A Guy's Guide to Not Being a Creep (By a Girl)

Thanks for the advice Ali, So, I was wondering if you would like to spend the weekend with me on my dads yacht... Just the two of us *wink wink* let me know. I'll call you tomorrow. If you don't answer I send you an email! ok? cheers.

Can you send this in a mass memo to every guy I know? Great, thanks.

Ok, so let me see if I have this straight:

Women are nondeterministic and irrational, and we pretty much have to just put up with it, or go gay.

And women a) claim not to have any power in the world, anb b) are surprised... no. I'm not even going to mention this one, as it will get me unfairly consigned to the creep basket.

If indeed, replying at all hasn't.

Happily, I don't especially care.

This post is such a great example of what women think they want. turns out, what they actually want is another story

it's pretty clear who the creeps are. if you guys can't take a little criticism of your creepy ways maybe you should spend your time elsewhere.

I am not hating, but this really was not helpful. It seems like it was just an observational piece; no secrets:(

LOVE this post. I can TOTALLY relate. Nice work, Ali!

A good read! But doesn't seem like PIC material!
Found it a bit too serious! :-/
The advice you hand out is good, but I hardly think is is the proper forum to teach guys how not to be creepy,
when we have posts like "how to be a successful stalker" in the popular section! :D

Once again, a gal trying to give advice to guys on how to be guys.

Why would any guy listen to any female about anything related to dating or relationships?

That's like me writing a article about women. How not to act like a slut around guys, from a guy. All hell would break lose.

every woman has a price and no woman knows what she wants just like the one who posted these advices

Information like this confirms that it was wise to choose to be single and autosexual. I don't know where women get off thinking they deserve all that special treatment. So much work for so little in return! Is it me or do women sound like all they want out of a man is to have an obedient pet with money? Bunch of self-interested golddiggers. If ever I meet a woman that acts like an intelligent, sensible human being that I can talk with without playing games I'll reconsider being single, but the likelihood of meeting such a woman seems quite remote.

Whoever said,
"Why would any guy listen to any female about anything related to dating or relationships?"
Is a fucking idiot. Any smart guy would listen to a girl about dating, because if you're going to fucking date girls, then you might want to listen to them.
Unless you're gay, but even then, listening to girls can help.

if any guys are bothered about this, i think that maybe they should read it again...and apply it to their lives because clearly its speaking to them.

If guys don't like what they are reading they should probably re-read it, and re-read it, and re-read it.

It's fascinating that guys regularly claim to not understand what women want, but then when a woman explains where she is coming from, all the men shut down, not listen or go on the defensive/offensive. Ali is basically laying out a game plan on how to NOT come off as a creeper, thereby increasing your chances of being more successful with women. Exactly why is that a bad thing in everyone's mind? I just don't understand the response here. Did you guys miss the fact that Ali is actually giving you insight into what women think? Insight into what women think is only going to benefit you in the long run when it comes to being successful with women. To ignore or attack the insight just seems counter intuitive to me altogether.
Oh and Mridul, while I agree that it was not laugh out loud hilarious, it is certainly PIC relevant being a guide, in my humble opinion.

Idk Andrei..
I thought it was rather comical..
But then again I can find humor in pretty much anything!! X]
But Ali does give advice that guys don't see as helpfull..
Oh well..

To me, what is most annoying about this article is that it explains what women DON'T want, and explains very little about what they do. Is all you want when you go on a date is a guy who isn't a creeper? It's so boring. I mean, have women (young women specifically) been somehow made so immune to the natural chemistry between men and women that the only thing they care about is a guy not smelling bad and not calling them too much? OK, I think i got this.

1. Smell great.
2. Don't call or text too much (depending on girls preference for ideal amount)
3. Kneel down in awe of a woman's every little emotion, and don't express any of your own.
4. Play into the fear that men are out to exploit women by becoming a bland asshole who gives a lot of compliments, but not too many.

I got one.

Have a REAL conversation!!!!

I have my own strategy. Find out exactly what the girl wants by asking.

Sooooo why the did you insinuate you wanted me to ask for your number and then give it to me?.......

Are you just looking for sex on the side because you have a boyfriend you're not telling me about? If so, what are we waiting for?

If you want to be both friends and lovers, or one or the other, let's lay that out.

Otherwise, don't bat your eyelashes at me, please, because men are quite defenseless at suggestive gestures.

forgot one:

Have plenty of $$!!!!

Here we go again. Another female-penned diatribe about how much men suck and should conform to the wants of women in all things.

I'm married. I can read my wife like a book. But when asked what's wrong, if she replies, 'nothing!' it's not my job to lay out doilies and brew the herbal tea to drag it out of her. To hell with that. She knows that if she has a problem I'd do what I can to help. All she needs do is ask. But expecting me to learn non-verbal womanese? I speak it. I just don't care to.

Guess what? When she has an issue now she's straight up and--dare I say it?--mannish in her very verbal approach. Rather than expect all men to adjust to What Women Want (and men who do this are usually the biggest creeps of all, btw) I find it preferable when both men and women meet in the middle.

Additionally, you write, "You do not want to be that guy. Girls will stop going out because of that guy, making the chance even slimmer that you will meet an attractive, smart, halfway decent woman."

Let's be honest about bars (which you're clearly discussing). Do you honestly think any man is in a bar to meet a woman based on her intelligence and decency? I say thee nay. Men are there for sex. Any man trying to tell you different is a creep in disguise. When we want an intelligent, decent woman for something long term, bars are usually not the place to find them.

Andrei--the poster to whom you replied has a point. Many women in bars will flirt their asses off (or dance like tramps, or make out with other women) to get free drinks, They know damn well that men are buying them drinks hoping to get laid. To accept those drinks is, of course, not a promise of sex, but don't tell me that playing off someone's hopes to get free stuff from them isn't victimization. It is. Ladies don't want to put out? No issue with that. But they can also refuse the drinks some poor bastard is spending his money on.

Besides Andrei--nice way to blame it all on men. As you wrote, "Women are quite literally screaming for you to understand them and it is a refusal to actually listen to what they are saying that makes things SO difficult between the genders."

Ah, so all inter-gender issues are based on men being bad listeners.

Just so you know, Andrei, playing the sensitive, feminist, "I understand a woman's pain" type is (among the women I know) widely held up as the creepiest of the creeps. Just sayin'.

I'm confused.

