “HB9-10” woman is that of someone who not only is flirted with often, but also is incredibly entitled. She expects free drinks? She’s probably going to sass every guy that approaches her? The “women are bitches” trope is rampant in the PUA community. PUA literature in no uncertain terms reinforces the idea that beautiful, confident women are mean, selfish people. I can say with certainty that I know a great number of exceptionally beautiful, confident women of high social status who are also incredibly kind, polite, and conscientious. These women don’t sass guys who hit on them, and they don’t treat men like competing bucks and peacocks, “hold[ing] out all night” for the one bellowing alpha male who “impressed her the most.” Sure there are shallow, high status women out there, and there are plenty of normal girls who appreciate unprompted compliments from strangers, but PUA guides instill the message in their readers that all high status women are shallow, and all average, everyday women are desperate for male attention. And we all know that autistics are prone to latching on to such black and white dichotomies.
MOST PUA techniques were designed for bars and dance-nightclubs, and that easily explains ALL that is said above, yes?:
”HB9-10: Expects free drinks at bars, expects to be hit on, interprets men asking for directions on the street as hitting on her (and she’s usually right), might hold out all night, shooting down with sass every guy that approaches, then maybe go home with the guy who impressed her the most that night. ”
What else would that context imply, especially where it says ” expects free drinks at bars ”& ” then maybe go home with the guy who impressed her the most that night.”-where did all the thinking it could easily be used elsewhere?
Such as ”day-game” mainly come from-was it NOT MEN on the autism-aspergers-ocd spectrum who couldn’t stand ALL the people, light & LOUD noise of most bars/dance-nightclubs?
This led to such as this: https://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/j9okm5/is_daygame_a_waste_of_time_400_approaches_and_1/
Sorry, this post was deleted by the person who originally posted it.
quinnmcd
MOD
•
5y ago
•
Stickied comment
I absolutely hate posts like this. When your results are this bad then that means you are messing up with something basic and fundamental. Too many guys see cold approach as a game. “I say this and do this then dates will come” it doesn’t work like that. You can just spam approaching until it works. You need to focus on the quality of your interaction.
If you’re getting numbers and no text back then you’re not making a connection and you’re not doing something memorable. Again it’s the quality of the interaction that’s important. I used have the same results. Make approaches, gets numbers then get frustrated after she doesn’t text back. It wasn’t until a guy approached a friend of mine when I had my “oh that’s where I’m messing up moment.” A guy’s approached my friend and talk to her for 10 minutes (maybe longer) most of my approaches for barley 2 minutes. Once I started making my approaches (5 minutes) I got more replies back and dates. I had more time to show my personality, build interest and learn about her. I stopped going for her number just because I knew it could get it. You want girls to be excited to see you once the interaction is over.
Start making approaches with girls that give you IOIs. Girls that check you out, give eye contact or look and smile in your direction.
Write down your approaches and see what to Ed well and what goes back. Focus on your weak areas and turn them into strengths.
After 400 approaches you should be able to read body language, know which openers work the best and what type girls are most receptive. You should be learning after every approach and getting better.
Cold approach isn’t for everyone trying doing things to give you more opportunities. Try online dating, meeting girls through friends and meeting girls from your interests.
Most importantly always be trying to better yourself. Focus on your career and your happiness. Always be trying to get better. Read books aren’t about self improvement or pick up. Watch documentaries and movies. Find out other things that interest you and start new hobbies.
Best of luck to you dude.
norwegiandoggo
•
5y ago
•
Edited 5y ago
Just my personal experience with this “day game” thing.
Approaching 10 girls randomly each day is indeed something that never worked for me. I definitely moved away from this. It’s good to get rid of approach anxiety but that’s about it. Like you said, success rate is low. Keep in mind that when you see a video online of a dating coach getting a number, you don’t see the 50 women that blew him off. There’s also no video of the girls not replying to his messages afterwards.
What I found to work is to be much more picky as to who I approach. I only approach if I consider it to be a high chance of working. For example, the girl returns eye contact and smiles at me. Or she’s walking super slow with her friend downtown on a Friday night – clearly borred and looking for something to do. When I was single i would keep my eyes open to such golden opportunties and be ready to approach at a moment’s notice. And I would also try to connect eyes with and smile and every hot girl I saw to see if she would smile back. As a “test” before I even bother to approach
I might approach 2 girls per week this way, and I wouldn’t go out just to meet girls. I would just go about my daily life and if I happen to come across a good opportunity I would take it. My success rate with this approach was much closer to 50% than the 0.5% from random approaches.
