Female Fertility and Age: Feminist Propaganda vs Biology

There was an anonymous comment on my article Why should it be "creepy" if an older guy takes a young woman?, and since it's an important issue, I thought it's better to reply to the following extensively in a separate blog post in order to not clutter up the conversation on this site too much:

I can't help but feel like this sounds a bit like Roosh and the manosphere's "cock carousel" obsession, and the idea that women are "used-up" by 25. Correct me on the difference if I'm wrong.

I don't quite see the connection to the cock carousel hypothesis of the manosphere, which I have previously covered anyway. However, that older single women are desperate is hard to deny. Well, maybe that's not the case if you take their immature chest-puffing like "and man should be happy to get me" and "mature women are more attractive than younger ones" seriously. But let's forget about political correctness and all that stuff for a while and look at reality.

Fact is that a woman's fertility declines rapidly throughout her 20s. This has nothing to do with the "patriarchy", alleged societal oppression or misogyny. It is simply a fact of life. I'm not too fond of explanations from evolutionary psychology, but I see good reasons why men would prefer, given the choice, to have a younger partner. You're just more likely to have children with her than with a 35 year-old. Therefore, I tempted to think that this explains why men are attracted to young women.

However, feminism happened and with it the systematic indoctrination of women, leading to questionable beliefs such as that she'll be as fertile in her 30s as in her 20s, that she'll be attractive to men basically all her life long, or that it's easy even for 40 year olds to have kids. I've even heard that it was a "lie" that a woman's fertility peaks in her early 20s. But let's just assume you're a feminist who is more interested in facts than ideology, however unlikely that combination may be. Maybe you figure out that typing "age and female fertility" into your favorite search engine is a good starting point.

Shall we have a look at what I found?

There is a good summary on Wikipedia, but I also checked out Babycentre.co.uk. They have a few dozen medical advisors, so they probably don't make stuff up. For starters, their "Your Age and Fertility" page lists some heavy-hitting questions such as, "Does my age affect my fertility?".

Yes, Virginia, it really does. Seriously, what does it say about our educational system when women doubt that. Well, in some corners of this planet "intelligent design" is taught as some kind of alternative to evolution, so you can't just blame the kids. The answer to that question from that site is:

Yes. Fertility starts to decline for women from about the age of 30, dropping down more steeply from the age of 35. As women grow older the likelihood of getting pregnant falls while the likelihood of infertility rises.  

(...) 

The average age at which women have in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment in the UK is rising. This reflects the increase in infertility due to age. However, the success rates of IVF treatment for women over 40 using their own eggs are low, and have not increased much over the past decade.  

From a purely biological perspective, it's best to try to start a family before you're 35 years old.

They even provide a nice chart:

It was adorned by the sad comment, "How do you get your wife to stop blaming you for why she can't get pregnant when none of us has seen a doctor?"


The next question seems superfluous to me, but maybe you have to spell things out for people who don't believe in all that science-stuff:

Will it take longer to conceive as I get older?

Your chance of conceiving quickly does depend on your age. Women are most fertile between the ages of 20 and 24. It can take much longer to get pregnant when you hit your late 30s or early 40s. You may have problems conceiving at all. 

This kind of hand-wringing makes me sick. No, it's not the case that it "can take much longer", but that she can expect that it will take much longer, and that her chances of getting pregnant are dramatically lowered. No, that one of your friends managed to get pregnant at her alleged first try when she was 35 does not prove the contrary.

Then we move on to, "Why does fertility decline so rapidly?":

The two most common causes of female infertility are ovulation problems and blockages to the fallopian tubes as a result of infection.  

Ovulation problems can happen as you get older because: 

You have fewer good quality eggs left, making it more difficult to conceive. Your number of eggs (ovarian reserve) declines with age. You can buy a kit to test for ovarian reserve. These tests can only tell you about the quantity of eggs, not the quality. 

A few women (one per cent) go through the menopause earlier than usual, and stop ovulating before they reach the age of 40. 