Ali has written us an article telling us how to come across as 'uncreepy' and thus increase our chances with the ladies. However, to my way of thinking, to follow a game plan that hides who and what you are and encourages you to approach women in ways you otherwise wouldn't is, essentially, to act deceitfully.

Seems to me that Ali is encouraging men to employ 'Trojan Horse' tactics rather than a frontal assault. I think you can get kicked out of the Woman Club for that, Ali...

Ali, all that these comments prove is that guys are creeps and assholes and always will be. They bitch when you tell them exactly what you do and don't want and then they say that we are hard to read and don't make any sense. Read the fucking article, don't do the things that are creepy, it's not that FUCKING hard to understand.

Riiiiight. So you've missed the point of several of these comments, namely, that 'creepiness' is not a male-only trait. Additionally, women who expect to be treated like a princess need to remember that they need to treat their man like a prince.
Women are creeps too. Everyone has it in them. But can you not see how offensive it is to tell men how they should behave? No one forces you to date anyone you don't want to. But if I wrote an article telling women how to act to get a man you feminists would call me a pig for suggesting that a woman needs a man, or that she needs to act a certain way to get one.

Look at both sides of the fence please. Note that most comments from men are thoughtful and raise points. Yours just says "Fuck all y'all yer assholes." It seems to me that hysterical swearing is not constructive.

Andrei--thanks for the reply! Your clarification is appreciated!
I think what I'm getting at is that men will never speak 'French' fluently, and women will never speak 'English' fluently ('womanese' and 'manese' respectively). However if we meet in the middle with some sort of wo/man based Esperanto we'd do well.

I hate to say it, but that 'Men are From Mars..." book actually nails it quite well. :D

I take direct offense to this... porn, pot, and video games are three of the greatest things on earth...whats the fourth greatest thing on earth you ask? ....................creeping out girls. Expecially when you don't actually give a fuck about getting laid, creeping out girls is hilrious and awesome.

Honestly, this post was complete and utter tripe.

I agree with many of the points brought up here.

1) Women say 'nothing' and behave differently *because they want attention*, and because *they want your attention and desire and need to SHARE in their problems, NOT to fix them.*

2) Guys who put themselves 'out there' to pander and pamper to a woman's need will find themselves ironing panties as their lady friend is out getting nailed by a hooligan. This is truth, because when you pander to a woman for everything she 'wants', you are the bitch, and she has absolutely 0 respect for you.

3) No man goes to a bar looking for anything long term. Period. If he does, it is to satisfy his long term desire of nailing, or possibly murdering, stupid sluts.

4) I agree that women know this, and will happily accept drinks all night in a bar, flirt like a total whore, and then leave and go home. Noone is being taken advantage of here without their consent, other than the sheer manipulation of the woman: she is sending all those verbal/nonverbal signals, telling the man it's all good. And then she leaves. So if you're going to listen to the nonverbals, they can be blatant lies, as woman typically do often lie, embellish, and manipulate everyone in their surroundings.

5) A point not brought up: Women are, almost entirely sluts, whores, manipulative, whatever. They use their looks and charms to wheedle away at people to get what they want. I believe that is manipulation. And if you think women don't use their vaginas to get what they want, see above.

6) This was written by a woman, advised towards men; this means that anyone living by this shit is simply fulfilling her desires, because women keep their woman-secrets to themselves, or air them *anonymously* on the internet. See texts from last night for confirmation. Or ask a woman how she talks to her female friends. They are worse than we are.

7) Women are evil. Yes, I'm married.

why are all of these married creeps commenting on this article? get some marriage counceling or a divorce don't take out your anger on some poor twenty year old writer who is simply offering some advice, if you even read the article you would see that she isn't trying to force anything on anyone, only trying to help guys have an advanatage. it totally makes sense to take it like a personal attack on your gender though, clearly.

Wow.

Whoever posted that 7 point diatribe has a real issue. I've certainly criticized the article, but talk of murder, and generalizing ALL women to be a certain way is freak nasty and just goes too far, man.

While many women can be just as manipulative as men but to say they are 'almost entirely sluts, whores..." Too much.

I'm married as I mentioned before. My wife and I get along famously the reason being that we meet in the middle concerning communication. She works to be straight up, like a male, and I work at picking up on her clues. We both work hard at it cause its worth it.

I'm no one's bitch. Neither is she. You made some valid points, but the presentation detracts from them. Need to work out that anger, dude.

If only there was a way to keep all these Anonymous commenters straight. Oh, wait a second...what's this?!

http://www.pointsincase.com/user/register

;)

What the fuck did I just read? I am glad all the women I deal with are out of college and know what they want (or at least have an idea). Who the hell goes to a bar or club looking for Mr./Ms. Right?

This is so stupid I can't even see straight anymore.

Can't tell if she's trolling or just stupid.

Amusing yet very condescending and arrogant. I understand that there are a fair amount of guys out there that girls find creepy yet it's not fitting to judge the entire species in such a broad way infact it's quite hurtful to think all women could be as callous as you are.

You also make it sound as though only men are capable of being creeps. I've had girls who text me 12 times and I don't want their attention etc. Take your head out your arse and realise that talking to men isn't a death sentence. Okay in some conexts you can't be bothered which is fine but why should a guy NOT approach a girl in a bar and talk to her?

While this article raises a few good points. It treats men like they're dogs who need lessons in obedience.

This is straight-up whipping and manipulation to ge the stupid men to become slaves for the utherus. It's a woman trying her best to dominate the stronger sex by giving "advice" while at the same time pushing for all women being superior and all men being inferior. Guys are to meet ridiculous standards to have a shot at -any woman at all- because apparently all women work exactly the same and they're in this fiendish cult that ridicules and harasses its members into strict man-manipulating obedience.
ALL HAIL CHTUTHERUS! FTAGN!

This is a perfect example of how women are inferior to men. This shallow, materialistic, vapid cunt is telling men how to behave instead of being at home, where she belongs according to the natural order. Women are objectively less intelligent, more pretentious and superficial, and simply worse than men.

Ali fuck you.

If I wanted an advice on how to train my dog, I wouldn't take it from so crazed slut. You expect perfection, you assume that every man is shit or not good enough for you women, and that only that for a man to even have a shot with you royal queens of manipulation, we have to change, bound to your every wish, become what you want, and lose what makes us men.

No, fuck you. I didn't change to get a girlfriend, she accepted me, for what I am. I'm glad not every woman thinks like a crazy bitch, or I'd be fucking masturbating for the rest of my life.