Upvote
5
Downvote
Share
Share
u/Xavier501 avatar
Xavier501
•
5y ago
Great perspective. Yeah I understand the dating coaches not showing the failures, but they do show stats and by the very least they are getting far more dates then me (definitely more then 1 date for 400 approaches lol)
And thats what bothers me. I’ve gotten far enough to realise this is a numbers game and improving my skill actually isnt yielding me better results, cause after i got rid of AA and could conversate better, any improvement above that didnt yield any further results.
I think approaching over the top vs when i just begun in march with only doing like 5 per day for 5 days, had a negative impact on my psyche
I think I will just focus on going for 5 approaches per day, so that way I will stick to daygame but also not waste my time getting nowhere, and if nothing comes out of a number, oh well.
I truly believe this is a numbers game, daygame isnt mind control, if she isnt physically attracted, nothing will work
–
Contrary to what MOST autistics think,who can’t at all stand crowds,light and loud noise like Sheldon Cooper, most women are only ready to be ”picked up” at bars and danceclubs.
WHY else would the women who respond easily to PUA be going to them?
Main thing i don’t like people doing to Autistic boys?
Making them(especially) think that people want hugs from them and such.
What happens when they become teens & adults and then want a girlfriend or wife?
Maybe something similar to what happened with this autistic MAN concerning parking?
https://www.instagram.com/russl.co/reel/C8Z82gHPWc5/
Authentic Adult Autism Meltdown.
I’m not melting down simply because I couldn’t find parking. There’s MUCH more to it than that due to the intricacies of my autistic thought and functioning processes, which I describe in this video.
The way I think (i.e. my autism), gets in the way of my life quite often, and it is beyond frustrating when I am unable to do things I want to do.
My autism is severe. My meltdowns are common and they’re always devastating. I’m literally brought to my knees time and time again by my own devices.
Would anyone want that to happen to some autistic friend or family member they know?
i didn’t really understand how most autistic/aspergers/ocd MEN , expect everything to conform easily to their ”wants”, desires and requirements until i first watched an episode of Big Bang Theory in September 2011(when i could easily watch it in syndication every night) and saw Sheldon Cooper as guy in his twenties making that made Felix on Odd couple in the 70s & MONK on MONK look near normal in their demands of/on others.
The extreme of Sheldon’s autism-aspergers-ocd traits compared to other (at the time, i didn’t know they were MILD in comparison )ones i had seen did subtly shock me(it’s rare anything even barely shocks me).
Off-topic
Pseudonymous commenter Deti right here as guys like ANAKIN NICEGUY{(& GBFM prototype?)was too NICE as his name implied }:
thedeti says:
29 March, 2025 at 8:04 pm
I was too nice. Mostly because I was specifically taught and trained to be nice. Polite. Unassuming. Unquestioning. Compliant. Cooperative. Go along to get along. Affable. Friendly. Agreeable.
Turns out everyone uses, exploits, and takes advantage of you when you’re like that. Turns out you get nowhere when you cooperate. It doesn’t work when you’re trained for a high trust society premised on Churchian morals and you’re then sent out into a low trust society premised on no morals at all. It doesn’t work when you’re trained by paleoconservatives and then sent into a post-liberal, post-Christian society. (Conservatives are not conservative at all – the power structure are country clubbers who want economic frugality coupled with sexual license. Man did I learn that the hard way.)
You can’t get anywhere by following the rules. Nice guys finish last, and the above is why.
Liked by 3 people
The MAGESTIC & ENIGMATIC GBFM was one of those 3/three people who liked that comment.
thedeti says:
29 March, 2025 at 8:05 pm
I also had to destroy my marriage in order to save it. I had to get to the point of “I’m going to save myself. If that saves the marriage, so be it. If that kills the marriage, so be it.”
i can understand that pseudonymous commenter Deti had seen the MAGESTY & ENIGMATICNESS of THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN & s wanted their larger than life FREEDOM and tried his BEST doing it the way he thought he could.
IOW?