Your periods may become irregular. As you approach menopause your periods may become fewer and further between, making ovulation increasingly irregular too.

There is also a note that, for instance, untreated chlamydia may make pregnancy impossible. Well, thankfully all women only have sex in committed relationships, and take good care of their health, so this is nothing anybody would have to worry about, isn't it, girls?

However, let's contrast this healthy does of realism with what you find in the mainstream media. Here's a quote from a recent article in the Wall Street Journal:

It's a touchy topic: broaching the issue of having children. But OB-GYNs say they are increasingly making it as routine as asking about contraception during annual visits. They are educating patients about fertility rates, which gradually begin to decline around age 32 and then rapidly decline after age 37. And they are discussing the risks of miscarriage and chromosomal abnormalities, which increase at age 35 and above.

Maybe it's irrelevant, but the author of the article happened to be a woman. This might explain the factual inaccuracy that female fertility will "gradually begin to decline at 32". Is it too much to look up some scientific facts instead of repeating feminist disinformation? It's not quite clear what in the article is supposed to be an indirect quote from the doctors, and what she has added herself. However, the subordinate clause implies that she has added that part herself instead of merely reporting.

What's quite sad is that this quote is from an an article with the promising headline "More Doctors Broach Delicate Topic of Women's Age and Fertility Rate". As it turned out, the goal was to write about a different kind of stupid:

I've had, like, a 42-year-old say, 'Why aren't I getting pregnant?,' " Dr. Auguste says. "I say, 'I'm sorry, it's the science. At 42 you have fewer eggs and older eggs than a 28-year-old. At this point you really need to speak with an infertility specialist.' " Dr. Auguste says some patients get hostile and don't believe her; she usually doesn't see those patients again.

I guess that women lose control and throw a tantrum is just another one of those myths spread by the patriarchy. As a contrast to the harmful information in the article, I was glad to see that at least some of the commenters things as they were. The top comment was by a poster with a female name:

If the hand-wringing feminists on here really want to help women, they should spread the word about fertility and age. I know hard facts are a bit foreign and scary to your ears, but what could be more useful to a woman who thinks she has forever to have a baby?

Some guy chimed in:

There is no woman who at 30 years of age has not had multiple men attempt to court them for marriage. In generations past, women respected such advances and married before they reached 30. Now in urban centers women of our upper classes are deluded -- often through their own sexual escapades with men that would not commit to them -- into thinking that they deserve better. 

The problem is not the absence of worthy men or "career." The problem is that our women are spending too much time partying, taking pole-dancing lessons (yes, really), taking exotic vacations and overall focusing on themselves. 

When most of our mothers were changing our diapers and driving us to elementary school, our finest young women are out drinking and fornicating with men than use them for short-term gratification. It is really shameful. 

Career? Education? Hogwash. For the vast majority of women, it's emulating Sarah Parker and her girlfriends on TV and searching for their own personal George Clooney.

When I hear a 30 year old woman complain about a lack of a partner or read stories about some 35 year old that can't get pregnant, I can't help but think that this is just a variation of the common "I screwed up, now you go fix it" mindset of a generation that has a strong sense of entitlement and no idea of the concept of personal responsibility. Seriously, Virginia, if you're 35 and without a man, it's not society's duty to fix that. You surely had men in your league approaching you, yet none was ever good enough. So, deal with the consequences --- or pray that you'll get some manginas who bought into the "marry a woman your age" propaganda.

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

Read More

Why should it be "creepy" if an older guy takes a young woman?

Alek Novy occasionally speaks of the "pussy cartel", i.e. a set of loosely enforced behavioral rules for women to make sure that the price of sex remains high through artificially limiting supply. Don't let the economics jargon scare you off. It'll all become clear in a moment. One example is "slut shaming". If women were generally less discriminating about whom to have sex with, a lot of men would not even bother getting into a relationships. From this you shouldn't deduce that I think that relationships are just about having sex. However, there are plenty of guys for whom sex only happens in relationships. Some are so pussy-whipped that they become the girl's boyfriend without getting much sex at all. They are happy if she's putting out once every three months. It's great for the girl's ego, but the guy should feel like a loser.