Bitches like you can keep your vaginas to yourselves, because we don't want them.

Gosh, this really seems like it should be common sense to guys........wake up guys....it shouldn't be so hard to figure this stuff out :)

There is a lot of hatred coming out here which seems quite telling for a response to a satirical comedy website.

It seems to me that a lot of you have a great deal of distain for women and are spending an awful lot of time desperately trying to shoot down an article that was actually trying to INCREASE a man's chances of actually successfully interacting with a women out in a public social forum. Sure, it was a little antagonistic, but welcome to PIC, that is just how things are done around here.

For the record, I'm not saying that to be a white knight or get into Ali's pants, I'm saying it because I read the article and that was the point it was actually making. Just because the article hit a little too close to home for you doesn't mean you need to go all ballistic about it. Just be confident in yourself, don't take things SO SERIOUSLY (especially around here) and I'm sure you'll all do just fine in life.

Sincerely though, I wish you all the luck with getting beyond all your hatred.

favorite method of not being creepy? If it wouldn't fly in church, try to avoid it. Worked wonders for me in the past, and hopefully will continue to do so in the future.

Now I'm not trying to play Canada and be neutral here but I do have to say that it goes both ways.I've had friends get the guys phone number and run home to use it like it was some sort of mastercard with no limit.then after a night of unanswered texts and voicemails they can't figure it out.when you call repeatedly or just happen to show up..a lot.You wreak of desparation!I'm a polite person and will talk to anyone,but at the bars I've learned that drunk people mistake this for an invitation.Purely my fault till I came up with the rules.1.no eye contact unless interested 2.Do not accept drinks.It is only a confirmation to imaginary invitation.I have dated the pretty boys they were mostly assholes so then I tried nice guys.one cried a lot one I had to break up with everyday till he got it then I found him in my house naked in my bed.That one has a lot more to the story.ugh.I seriously pondered becoming the crazy cat lady till I finally found the right one.Thank God!

Damn, Ali. Those cats are pissed. But they're so adorable. They're so white and fluffy, purring with misogynistic hatred.

You really struck a nerve with the psychotic rapist crowd on this one. Don't you know creeps are sensitive, angry and defensive?

There are also female creepers out there. As a potential creeper myself (I try to avoid female interaction as much as possible to avoid acquiring that label), I am personally attracted to the "crazy possessive psycho b****". Not because she's crazy and possessive, but because since other people are less attracted to her, I feel like I have a better chance. Are there girls out there who feel the same way? If so, then male and female creepers should be the perfect match for each other.

One thing all women need to realise ( because they DO NOT ) is that however "creepy" you think a man is, he could never be as creepy as ANY woman.

Why?

Because women are nut cases. Articles such as this testify to this fact. Women are insecure, confidence free, neurotic & obsessed with themselves.

Men on the other hand...even the "creepy" ones...are straightforward, honest, well balanced people who women do nothing but criticise because not one of them has an ounce of our natural gravitas & truth.

Men can live without women...PERIOD.
Women would soon cease to exist without men because they are scared, emotionally fragile & useless in a crisis.

If women want to assume the worst of men, let them. I really do not have time to tailor my behaviour to suit some shallow woman. If you are interested in me, great...if not, you can FUCK OFF.

Great piece. Funny and painfully true. Male insecurity is the root of most of the bad things that happen in our trivial lives. I hope that's not too self important, but females hold what the rest need, unless they're Gavin. So the inequity of power between sexes, in the bed, is always balanced toward women. That is why men have been driven to build bridges, societies, acheulian hand axes, buy diamond rings, destroy societies, build nuclear weapons, and thrust phallic bullets, missiles, and guns in the faces of weaker people. In and through, I guess. Stalin to his wife: "I've killed twenty million people, will you fuck me now?"

At my first-reading of this article, from the face of it, my instinctive response was:

"Oh this is great, this self-involved little bitch is telling dorky little scared virgins that they should even be MORE terrified of approaching girls."

This has the similar ring to it that a lot of that generic advice has from women for men to "just be themselves."

Oh, that's what's wrong! Right? Too many guys are coming off as creepy because they're just not "being themselves."

I think clearly the "yourself" might be the problem for these guys.

And that of course, led me to, "If a guy needs to read an article like this to help avoid coming off as creepy, then it's probably a done deal from the start."

Guys like this would clearly have some deeper issues that would need to be looked at, possibly through therapy or maybe just more social exposure.

Ali, I don't know if some of your examples of creepy behavior were meant as hyperbole, but I can't imagine a guy in his right mind actually doing some of that stuff and not feel it's even a little "off." Examples were calling 30 times, sending countless texts or some such, and even STANDING OUTSIDE OF HER FAVORITE BAR?!!!! --When she's made it clear she doesn't want to talk to him. You've got to be shitting me.

So I have to mostly agree with you. Yes, those behaviors are indeed creepy.

But I think you're probably wrong on the point about most women assuming a random guy she hasn't yet gotten to know is just some horny dog/creep/stalker.

I've had plenty of success just being out in public, and acting NORMAL. - and from the success I've had, who's any author to try to look back on my successes to say whether meeting people for her was "on the menu in the first place" that day/night?

Absolutely, if a girl just wants to shut you down with one-word answers, move along. She doesn't deserve any more effort. Why would you expend any more energy for a girl like that? That's just obvious from a classical ROI perspective. (didn't get my MBA for nothing!)

And you're probably wrong on the "never call a second time"
point, although maybe only off by a little.

I personally have never had anything materialize with a girl that I called a second time after no response. And I've never heard of this happening.

I realize that people simply have shit do. They can be busy.

I'd say if you think she's worth it, give it a week and call her a second time, but no more. If you left a voicemail the first time, don't leave another one. Make sure a week has gone by. If she doesn't answer or call back after that, just write it off and move on.

I've heard of some guys employing some strategies like, "breaking out the crazy shit" for a second voicemail, but I've never seen any evidence of that leading to anything. Entertaining nonetheless.

All in all, interesting article, although a little misguided; I think the people who could benefit the most from it would probably need more than an article.

I definitely agree with leaving your church personality at home whan trying not to come off as creepy. It is typically the men that are a little too sugar coated who seem most suspicious :D

lol this andrei guy is fugyly

This is hilarious. While I agree with what she is saying about not being too creepy, that is obvious. But... to tell a man how to behave to get women doesn't make sense. Why do you even want a man if you are asking him to behave as a woman? What makes us men is that we hunt for women. Sure, women get hit on a lot at bars, and I'm sure it gets annoying. But why are women at bars? Really? They want attention, that doesn't mean they love getting creeped on, but you are lying if you say it doesn't boost your ego.