Pseudonymous commenter Deti knew the following words first spoken by actor Sean Connery were really about THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN AKA THE PRINCES OF THE UNIVERSE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HykXoTTgdQ
Highlander (intro 1986)
“From the dawn of time we came; moving silently down through the centuries, living many secret RP ® lives, struggling to reach the time of the GREAT Renaissance®; when the few GREAT MEN who remain to battle & debate to the last at Derek’s-a land/blog WE didn’t know existed until the end of the manosphere was upon us, no one has ever knew WE were among you until 2010.😉”
Can anyone blame Pseudonymous commenter Deti for wanting to be one of the GREATEST MEN in HISTORY(let alone one of the few GREAT MEN who remain to battle & debate to the last at Derek’s-a land/blog WE didn’t know existed until the end of the manosphere was upon us,”)?
THIS comment is for a particular GBFM friend (of some nearly 14 years, e.g., him knowing about Roissy & GBFM-the nicest of nice ”badboys”)out there who goes on and on and on about ”niceguys” and ”badboys”:
How To Increase Your Beta Male Margin Of Error
June 9, 2014 by CH
If you should understand one thing about niceguy beta male behavior, it’s this: A little goes a long way, especially if it’s opposed by an anti-beta force.
A lot of men are constitutional romantics, and enjoy lavishing pretty women with displays of beta piety. This is a dangerous compulsion to have, as such behavior left unchecked will sour a woman’s love more surely than it will earn her loyal affection.
So if it’s a compulsion you must indulge, you need to a) limit its scope and frequency and b) bracket instances of it with the general demeanor of its opposite; namely, alpha male conceit.
Commenter English Dude passes along a personal observation that illustrates how a man can afford a beta margin of error.
As daft as this is, [jerkboy entitlement] allows the meanest guys to be pretty beta, or completely braindead in other ways too.
Sat behind a couple on the bus the other day, the guy was one of the typical “arseholes” in my area, (average height, early 20s braindead, drug dealer, could hardly string a sentence together besides “U wanna fite? I’ll bang u out” sorta stuff), on the bus with his gf. She was pretty attractive, not as much to me but other people would consider her “hot” etc.
He’d obviously done something wrong as I saw him giving her a pink glittery “I’m sorry” card, curious I peeked over to see what was inside as she was holding it open while reading.
“To my dearest prettiest princess, I’m so so sorry for what I have dun and I promise I will never do it to u ever again
I luv u with all my heart and u will always be my princess forever if u will have me. Lots of luv [guy’s name] xxxxxxxxxxx”
Paraphrasing a bit there and I’m sure it had more “sorrys” and “princess” in that, but it almost made me feel sick at how wimpy it was heh. No idea what he’d done, probably cheated or something. She read it and looked a bit embarrassed but said ok and gave him a kiss on the cheek.
The next month I saw them still together, he was shouting at and hitting her (in public), as well as trying to fight anyone else in the vicinity. Seem them since too, still together..
I completely realise and understand that if I did something like that (not that I would), it would be shown off to ALL her friends (probably put on facebook too) to be laughed at, then I’d end up dumped the next day in whatever rottenest way she could conjure heh.
Sometimes you get trolls and/or knaves coming to this outpost of love to vociferously declaim anecdotes about this one guy they saw who “acted like a total beta pussboy yet still got the girl”. Of the ones who aren’t lying about what they saw, you can bet that a good many of these stories were observed by our intrepid beta defenders missing any vital context. They saw a man nauseatingly profess his love for his girlfriend, but they didn’t see all the other times he behaved more like the chav in English Dude’s slice of life above.
Without that crucial alpha male context, you can’t know that beta male antics are what got the girl.
Maybe then it won’t come as a surprise to know that it’s not uncommon for the most egregious beta male supplication to issue from the hardened husks of some really unsavory alpha males. That alpha male love is a wicked concoction of fury, caprice, selfishness, thoughtlessness, and occasional heady romantic abandon. It works, because beta ballads tend to be appreciated more by girls when they’re rare and unexpected events rather than daily rituals.
What about the opposite ratio? Are beta males who drop stealth alpha bombs attractive to girls? Well, they’re certainly more attractive than all beta-all the time autobots. But the vajmagic (it’s vagical!) doesn’t work quite the same way as majority alpha-minority beta. One, girls will more conspicuously forgive the incongruence of an alpha wolf donning beta wool than they will the incongruence of a beta boob slipping into an alpha push-up bra. The tuning fork of female desire vibrates primarily for “arseholes”, which means that if a beta male doesn’t evince some degree of alpha attitude during the opening salvos it’s probable that the girl’s asexual impression of him will solidify and close off any romantic avenues.