In a world where all girls are promiscuous you would see a much smaller number of couples. Women have to look out after another, though, and if they manage to convince a large enough number among them to only have sex in committed relationships, which used to mean "marriage", while being supported by mainstream media bullshit such as the myth that sex is the most incredible thing on earth, then they surely manage to reel in enough suckers. However, to keep things in order, they may also want to ensure that men and women who pair up have roughly the same age. Otherwise, women around 30 would have to compete with women who are ten years younger, and it doesn't take much imagination to picture how that would end. So, what better way than to "creep shame" guys and telling them that they have to take a woman their own age, and that they should also consider women who are older than them? To make women who realize that their looks are waning feel less secure just spread articles like "7 Reasons Why You Should Want to Date an Older Woman":

Dating an older woman is quite the rage these days. As a woman over 35, I’ve never felt more desired by men in their late 20s and early 30s than I do now—moreso even than when I was that age. So if you’re only seeking women in the 21-29 age range, let me tell you, you’re missing out. Big time. 

Why are men so keen on dating more mature ladies? Pay no attention to the ol’ elbow-jabbing, wink-wink idea that cougars are “more likely to put out and pay for everything.” Meh, that may be a reason a naïve man attempts to score with an older lady, but it’s hardly the reason a smart man enters a relationship with one.

I don't think I need to add a comment to that.

Women don't like strong competition much. They are fully aware of the fact that they're aging, which is why they panic if they are still single at 30, or why they decide that they shall turn 27 five years in a row. Actually, I know guys who thought they were dating a woman that was roughly their age. In one case, it took the dude a year to find out that his girlfriend was actually seven years older than him. He said he had some doubt but didn't want to be too obtrusive. In good old mangina fashion he called me an asshole for pointing out that, if anything, this should teach him that his girlfriend is deceitful, has a seriously flawed character, and that he should have dumped her the moment he found out about her lie.

Imagine you lived in a world in which the more attractive men wanted to keep their options open and eventually settled for a much younger woman. They would go through a lot of women in their 20s. The women in their late 20s they meet may push for a relationship, but the guys just aren't interested. Eventually, they may take a much younger girlfriend or wife. However, in the big picture this means that the young woman has gotten a guy that should, according to feminists, have been paired up with a woman his own age. With one more guy her age gone, that woman may now have to settle for a cat instead. Thus, there are cries that "there are no good men left".

In an attempt to manipulate male behavior and shame them into marrying women their age, they get told that it is "creepy" if they lust after young girls. There are also plenty of young girls who like more mature guys, so you've got to tell them too that this is "creepy", too. Sorry, horny young coed, you can't fuck your tutor because it's bad for the pussy cartel!

This leads me to a comment an anonymous reader made on my last article:

There is so much pro-feminist indoctrination in the West that even men will choose more "age-appropriate" women because they've been told, over and over again until they start to believe it, that it's "creepy/weird/gross" to date younger women. Most guys think their biology is wrong.

That's the big problem with feminists: they seem to think that biology is just some kind of construct and if they just try hard enough, they'll be able to change it. I once heard some whacko, an alleged "superstar professor" in the humanities, refer to physics as "the story of matter", biology as "the story of life", and history as "the story of humanity". Of course, if everything is just a fucking "story" to you and you believe it, then you might also believe that you can just tell a different story. To some extent this works in history, but good luck with that in physics. You can't argue with nature. It's probably easier to create an artificial womb than to fix the genetic disposition of men to prefer young, attractive women over older ones who are close to being infertile.

On a related note, think of all the "man up" bullshit! No, you don't have to marry some older woman in order to fulfill your male duty, or show some kind of gender solidarity, or to do penance for all the "male privilege" you've been enjoying all your life. I certainly never heard of any "women up" appeals according to which hot coeds were encouraged to suck off the unattractive "nerds", so why should the former nerds, now with stable finances, take a 35 year-old gold digger as a partner when they can have a 25 year-old gold digger instead?