Are you telling me I shouldn't talk to women at bars? Why teh hell am I at a bar, if not to socialize and meet people. That's the whole point, yet, I have to be sensitive to the stuck-up girls. It's ironic. They think I AM the creep if I dare to talk to them in a place meant for socializing. How DARE I. Seriously, women like this drive me crazy. And if a girl shuts me down with one word, not really worth talking to anyway. The girls we want to talk to are fun, and like men for being men. And don't shy away from having a goodtime, I'm not talking necessarily about sex. But, about living...

Anyways, some guys got a little too angry, but I get their points.

Ya it's weird that women are claiming they want us to stop trying to chase them. That's like the death of romanticism. I really hope women like this wake up and accept men for being men. Otherwise, maybe you should just get a cat or something, they don't talk too much, and will behave nicely at all times.

Men are labeled creepy for showing girls attention they want.

Women are labeled crazy and stupid because they want the attention but when they get it, they want something better. And THAT'S why you won't consider men who DO show you admirable traits. You just overlook them because the only thing in your mind is "He's a loser" and with a mentality like that you will LOOK for loser traits. THAT'S why women are irrational and crazy for men. Because as innocent a girls' dreams are, women's "standards" are very judgmental. This is because (not all ladies and men are like this too but here goes) girls usually tend to be more materialistic than guys. Guys only want some things to reel in the chicks. No matter how shallow though, it's just how it is.

So the conclusion is...

Majority of the people in this world are stupid and irrational. Not just girls. Not just guys. Select few will detest the game so much that they won't take part in it. These people are then labeled faggots for not having a relationship unless they really think it's worth it. However, some of these people DO get bicurious and act on some of these urges. Ever wonder why the good ones are always taken or gay?

While I don't share your enthusiasm about
bicuriosity and asexuality as a result of dissatisfaction with relationship games, I will say it does seem more often than not when I meet someone, "single because they're sick of games" it does tend to be an attractive female.

From a straight guy's perspective, I've never had to say, "too bad she's a lesbian; too bad all the good ones are always lesbians."

Not too many guys opt for the single route simply because they don't like games.

Usually when guys are single it's because of a lack of game or social skills.

As for the ones who "go gay from being single too long", again, I'm
not sure that's what's happening here. They don't get so tired of straight relationship games that they give being gay a shot! Hell, just the headgames some females play a woman would be trading one set of antics for another.

I think guys who end up going that way, you "kinda knew all along"
at least it's always been the case with the ones I've known.

So basically you have to have tons of money, have power be rocket scientist, a super model and not enjoy a things you like.

This post is probably some pampered stuck up daddy girl bitch, who thinks she should be the center of everyone's attention all the time.

This Andriel guy looks like a creeper. No lie. Probably will over ever have sex with his dog and a jar of peanut butter.

They're called prostitutes. They're your friends guys.

I wonder how I square this article with the woman who pinched my ass in the bar last Sat. nite and told me I was cute like it was a compliment and did it in front of other men she was flirting with at the same time. I guess to play everybody at once. At first I thought one of the guys had done it to me. But then she admitted it. I guess creepy goes both ways. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot what would've happened. It turned me off.

If you're hot, you're not a creeper..no matter what you do(think Edward Cullen stalking Bella through her window)
but if your looks are average and below, you're going to be labeled a creeper and you're gonna get used to it

Ladies...you are out and the guy insists on getting your number....you know if you give it to him he will go away....no problem Doucheline is here. Simply access your local free number, pass it to him... and it is on.

Thank you for a BRILLIANT article. I have worked with some really great guys. But every job I've had has had at least one creep who could use this article to enlighten him. And even making it abundantly clear YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED does not seem to work. Forget about going to Human Resources, it's your word against his. My guess is the guys who are most vocal about their disdain above may fit in the creep category. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE GOOD GUYS, just trying to have some peace of mind at places like work where we can't get away from the creeps. And the more you make it clear you are not interested, the more they stare, follow you, walk by your office 30 times a day, try to get information about you from your coworkers, etc. Seriously, what part of NO do you not understand? There is a reason the gene pool wants to leave you behind.

Nice, again, standard sanctimonious reply by a female reader who is 1.) Not reading what the guys actually find wrong with this article, and 2.) Ignoring the broad base of guys the author is writing to, advising that the odds are stacked that they're going to be viewed as creeps if they so much as try to start a conversation with a girl. How dare they go into a bar, club, or other place meant for social mingling, and try to strike up a conversation with girls who're clearly there to socialize. How dare they!

This broad base the author speaks to includes nice guys; actually the author starts out by saying "let's give you the benefit of a doubt and say your clean, a nice guy, etc."

You're not trying to "change" the nice guys? NOoo, really!?

Then take it up with the author; she says even nice guys will, at best, come off as a dog trying to bury his bone.

Did you even read the countless replies by guys saying, "yep, totally understand that creepy behavior is unacceptable, and girls don't need guys all creeping on them." ??!! You'll get no argument from me, yet, you fail to notice it, as pompous female respondents to this article typically ignore whenever a guy writes something showing understanding, etc.

I even took it a step farther and said, "If a girl just wants to shut you down with one-word answers, move along."

Maybe you should wait before replying to articles until you have some actual idea about the discussion.

Thanks Rob. I was NOT including the guys above who seem to GET IT. Just the ones hurling epithets, sound familiar?

Some very valid points have been raised here from guys, which really make her arguments seem illogical and silly.

What valid points?
1. "Another female-penned diatribe about how much men suck and should conform to the wants of women in all things."
Where did she state/imply men suck? She was talking about creepy behavior and how to avoid being viewed as creepy.

2. "Ali has written us an article telling us how to come across as 'uncreepy' and thus increase our chances with the ladies. However, to my way of thinking, to follow a game plan that hides who and what you are and encourages you to approach women in ways you otherwise wouldn't is, essentially, to act deceitfully."
What ways does she encourage men to approach women? If anything she was telling guys what not to do- harass, whistle, fondle, follow, persist when she's not interested.

What she did tell guys to do was to read cues/signals and judge her interest by her involvement in the exchange. If this is something you wouldn't do others well.....