If you’re curious what an all beta-all the time autobot sounds like, here’s an animated confessional of a beta male orbiter with a chronic case of one-itis who started beta, stayed beta, and finished beta, tragically true to the beta male credo that predictability is the hobgoblin of emasculated minds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3hJbVTfj68
« Big MistakeEntitlement, Narcissism, Ambivalent Sexism: Choose Any Three »
How To Increase Your Beta Male Margin Of Error
June 9, 2014 by CH
If you should understand one thing about niceguy beta male behavior, it’s this: A little goes a long way, especially if it’s opposed by an anti-beta force.
A lot of men are constitutional romantics, and enjoy lavishing pretty women with displays of beta piety. This is a dangerous compulsion to have, as such behavior left unchecked will sour a woman’s love more surely than it will earn her loyal affection.
So if it’s a compulsion you must indulge, you need to a) limit its scope and frequency and b) bracket instances of it with the general demeanor of its opposite; namely, alpha male conceit.
Commenter English Dude passes along a personal observation that illustrates how a man can afford a beta margin of error.
As daft as this is, [jerkboy entitlement] allows the meanest guys to be pretty beta, or completely braindead in other ways too.
Sat behind a couple on the bus the other day, the guy was one of the typical “arseholes” in my area, (average height, early 20s braindead, drug dealer, could hardly string a sentence together besides “U wanna fite? I’ll bang u out” sorta stuff), on the bus with his gf. She was pretty attractive, not as much to me but other people would consider her “hot” etc.
He’d obviously done something wrong as I saw him giving her a pink glittery “I’m sorry” card, curious I peeked over to see what was inside as she was holding it open while reading.
“To my dearest prettiest princess, I’m so so sorry for what I have dun and I promise I will never do it to u ever again
I luv u with all my heart and u will always be my princess forever if u will have me. Lots of luv [guy’s name] xxxxxxxxxxx”
Paraphrasing a bit there and I’m sure it had more “sorrys” and “princess” in that, but it almost made me feel sick at how wimpy it was heh. No idea what he’d done, probably cheated or something. She read it and looked a bit embarrassed but said ok and gave him a kiss on the cheek.
The next month I saw them still together, he was shouting at and hitting her (in public), as well as trying to fight anyone else in the vicinity. Seem them since too, still together..
I completely realise and understand that if I did something like that (not that I would), it would be shown off to ALL her friends (probably put on facebook too) to be laughed at, then I’d end up dumped the next day in whatever rottenest way she could conjure heh.
Sometimes you get trolls and/or knaves coming to this outpost of love to vociferously declaim anecdotes about this one guy they saw who “acted like a total beta pussboy yet still got the girl”. Of the ones who aren’t lying about what they saw, you can bet that a good many of these stories were observed by our intrepid beta defenders missing any vital context. They saw a man nauseatingly profess his love for his girlfriend, but they didn’t see all the other times he behaved more like the chav in English Dude’s slice of life above.
Without that crucial alpha male context, you can’t know that beta male antics are what got the girl.
Maybe then it won’t come as a surprise to know that it’s not uncommon for the most egregious beta male supplication to issue from the hardened husks of some really unsavory alpha males. That alpha male love is a wicked concoction of fury, caprice, selfishness, thoughtlessness, and occasional heady romantic abandon. It works, because beta ballads tend to be appreciated more by girls when they’re rare and unexpected events rather than daily rituals.
What about the opposite ratio? Are beta males who drop stealth alpha bombs attractive to girls? Well, they’re certainly more attractive than all beta-all the time autobots. But the vajmagic (it’s vagical!) doesn’t work quite the same way as majority alpha-minority beta. One, girls will more conspicuously forgive the incongruence of an alpha wolf donning beta wool than they will the incongruence of a beta boob slipping into an alpha push-up bra. The tuning fork of female desire vibrates primarily for “arseholes”, which means that if a beta male doesn’t evince some degree of alpha attitude during the opening salvos it’s probable that the girl’s asexual impression of him will solidify and close off any romantic avenues.