If you think I'm paranoid and only dream up some kind of feminist conspiracy, I'll direct you to Hugo Schwyzer --- the mentally ill gender studies professor who faked his way into a teaching position for which he had no credentials, who attempted to murder a former partner, and who recently had a breakdown on Twitter telling the whole world what a fraud he is. In the Atlantic, he wrote that "everybody, of all ages and gender" would benefit if men would date women their age. Here is an excerpt:

A man in his 40s who wants to date women in their 20s is making the same calculation as the man who pursues a "mail-order bride" from a country with less egalitarian values. It's about the mistaken assumption that younger women will be more malleable. Men who chase younger women aren't eroticizing firmer flesh as much as they are a pre-feminist fantasy of a partner who is endlessly starry-eyed and appreciative. The dead giveaway comes when you ask middle-aged men why they prefer to date younger; almost invariably, you'll hear complaints that their female peers are too entitled, too embittered, too feminist. 

One of the basic rules of tennis applies here: If you want to improve your skills, you need to play someone who is (at a minimum) at your own level. As sophisticated as a 20-something may be, she will be more so—with a more exquisite bullshit detector—in her 40s. When older men date much younger women, they cheat themselves out of an opportunity to be matched with a partner with the maturity to see them as they really are. Depression, the research shows, peaks for men in their mid-to-late 40s. In the face of statistics like those, middle-aged men can't afford to choose partners who lack the life experience to provide the right kind of challenge.

Does anyone care to pick out the faulty logic and hasty conclusions? I had a few, less than a handful, of experiences with women who were roughly my age or older, and I got rid of them as quickly as possible, and those encounters also taught me to just avoid them altogether. The only benefit is that they are desperate to get laid, but that's about it.

I realized that I wasn't cheating myself out of an opportunity to be matched with a partner with the maturity to see them as they really are, as Hugo Schwyzer put it. Instead, I realized that older single women all seemed to have a few screws lose, and not just because of their panic that they won't find a husband. They are not only older and less attractive. No, even worse is that they bring a staggering amount of emotional baggage with her. In addition they are neither more stable nor more mature than many women who are significantly younger. However, the icing on the cake is that they all had constructed the most absurd theories about men and dating, and about how things are supposed to go. You guessed it, move in as soon as possible, don't use protection, and please, please, please marry her. Just run, ideally into the arms of a woman who is much younger than you are, because that's what biology tells you (and her) to do anyway. It's not creepy just because feminists say so. It's nature.

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

Read More

The Biggest Dating Mistake Women Make

I've written a lot about dating from a male perspective, but there are a few phenomena in female behavior that deserve some attention, too. Let's start with what might be the biggest dating mistake women make. No, this is not some kind of hyperbole, this stuff really wrecks women's lives. So, what might that be? Well, read on!


Especially better-looking women are used to having many suitors. There is always some "creep" who wants to help them with this and that, and sometimes it's quite convenient to have a couple of losers on call. For an anecdote, I'd like to tell you about some chick I used to hang out with in Berlin (one of those who pretended that they were interested in my personality but only pined after my cock). She told me she was about to move the following weekend, so I immediately told her that I'm busy --- because I'm not going to waste an afternoon carrying boxes full of trinkets around for some chick I barely know. She then said that she wasn't even going to ask whether I would help her but just wanted to let me know that she won't be free then. As it turned out, she had two or three guys who where all too eager to help her.

To some of you this strategy surely sounds familiar: being the little errand boy for some woman you're interested in and hoping that this will somehow lead to some kind of tangible reward like, I don't know, blow jobs for helping them move. Not even porn has plots that stupid, though. This is the loser strategy of dating. Those guys unintentionally make the girl feel oh-so desired and believe that they are plenty of men out there to chose from.