Really it's acting deceitfully to learn how to not make someone uncomfortable or feel unsafe? I thought it was being a decent human being.

I guess it's also acting deceifully to learn how to not make someone feel like sh*t. Seems like manners are acting deceitfully since it to act in a way to offend others.

3. "So you've missed the point of several of these comments, namely, that 'creepiness' is not a male-only trait. "
How did she miss the point? She didn't state or imply that creepiness was a male only trait.

The article is a guide for guys how not to be seen as creepy. That's not stating/implying creepy is a male only trait. If there was a guide for girls how not to be seen as desperate that's not stating/implying desperation is a female only trait.

4. "What the fuck did I just read? I am glad all the women I deal with are out of college and know what they want (or at least have an idea). Who the hell goes to a bar or club looking for Mr./Ms. Right?"
You just read a guy's guide on how not to appear creepy.

Not sure how advising guys not to do things that are seen as creepy = women in college who don't know what they want or at least have an idea.

When did she state/imply that people go to a bar or club looking for the right partner? If anything most guys on here are butthurt she stated that some girls at bars aren't interested. Not sure how disinterest = looking for Mr. Right.

5. "understand that there are a fair amount of guys out there that girls find creepy yet it's not fitting to judge the entire species in such a broad way infact it's quite hurtful to think all women could be as callous as you are."
When did she state/imply that the entire or most of the male gender was creepy?

Interesting advice for a guy on how not to be something = the entire/most male gender is that.

Does that mean a guide for a guy on how to not be rude = the entire/most male gender is rude? No it's advice for those that think it may help them.

6. "You also make it sound as though only men are capable of being creeps. "
Really when did she state/imply that?

7. "Okay in some conexts you can't be bothered which is fine but why should a guy NOT approach a girl in a bar and talk to her?"
You kind of just answered your own question. A guy probably shouldn't approach a girl in a bar & talk to her if she doesn't want to be bothered.

Why? Most likely she'll chew his a** out or be rude.
His attention isn't wanted and he knows it because he saw she didn't want to be bothered. He saw she wasn't interested and didn't want to be bothered but considered his desire to approach her was far more important than her desire to not be approached. If he considers his need more important then hers why the f*ck should she be accomodating?

8. "It treats men like they're dogs who need lessons in obedience."
In what way?

Giving helpful advice isn't treating men like dogs.

Telling guys not to harass, whistle, fondle, or follow a girl isn't treating a guy like a dog.

Telling guys not to persist in engaging a woman who clearly is not interested isn't treating a guy like a dog.

If anything this article acts like men are stupid and lacking common sense to respect a woman as a human being and to not waste other's times when they aren't interested in you.

As for making her arguments seem illogical & silly?

Her "arguments" was advice as far as what I gathered. The advice being
1. Not to harass, whistle, fondle, or follow a girl.
^ creepy behavior
How is this an illogical & silly "argument"? What valid point do guys here raise about it?

2. Sime women just just aren't interested so back the f*ck off instead of persisting when she's not interested because no amount of whatever will change her mind rather it'll annoy her.
^ creepy indicator if you'll ignore someone's desires for your own. Shows how insignficant her wants are to yours and how you think you can change her mind.

How is this an illogical & silly "argument"? What valid point do guys here raise about it?

3. Look presentable not threatening or a threat to her safety.
^ sorry people have this image of creepy people being unpresentable and intimidating.

How is this an illogical & silly "argument"? What valid point do guys here raise about it?

I can see a valid point in not judging a book by a cover deal however I don't recall any guys on here raising that point. Only appearance talk was that average/ugly guys automatically get labeled creepy.

4. Look for cues and signals which is pretty reasonable since verbal/nonverbal communication is what socializing is about.
^ sorry socially awkward people.

Not getting cues/signals may be a creepy indicator since it's not intrepreted as being scially awkward but not caring about what's she's signaling. If a girl is signaling she's not comfortable with a guy being close and the guy remains that close most would assume that he got the cue and just doesn't care.

How is this an illogical & silly "argument"? What valid point do guys here raise about it?

I can see a valid point in perhaps he was socially awkward not intentionally ignoring cues/signals yet I don't recall any guy on here stating that. Only cue/signal thing was that guys want women to be upfront...odd considering the male reaction to a woman being upfront with this guide that's intended to be helpful. Now image the male reaction to a woman being upfront telling you she thinks what you're doing is creepy or makes her uncomfortable.

5. You generally can tell a girl is interested by her level of involvement.
^ creepy indicator if a guy is still continuing his pursuit when you show indifference or disinterest as it shows that what you're interested in doesn't matter just his interests.

How is this an illogical & silly "argument"? What valid point do guys here raise about it?

I can see a valid point in that some women are shy or act disinterested yet I don't recall any guy mentioning that.

I don't see illogical & silly "arguments" just what should be common sense and reasonable advice- don't harass, fondle, whistle, follow, persist when she's not interested, go after girls who aren't interested, and judge her cues/signals/level of involvement in the exchange for her interest.

All pretty logical to me and nothing silly then again from the article you got this:
RobSchmod "Yeah, that's what I gathered from it. You're supposed to be scared shitless, terrified, and "know your place" when going out and thinking about meeting women. How dare you!"

Wow just wow if an article is trying to say you should be scared sh*tless, terrified, and know your place by telling you not to harass, whistle, fondle, or follow a girl and to respect a woman isn't interested instead of ignoring it and persisting.

Really you can't even tell men not to harass, whistle, fondle, or a follow a girl to avoid being seen as creepy without it being male shaming? That there is actually a valid point against that? Really? o.O no wonder so many American girls are opting out/boycotting marriage and relationships or going gay/bi.

You're talking about an over year and a half article I reflected on angrily, along with a ton of other decent, well-intentioned guys.

I read about 2/3rds of your rants and gave up when you started to become redundant. I can't even be fucked to deal with this kind of bullshit.

You are thinking in a vacuum. You could of course take anything I write, read way into it, and put it up against any statement by Ali and say, "See??! I didn't see *that* anywhere!!" Which is what you did, I think I counted about 5 times.

The truth of the matter is the author is not telling nice guys how to not be creepy. The pre-qualifications she states up front demonstrate that, as I've mentioned before. She's simply telling all nice guys to simply tuck tail and run if the girl looks like she's in a conversation.

You dumbasses who keep replying with these posts keep seeming to think that

- Nice guys want to grind up on girls and separate them from their friends even if they've said, "No, I'm not interested."