If you’re curious what an all beta-all the time autobot sounds like, here’s an animated confessional of a beta male orbiter with a chronic case of one-itis who started beta, stayed beta, and finished beta, tragically true to the beta male credo that predictability is the hobgoblin of emasculated minds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3hJbVTfj68
Family Ties – Marry Me Mallory
{That wasn’t necessarily the video back then, but it fits the supposed ”bad boy” turned ”beta” stereotype}
You can increase your behavioral beta male margin of error by, in most ways and at most times, acting behaviorally alpha. The more alpha you are, the larger your beta margin of error when you backslide, intentionally or accidentally.
One thing you’ll observe about charismatic jerkboys… when they “go beta”, they do it differently than actual betas. Their sappy romanticism tends to be more self-centered and entitled — “you’ll always be my princess” “we’ll be together forever, and I’ll show you the end of the rainbow” — rather than pleading or appeasing. At the heart of the alpha’s (temporary) beta male capitulation is a throbbing male entitlement that chicks love.
Posted in Alpha, Beta, Game, Rules of Manhood | 194 Comments
194 Responses
Also, here is some bonus advice & commentary from GBFM(&asdgamer-who wanted to be an ”Alpha dancer” (as he hated MGTOWS & ”betas” in his heart*] even though he was autistic, as that is what the asd meant)in the comment section:
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)on June 9, 2014 at 1:50 pm
hey herateietstzte! heratstsruietetztz!!! da GBFM noticedz some spellingz errorz and went ahead and corrected demz zlzlzoozozozozoz :
One thing you’ll observe about charismatic jerkboys… when they “go beta”, they do it differently than actual betas. Their sappy romanticism tends to be more self-centered and entitled — “you’ll always be my bukkakekz princess” “we’ll be together forever or until i cumz on your facesz whichever cumz firtsz, and I’ll show you the end of my cockasz” — rather than pleading or appeasing. At the heart of the alpha’s (temporary) beta male capitulation is a throbbing male entitlement that chicks love.
zlozozozozolzo
theasdgamer on June 9, 2014 at 5:22 pm
I want one of the Great Checkbooks For Men that Bernazkelolz is giving away.
on June 9, 2014 at 5:58 pmGreat Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)on June 9, 2014 at 5:58 pm
zlzloozooz yaha datz would rozkasz!
(as he hated MGTOWS & ”betas” in his heart*]
*& before Derek asks for a citation:https://theasdgamer.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/is-mgtow-just-escapism/
Over at The Rational Male, Rollo Tomassi just posted “The Price of Nice“. His post examines two letters. One is by a beta nice guy to women complaining about how women treat nice guys and shaming women. The other is by a woman responding to the shaming and putting down betas. This post generated many comments by betas, especially MGTOWs. Most were blaming women and it started me thinking about why a man would choose MGTOW.
Betas are the primary victims of feminist propaganda. Of that there can be no doubt. Betas are demoralized by their failure in the mating pool. When they realize that they’ve been defrauded of sex because of hostile propaganda, they look for someone to blame. Naturally, they blame women. After all women get to have lots of sex with hot men. So, they are the culprits, right?
No, most women are oblivious to how men are propagandized. Women are also propagandized, though women aren’t hurt by it like betas are. And, of course, women fundamentally don’t understand men, because women are solipsistic. Women really only care about what directly impacts them and their children. And maybe their men, if their men are hot. Ok, I’m rambling a bit down an interesting path. But it’s needed to support my main point. Women don’t understand men feeling betrayed. It’s an idealism thing. Men are idealistic and women are solipsistic. Because men are idealistic, we feel betrayal differently than women do. It hits our ego hard and tests our frame. Betrayal is an attack on our self-respect as well as breaking trust. Men want to strike back to restore our self-respect. And betas see women as the beneficiaries and conclude that women betrayed them. Of course, most women are propagandized like men, so most women aren’t the ones who consciously propagandized men. After all, there are plenty of men who are White Knights and/or feminists who spread propaganda which hurts betas. Lots of men do this. Likely the majority of men. So blaming women is foolish. Blaming and looking to strike back is foolish even though it feels right to betas.
& GBFMS particular GBFM friend (of some nearly 14 years, e.g., him knowing about Roissy & GBFM-the nicest of nice ”badboys”)out there who goes on and on and on about ”niceguys” and ”badboys”said NOT 1/one word in defense of ”niceguys”, ”betas” nor ”MGTOWS” on that post!
WHY!!!???