Life isn't always fair, though, so the guys she really fancies always seem to avoid her. Maybe that's because they'd rather bang some hotter chick. You can already see that this leads to a big problem. Not wanting to settle for any of the losers that are interested in her she hopes that by divine intervention some prince will show up and sweep her off her feet. A variation of this theme are easy girls who fuck around when they are younger and think that there is no end to this. I guess it's easy to feel like that if you're 20 and all you have to do is wait until a guy that meets your criteria hits on you.

Fast forward a few years, and those girls will realize that they suddenly are "like totally" close to 30. Either they didn't have much experience with guys, or too much but neglected their personality. What happens then is a state of panic. Knowing that their eggs will soon dry up, they try to cling on to any guy they meet. If you're an inexperienced 20 year-old and wonder what it takes to get a girlfriend or for a girl to move in with you, here's your answer: either fall in love head over heels with a girl your age, or meet a woman who is around 30. She may be crazy enough to want you move in after one night, or trick you into impregnating her.

If you think I'm making this up, I suggest you open your eyes. It's quite common for girls to "accidentally" get pregnant because they conveniently forgot to take the pill, or simply lie to you and say that they are on the pill when they aren't. The laws are designed to protect the woman, so it doesn't matter that she deceived you. You're on the hook for two decades of child support, and helping her to fulfill her dream of being a mother and finally having a purpose in life. The socially more acceptable variant of this is that the girl is seeing some guy and in order to solidify the relationship she happens gets pregnant. I've seen this happen with people I know quite a bit.

But let's pay some attention to the girls that don't manage to get a guy through whatever means. Let's say she is now 27 and has either been single or "single" and seen a few guys here and there. She's now older and realizes that there aren't so many guys coming on to her anymore, and that she's starting to feel out of place when she's going out. The hot guys who don't want to settle down just moved on to younger versions of her, and there isn't much she can do about it --- and many of her friends are starting to get married and/or having kids. This is reason enough for her to panic.

What is she supposed to do then? Not having thought ahead when she was younger, she never realized that guys probably won't marry her after just a week or two. It may take a good two to three years, at least according to eHarmony:

Currently I co-run a longitudinal study of marriage and family development, started in 2008 and ongoing, and the answers couples gave me about their engagement ranged from several months to several years.  On average, the couples in my study decided to marry 2.8 years after they first showed romantic interest (many couples knew each other before they dated, but that isn’t counted).  

Well, it takes about three years in the case that the guy actually wants to settle down and marry. Say, Jane is 29 and desperate to find a guy. It's her lucky day, and she meets Prince Charming the very next day. She can now expect to be married when she's 32. However, let's be a bit more realistic and assume that the guy she met has options. Maybe he met Jane who is 29, but he also knows Jill who is 22. Just based on her age alone, Jane will have a hard time to compete with Jill. Consequently, the guy dumps her, and might end up marrying Jill three years later.

Jane is single again and will have to learn that her time will just tick away. The older she gets the harder it will be for her to get a decent guy. In the end she may just have to settle for some dude she barely feels attracted to. Her biological clock it ticking, after all. This happens all the time, but it's probably not what she had in mind. She'll also find it difficult to have children, just like Western women in general who were indoctrinated by feminist ideologies instead of paying attention in biology. This might deserve another post, but many women seem to be oblivious of the fact that female fertility peaks in the early 20s.

The upshot is that time is a precious commodity for women. She will need a few years to just find a guy she likes enough to contemplate marriage, and finding someone to settle down with isn't all that easy either. It takes time to figure out whether you want to live with someone. If a girl is smart about it she'll start looking for a suitable guy in her early 20s, if not sooner. If she's not, she risks getting into a very uncomfortable position as she gets older. If things don't work out, she may become yet another 40 year old cat lady.

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

Read More

How Female Ambiguity Promotes PUA and Poor Dating Advice

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

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


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

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

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

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

Read More

The Ambiguous Signals of Women

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

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.

Read More

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!

Read More