- Follow them around and stare at them at the office.

- Stand outside of her favorite bar eyeing her from outside.

Are you shitting me??! Nice guys, (again, in Ali's own words, are who this article is directed at) need this advice??!!!

Wasn't I the first person who said, "If I get shut down with one-word answers, I move along." or "I'll call a second time if I really liked her, maybe a week later, but that's it; no second voicemail."

PS:

Go fuck yourself, feminist cunt.

Some interesting phenoms this article brings up for me are based on observation at many different socio-economic bars, and social gatherings--often the bigger the jerk, fool or ass a man makes of himself the more female attention/attraction he gets. Ali seems to say the opposite. I wish the world were the way she describes it. I might have more success as a guy who doesn't creep, and respects women. The other phenom is women dressing for attention and then being offended or put-off or putting the guy down, when they attract it, even if the guy approaches in a non-creepy manner. Kind of a mixed message there. Maybe Ali's opening salvo about most women negatively pre-judging men with a pretty high bar--I have to prove a negative--before I get the time of day has something to do with it. Another way to look at it is maybe this article is also written for women by a woman telling women to reject the creepers/jackholes and reward the nice guys. That would be progress in my book...

Exactly, when you open with "I'm trying to teach you nice guys how not to be creepy"...then you immediately follow with, "Sorry but 98% of girls already assume you're a creep.

Who the fuck is she???!!! I've gotten great rapport, numbers, and dates just from approaching women on the subway platforms, complaining about the time
Until the next train, etc.

Oh, and I wasn't even in a bar!

I was in a subway station (well, metro here in DC) and I obviously wasn't regarded as a creep. The girls giggled, laughed along with my joke, and that was that.

So essentially I'm saying fuck you Ali, and your dipshit, one-sided approach to attraction.

I did none of that. But got a *whole* lot of dates. Who the fuck is she to decide whether or not meeting me was "on the menu for the night"?

The problem is that the article is skewed, as to insist that most guys would be using those creepy harassing approaches such as fondling yelling screaming whistling, etc.

From (vast) experience, just being a nice, polite, funny, and definitely *fun* guy will get you a date whether meeting you was "on the menu" or not.

Fuck you too.

No, you misunderstand. Considering my past and social success, who is she to say whether meeting me was on the menu for that night or not?

Results stand on their own.

Looking back retrospectively at a rejection and thinking, "who is that bitch to think she can . . . " is one thing.

That's not at all what I said.

I'm simply saying: who's to say; who's to know?

You are totally missing the point, in every way. You're presuming that I'm walking into a place and saying, "f**k this bitch's rights, she's gonna decide to talk to me and go out with me whether she wants to or not.

I'm stating in RETROSPECT, moron! Given a night of success who's to say, (the who being the outside observers or speculators like the author) that meeting me was "on the menu for the night". This has nothing to do with presently walking into a place and making judgements about a girls rights, or anything of the sort. Find that quote for me, will ya?

Given a night of of great, successful interaction with a girl, who has the expertise to be able to say definitively that meeting me was "not on the menu" but then once I introduced myself and we started talking, maybe she thought, "you know what, this guy seems pretty nice, maybe I should talk to him a little longer." then I get her number at the end of the night, and a date with her the upcoming weekend! (Done.)

All I'm doing is insisting that the author's original premise, the "opening salvo" mentioned by another poster, that a guy has to immediately prove a negative before even being able to walk up without looking like a creep.

This is madness.

The author details ways men should act to avoid coming across as 'creeps'. Note that none of this is going to lead to males getting laid as, in the end, the decision is still the woman's. So, what does it really mean to be uncreepy?

It means you're non-threatening. It means a woman can feel comfortable entering the inevitable review process. A woman knows if she wants to sleep with you or not within minutes--even seconds--of meeting you. All this 'creep' stuff? Just there to keep you males complacent and chasing the carrot of sexual potential. Meanwhile you get the privilege of spending your money buying drinks for a girl who has already decided if you're going home with her tonight.

If she's taking you home after you spend your cash on her then it's tantamount to prostitution.
If she's not taking you home after absorbing your cashflow, she's a golddiggin' user.

The simple solution - don't meet women in bars. As far as I'm concerned everyone trolling bars looking for sex is a creep. Booze lowers inhibitions; if you need what amounts to a chemical aid to fuck then you've deeper issues than 'creepiness'.

And men....why the hell are you paying for it, with no guarantee? Get a hooker. No BS. Handled. And you can turn your back on the bar scene, which is firmly under female hegemony.

Approaching a girl to start a conversation, to give her the CHOICE to review, accept, or dismiss you, before even knowing what/if she's looking for, and doing this approach while not being scared shitless that you have to prove a negative, is not "violating the girl's rights."

Your analogy to soup and anal sex was all the more disturbing and bizarre.

I was half-expecting you to equate approaching a girl with rape. ("Hey, it may not be on her menu for the night, but she might like it? Right?")

GUY: "Hey, how's it going? I'm Rob, nice to meet you."

HER: "Uhhh, hey, I'm really just out with my friends tonight and not really looking to meet new people."

GUY: "Cool.". (and walks away)

Yeah, as you can see, it's all about violating rights and just assuming women will like it.

Now you've lost me. You are completely off the rails.

As in the movie Inception: "You know what I'm offering, they have to decide for themselves."

The guy will say: "Hey, how's it going? I'm Rob, nice to meet you."

She may reply: "Uhhh, hey, I'm really just out with my friends tonight and not really looking to meet new people."

In reponse, the guy would then say: "Cool.". (and walks away)

Yeah, as you can see, it's all about violating rights and just assuming women will like it.

Now you've lost me. You are completely off the rails.

"I do notice a trend in these examples from your tons of "female friends" the guy gets the girl or the girl wants the guy. The one word answer example turning into interest and the girl rejecting the guy and yet wondering if she was "fair" to him."

Well, yeaaaah! That's called what happens when a genuine, nice guy puts himself out there and isn't scared shitless worried about:

1. That he'll be fighting a losing battle, he'll have to prove a negative that he's not creepy before she'll even give him the time of day.

and 2. Whether or not meeting him is "on her menu" for the night, since he doesn't even k ow going in.

"Side note: The bit are the one word answers turning into interest are extremely uncommon and usually happen with a certain type of girl."

Now you're just grasping for straws. What "type of girl"? What are you insinuating? How do you know?