GBFMS particular GBFM friend is NOW making GBFMS case for defending ”niceguys” and ”badboys”!
thedeti says:
31 March, 2025 at 2:23 pm
The best explanation I’ve seen on why everyone hammers on boys to “be nice” is because “nice” and “considerate” and “thoughtful” are the behaviors women want from men they’re sexually attracted to and men they fux. Women really like fuxxing those hot men, and they want those hot men to be nice to them; to treat them with kindness and consideration.
A hot man is an “a-hole” when he doesn’t take her wants and needs into consideration or doesn’t do what he says he’ll do. Or when he won’t give her the relationship she claimed to want.
Women will also use the term “respect”. Women want unattractive men to “respect” them. Translated, that means women want unattractive men to stay away from them unless the women want or need something; do whatever those women tell them to do; and spend money on them and do favors for them.
When a woman is dating a man she’s kind of “meh” about, she will go on and on about how she expects him to “respect” her and “be respectful”. By that, she means he is to cede all control over the sex part of the relationship to her; by which she can use sex to manipulate him.
Note how women never, ever want good looking, sexually attractive men to “respect” them, BUT as KISS said and sang in ’85 to ”Uh! All Night” as I quote & they wrote”
[Chorus]
Well, we work all day
And we don’t know why
Well, there’s just one thing that money can’t buy
When your body’s been starved
Feed your appetite
When you work all day, you gotta Uh! all night
Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, whoo
[Verse 2]
Take me to the jungle, honey
We’re living in a human zoo
Getcha turning tricks for money
I’d rather roll around with you
‘Cause when the waiting is over
I come a-running to you
I got the whole night to show you
I get excited, I’m so excited
Ooh, let me hear you
Uh, right, uh, uh, uh, yeah
[Chorus]
(Well, we work all day)
(And we don’t know why)
(Well, there’s just one thing that money can’t buy)
(When your body’s been starved)
(Feed your appetite)
(When you work all day, you gotta) Uh
with them gently and romantically like Roissy & GBFM use to much more politely say back in Da day!
They love the “disrespect”=”Uh! All Night” they get from hot men like Roissy & GBFM. It’s just that women want hot men to be “nice”=all night to them (see above).
The Satanic feminist movement had always been about sex, it is just that back between the 1850s to the early 1880’s they had to wear Amish-like clothing to keep their cravings mostly unnoticed. For more proof, read this https://www.mappingwomenssuffrage.org.uk/post/sex-suffrage
From the campaign against the Contagious Diseases Acts in the 1870s and 1880s onwards, British feminists have been talking about sex. This conversation was primarily about ways to protect women from undesired sex and of preventing men acting out their undesirable sexual advances.
‘In or about December, 1910, human character changed’, wrote Virginia Woolf in her essay ‘Character in Fiction’ (1924), as a moment of social evolution. Before and long after this date, the women’s movement had been involved in long discussions about relationships, from free love to chastity. Marriage was another topic: the ideal state for some but legalised slavery for others. Then there was the question of men – were they allies or brutes?
The suffrage campaigner, Elizabeth Wolstenholme, lived with Ben Elmy and only married when she became pregnant in 1874.[1] She made a significant contribution to feminist ideas on sexuality through her books and articles. In The Human Flower (1892), a book for older children, Elizabeth described the plight of the married woman in relation to sex and reproduction, giving the idea of a woman’s right to choose:
Seeing the still existent unjust social conditions, legal or social, in marriage and noting the misery so frequently the lot of the wife – too usually led or left to accept marriage ignorant of the actual incidents of matrimony which, unless of reciprocal impulse, may prove repugnant and intolerable to her; involving moreover the sufferings and dangers of repeated and undesired childbearing….the functions of wifehood and motherhood must remain solely and entirely within the wife’s own option.[2]
In Baby Buds (1895), Elizabeth explained relationships for a younger audience:
We found in talking and writing to one another that our thoughts and desires and general wishes were so much the same, that we began to love each other. So at last we resolved to marry – that is to live together for the sake of our sweet companionship and also to more readily do our duty as tender parents, to any dear little child which our love might cause and bring to life.[3]
The overall message of Elizabeth’s writings was the removal of couverture and right of the woman to control her own body, which comes across powerfully in her poem Woman Free (1893):
For but a slave himself [man] must ever be / Till she to shape her own career be free / Free from all uninvited touch of man / Free mistress of her person’s sacred plan.[4]
The composer, Elisabeth Lutyens, described her mother’s ignorance about marriage at the beginning of an oral history conducted by Brian Harrison in the 1970s.[5] Emily, daughter of the Earl of Lytton and Viceroy of India, married Edwin Lutyens in 1897, when his career as an architect was just beginning. Emily had little idea about what married life entailed beyond the chilling advice of her mother who told her never to refuse her husband and to always keep a pot of cold cream near at hand. Ned wrote to Emily: ‘I am so unhappy to think that my selfishness may have been causing you pain. Teach me to pray, even as my mother used to teach me, teach me to have control.’[6] As Elisabeth Lutyens explained in an oral history about her mother, it was not the thing for women to take pleasure in sex. After the birth of Emily’s third child in 1904, she asked Ned: ‘I want more of you, not your body, but your soul and intellect.’[7] In trying to fill this void, Emily first became involved with the Moral Education League and then the suffrage movement, initially through Mrs Pethick Lawrence (Ned designed The Dutch House at Holmwood in Surrey in 1901-1904), and then through her sisters, Constance Lytton and Betty Balfour.[8] Emily did sit on the Executive Committee of the London Society of Women’s Suffrage. However, it was theosophy that brought Emily the fulfilment that her marriage had failed to do.[9] By the start of the First World War, Emily wrote: ‘…if our love is to continue it can only be on my side by the severance of our physical relationship…I have suffered intensely physically during all my married life….I believe and hold firmly that a woman has the right over her own body. Where she gives it willingly the relationship is beautiful – where she gives it because she must it becomes prostitution whether in or out of marriage and is degradation.’[10]
Ideas of ‘sexual excess’ and ‘continence’ can also be found in feminist writings. Frances Swiney, President of the Cheltenham Women’s Suffrage Society from 1903 and a theosophist, took these ideas to create her own unique brand of theosophy.[11] Beginning in 1899 with The Awakening of Women, or Woman’s Part in Evolution, Frances argued for the biological superiority of women, saying man was “a waste product of Nature.”[12] She explained how women’s oppression was due to her sexual subjugation to men and how “women, to their lasting shame, have pandered to men’s passions, instead of controlling them.”[13] Instead, women could be free from men’s ‘sexual excess’ through the natural law of ‘continence’ and the natural law of reproduction. Frances promoted these ideas through the League of Isis which she founded in 1907. In her pamphlet The Bar of Isis or the law of the mother, Frances proclaimed that there should be no sex during gestation or lactation. Moreover, women should not bear more than three or four children and, as “the most highly evolved organism”, she should have at least four to six years between each child.[14] In this way, Frances believed that “with the natural restrictions placed on sexual relations, she is gradually teaching man self-respect, self-reverence, self-control and the exercise of a love that worketh no evil.”[15] Frances, herself, produced six children in quick succession.
The journal The Freewoman devoted much copy to the topic of sex, particularly in its correspondence pages.[18] The journal was founded by Dora Marsden, along with Mary Gawthorpe, who had both been part of the Manchester suffragette group.[19] The Freewoman was a short-lived journal with its first issue appearing in November 1911, and the last in October 1912. The paper reappeared in 1913 as The New Freewoman, a literary journal, folding a year later to come back as The Egoist, edited by Erza Pound.[20] For many of the writers in The Freewoman, there was more to reproduction alone. As a letter from ‘a grandmother’ stated: ‘In these modern discussions on sex people are too apt to focus attention on parenthood, and to forgot the more important aspect of the question, the human passion of love…’[21] She also separated the ‘love problem’ as ‘human and spiritual’ from the ‘parenthood problem’ which was ‘the animal prosaic side’ of sex.[22]
Urania, a journal privately printed from 1916 to 1940, sought to challenge gender norms.[23] Its founder Eva Gore-Booth, and her partner, Esther Roper, were involved in suffrage movement, and together with Thomas Baty, formed the Aethnic Union in 1911, a feminist revolutionary group. In Urania, the group brought together hidden stories of lesbians, transsexuals, cross-dressers and of intersexuality. The journal’s mission was to convey ‘sex is an accident’, the phrase credited to Eva Gore-Booth. Urania presented numerous articles on gender passing: women who ‘disguised’ themselves as men or vice versa. Into the 1930s, Urania devoted space to stories about individuals who underwent surgical sex changes.[24] Like other feminists, Urania argued for the rejection of marriage.