After reading that 13 point list of repetitions, I think it's time for you to get a fuckin' life.

You've added nothing new to the discussion. Hell, my points and arguments were even more well-thought-out and entertaining than yours. They were at least fun to read!

Why else would someone create a screen name titled, "TO ROBSCHMOB"?!?

Your writing reads like that of an undergraduate (sophomore perhaps) gender and cultural studies major.

All you try to do is concoct a response that fits the formula of: "Sally has a necklace with 16 beads. Orange beads of course can't come before green beads, and she only has 5 green beads and 4 orange beads. How many blue beads must she count before she gets to the next to the last orange bead?"

You're only concerned with sequence, the "academic robustness" of an argument, and of course, psychotic examples from which you now distance yourself.

After reading that 13 point list of repetitions, I think it's time for you to get a fuckin' life.

You've added nothing new to the discussion. Hell, my points and arguments were even more well-thought-out and entertaining than yours. They were at least fun to read!

Why else would someone create a screen name titled, "TO ROBSCHMOB"?!?

Your writing reads like that of an undergraduate (sophomore perhaps) gender and cultural studies major.

All you try to do is concoct a response that fits the formula of: "Sally has a necklace with 16 beads. Orange beads of course can't come before green beads, and she only has 5 green beads and 4 orange beads. How many blue beads must she count before she gets to the next to the last orange bead?"

You're only concerned with sequence, the "academic robustness" of an argument, and of course, psychotic examples from which you now distance yourself.

PS: Go fuck yourself, feminist and/or faggot cunt, whichever comes first I suppose.

I thought about whether or not to do this, but you know what? I'm gonna get to the bottom of your bullshit.

First thing's first:

- You ask me to name cogent arguments brought up by guys prior to my thread, which I did, and will continur to do. Also, many (not all) of the points brought up by guys in opposition to the initial "opening salvo resonated with me.

But here's the real mind-screw:

In every post you keep going back and back and back, to that old quote of mine, from nearly a year ago (two versions actually) as your saving grace.

You just keep going back to that same well:

- "Who the f*ck is she to judge, etc. etc."

- "Who's to say, who's to know?"

When I CLARIFIED LATER that I was referring to the author, and spectators who're supposedly "in the know", you accused me of "backtracking", but in the same sentence (actually the next word!) allowed me the privilege of having "clarified" the "who."

Whoa whoa whoa, wait now: Those each serve as a juxtaposition of each other, in terms of the intent, and purpose of my statement.

In one, you're essentially calling me a slimy used car salesman, in the other one you're crediting me with the legitimacy of having "clarified" my statement.

You then took the presumptuous position of "I doubt you meant the author", etc. etc.

That's perfectly fine as well. You certainly have free reign to doubt whatever you wish. The only problem is, you used that as a major premise for almost all of your argument going forward. But that's water under the bridge, moving on:

The anal rape and cook stuff is of course subjective as well, because the issue here is severity: in both of your cases, rights are being violated, in my example of the nice guy who wants to know if a girl would be interested in meeting him, so he walks up to say "Hi." - rights are not being violated. If the girl wasn't interested, tells him that, the guy then says, "cool" and walks off, now that would just be annoying, but certainly not rights violating.

Some guy cut me off in traffic the other day. I was annoyed. Were my "rights violated"? I chose not to frame it that way.

Degree is paramount here

(If you think the world is black and white, good and evil, and that's all there is to it, you probably need to get your head checked, if at least, you believe that most people see the world that way, the same applies)

I take take the position that people will almost always disagree on matters of severity. It is of course your right to disagree.

Therefore your examples would probably not resonate with many readers. Many would likely think "WTF..."

You actually would've probably done yourself more of a service by using an example of a guy in a dance club who gets in front of a girl patting his crotch directly in front of the face of a girl who does not know him, and happens to be seated, without deference to the girl's wishes, "Because she may or may not like it, right?"

At least in that case, most people probably could've related to that, and could've thought, "Auuughh, that's messed up man.!" - because they may/may not had seen similar acts before.

So those points of yours are now groundless. You can no longer use them against me, because they've been clarified/made null in terms of your interpretation of them.

Now without giving scenarios (to which you so boldly took offense), I'll just state it outright:

Yes, a girl can say "We're really just having a girl's night out, but it was nice meeting you!"

And the guy (ideally) should take the hint.

She can give a one word answer, and the guy (ideally) should take the hint.

She can even say "Fuck off, I'm not interested!" as soon as the guy walks up to say the first word. And of course, while the guy is free to think (or hell, even say out loud in a case like that) whatever he thinks, he is not entitled to force is actions on her by making her talk to him or whatever nonsense.

Girls dressing provocatively but then being supprised when they get all this male attention is probably also a matter of severity. Funny you don't address it at all, convenient, one might even say...?.... Some girls might just like wearing short, skimpy dresses, and dancing on pedestals in dance clubs, and playing mock-bisexual with their friends, because it's simply fun! I take the position that those are the minority. You are free to disagree. My position is that most girls who dress like how I'm talking about and exhibit that sort of behavior are looking for male attention. They simply want to cast a "wide net" and be able to pick the guys.

I've seen it, time and time again.

You are of course, free to call all of that illegimiate, anecdotal, and dismiss it totally, as is your right.

Another issue which seems to teeter on matters of severity is this whole idea of a guy buying drinks for a girl. You also don't address this, and I find this convenient for you as well.

I don't buy drinks for girls I meet in the same place/time, ever.

If you're a guy and a girl is only giving you one-word answers, please don't offer to buy her drinks. Yes, she may accept them, probably just to be nice, but don't assume that's a promise of *anything*.

But girls who go out of their way to illicit male attention, then put themselves in a position to be bought drinks, with no intention of having anything to do with the guy, are completely deceptive, disengenuous, and scandalous, in my book.

One male poster put something up about, "If you're not interested, don't let the hopeless bastard keep buying you drinks." or something to that effect.

"Anecdotally", I even had a group of girls grab me as I was leaving a club one night, one said, "Hey! You're hot!" So I participated in the interaction for a while. The ring-leader-seeming girl carried on what I thought was a flirty, interested conversation with me. When I asked for her name/number later, she said her name was "Martha." Really? "Martha???" A girl, in the late 2000's, who appears to be in her late 20's, being named Martha? Something didn't quite mesh. I later learned from her (sympathetic) friends that her name was actually "Lauren" and that she has a kid, and was 31, and gave me a fake number, and went out with her friends with the mission of doing the same thing every weekend.