‘In or about December, 1910, human character changed’
NOW see why GBFM ZLOLZLOLZZZLOLLZZ so much!??
Ideas of ‘sexual excess’ and ‘continence’ can also be found in feminist writings.
Moreover, women should not bear more than three or four children and, as “the most highly evolved organism”, she should have at least four to six years between each child.[14] In this way, Frances believed that “with the natural restrictions placed on sexual relations, she is gradually teaching man self-respect, self-reverence, self-control and the exercise of a love that worketh no evil.”[15] Frances, herself, produced six children in quick succession.
Still think(like the supposed manosphere who NEVER even attempts to tell Trump and Musk to do it ”the LORDS WAY”-out of fear of disobeying their wives & GAE overlords that OWN Trump & Musk* )the ”evilz of feminism” didn’t come before the 1960s?
the supposed manosphere who NEVER even attempts to tell Trump and Musk to do it ”the LORDS WAY”-out of fear of disobeying their wives & GAE overlords that OWN Trump & Musk*
* https://henrymakow.com/2025/02/feb-9—thank-god-for-trump-mu.html
If it weren’t for Zionist (Fascist) Jews like Trump and Musk,
Commie Jews like Soros would loot the US Treasury forever.
The USAID Scam EXPOSED: Over $1 BILLION for Holocaust Studies and Israeli Universities
EX-USAID CHIEF SAMANTHA POWER’S NET WORTH SKYROCKETS–FROM $6.7M TO $30M ON A $180K SALARY
Samantha Power, Biden’s ex-USAID chief, saw her wealth explode while earning just $180K per year.
Where did the extra $23.3M come from? And all of this in just 3 years! USAID oversees billions in global funding- was she cashing in?
Is the supposed ”conservative” manosphere, FOX, or NEWSMAX telling you the above?
If it weren’t for Zionist (Fascist) Jews like Trump and Musk,
Commie Jews like Soros would loot the US Treasury forever.
That as GBFMS friend GUNNERQ has been also saying, sounds possible, yes?
“I’m beginning to think I’ve been duped.”
This isn’t what the so-called RP geniuses will claim if 2029 comes and ALL of Trump & Musk’s efforts don’t live up to their self-induced ideals of who and what Trump & Musk are doing doesn’t match their imagined ideals of them?
https://letterandliturgy.wordpress.com/2021/02/01/im-beginning-to-think-ive-been-duped/
A post-Christian culture cannot own up to mistakes. It can only blame-shift to survive.
That above isn’t TRUE??
To me the entire story of America and COVID-19 is such a densely fogged event that I honestly don’t know how we’ll ever learn anything from it. I’m not sure how you extract meaningful lessons from a disaster about which there is almost no uniformed agreement: whether regarding causes, or Who Was to Blame, or how to respond, or even what the accursed virus even is! I am, however, coming around to one conclusion. I’m starting to believe that at some point in this whole saga at least 50% of the information that politicians, pundits, and even health officials were operating on was incorrect. As the virus and its suffocating political and cultural effects linger far longer than most of us ever thought we or the nation could endure, it’s becoming clearer that important people with their hands on important levers have been getting important questions wrong.
This should not be a particularly scandalous thing to say. People get stuff wrong all the time, and important people with official channels are not less human than the rest. I don’t even think it’s particularly important or relevant that, say, the CDC was wrong about masks, or that WHO was wrong about the nature of the epidemic. Yes, those blunders had consequences. But what relevance do those mistakes have now? No amount of recriminations can undo loss of life or livelihood. Excepting those who may have intentionally misled the world for some kind of gain, I don’t see the point of making COVID “about” the people or institutions or governments that got stuff wrong.
But I’m starting to realize that increasingly few people agree with me. To say, “I don’t think it matters that [group X] got this wrong” is to be met immediately with incredulity, perhaps even suspicions of malice. It seems to me that we’re losing, as a culture, the category of error, and we are replacing it by greatly expanding the category of malevolence. In the political and social context of today, nobody is just wrong. To be wrong is “actually” to be ignorant, or naive, or untrustworthy, or unqualified, or just plain wicked. It seems like just about everyone is operating under the assumption that meaningful errors are too implausible to be honest, and people who make them are too smart/elite to have made them sincerely.
This isn’t also TRUE??