Just after this was told to me, this girl pulled me by the hand, and said, "Come on Rob!" and led me up to the bar and said "That'll be four vodka-redbulls" and turned to me and said "Deal with it."

It's obvious how I proceeded from that point.

Okay so that takes care of the woman's rights issue, and those two aged, unqualified statements I made a while back.

But there's this one other thing.

You tag on this non-verbal thing as well, but mentioned in an earlier post that it may be a cogent point that some men cannot read the non-verbals. Okay, well, this has actually been gnawing at me for a while, so I'll raise that point right now, but there're actually two sides to it:

1. It's called a "mild form of autism"/aspergers syndrome. You see it every day/night when you go out, and it's not just from guys. The most noticeable (and pathetic) male cases are the totally socially inept guys who go out and the first thing they do is slam a bunch of shots of vodka, and become the creepiest guys in the place. While the causes may be in dispute, this is an obvious (and apparently increasing) trend: lack of ability/extreme difficulty reading social cues. My money is on the video-game culture that we've found ourselves in, but gain, it'll be some time before we know for sure what causes this.

To be fair, the female cases usually manifest themselves in quiet girls, who are surrounded by a bunch of (usually equally or more attractive) female friends, and simply stay single. I've known many cases through high school, and are the same in their early 30's.

Many are also called out by guys as well, "Don't bother with her man, she's wierd with guys." For better or worse, that's how it is. That's the terrain. You are free to agree or disagree on what I feel about the circumstances, but those are the facts.

2. "The three-second-rule." Many men who've had difficulty meeting women take on certain self-help beliefs that they should approach the first (or any) girl they see in a bar/club/social place within the first three seconds of meeting her. There're a WHOLE lot of guys who do this, some with, some without the associated self-help material. So for better or worse, a lot of guys are doing this.

When approaching girls right away, right on sight, of course they wouldn't be able to "perceive and read" the social cues, because they don't even see them. They've just been hit with so many "No's" or whatever the reason, they've decided that the best way to do it from here on out is to just play the numbers and introduce themselves to as many women who seem socially "out there" as possible." - a noble move actually, if they adhere to what you yourself called "a healthy interaction."

To recap:

Women are completely "the ones to say."

Men can be creepy.

Women shouldn't give mixed signals and ask for drinks to be bought for them, then call the guy "creepy" for showing interest.

Men who are out to do no harm, and just want to put themselves out there and introduce themselves, should be given the benefit of a doubt. Of course (I would say, unfortunately) the burden is on them to sniff out the right social cues at the right time to know how (or if) to proceed. But if it doesn't work out, it simply doesn't work out. And that's really where I'm leaving it. The girl flirts for two hours, then says, "ummm, I'm gonna just go over there and talk to my friends" and gives a guy the cold shoulder for the rest of the night.

Totally her right. In my book: "It didn't work out." In my view, it's pretty shitty, but still totally her right, and she should be left alone.

The only alternative is the guy chooses to rape her, but of course that doesn't change her decision.

And that, as they say, is that.

Hey anonymous, that guy who's arguing with that robshmob guy,

Hey, what color panties are your girlfriend's panties?

mmm, are the booty shorts, thongs, boy-cut? please describe in detail, and attach photos.

You can even blur out the face.

Please get her to dress sexy for us like she does everyone else,

because i know she doesn't do that for you, little fagboy.

My bullsh*t? I wasn't the one doing name-calling and putdowns when called on bs like you were.

What bullsh*t of mine is there?

It's not" a real mind-screw" to keep going back to who the f*ck is she to decide meeting me is not on the menu & who's to say, who's to know since that was the topic.

It's not "a real mind-screw to stay on topic".

It is a real mind-screw to do as you have running in circles & repeatedly ignoring everytime I brought up the topic.

The argument is not "moot" because the author isn't involved since the argument was about your words not the authors words.

I've repeatedly stated that.

The argument was my point is that your mindset of who the f*ck is she to decide meeting me isn't on the menu and who's to say, who's to know bit going with the who's to say unknown possibility that she'll like you while ignoring that there was someone to say- her and she said it with her cues/signals of leave her the f*ck alone before you approached is rights violating and unhealthy interaction.

...hmm maybe that's why I kept going back to the same "well".

It's interesting that you state "If you think the world is black and white, good and evil, and that's all there is to it, you probably need to get your head checked, if at least, you believe that most people see the world that way, the same applies"

If that applied to me then I wouldn't have used the cook/anal rape examples. Seems like you're overreaching that my examples suggest the world is black and white.

The anal rape/cook stuff is not subjectibe because of severity. The issue wasn't severity. The issue was that in both exmaples they are doing what your mindset of who's to say & who's to know does.

Ignoring that there is someone to say because they favor the unknown possibility that the other person may like it.

It's interesting that you state the "issue here is severity" since you claimed the whole discussion was about the authors extreme claim that all/most guys are automatically labeled creepy.

If people can't see the connection in the examples that's not a diservice to me that's emotional reactions hinder their logical reasoning. Perhaps those people are the ones living in a black/white world since their focus is severity when it's not & isn't the issue rather than similiar behavior/mindset

My points are not "groundless" because you can't relate to them.

Just because you're emotionally reacting on the severity when severity isn't & wasn't the issue rather than thinking logically to see the similiar mindset when mindset was the issue doesn't make the examples "groundless".

Or are you trying to tell me that the cook/anal rapist don't also have the mindset of who's to say & who's to know?

The cook/anal guy are both ignoring that there is someone to say because they favor the unknown possibility that the other person may like it.

It's not groundless because you're emotionally reacting rather than thinking logically.

It's not funny or convenient that I didn't address girls dressing provocatively but being surprised when they get male attention since what I was addressing was your mindset.

It's not convenient that I didn't address a guy buying drinks for a girl since what I was addressing was your mindset.

It's actually quite logical since the topic was your mindset of who the f*ck is she and who's to say & who's to know ignoring that there was someone to say- her and she said it before you approached.

Quite interesting that you state it's funny and question if it's convenient that I don't address off-topic matters.

Especially the provocatively dressed bit since I don't recall you mentioning that...?..

It's not "funny" or "convenient" that I didn't address off-topic bits and stayed on the topic of your mindset of who the f*ck is she to decide meeting me isn't on the menu and who's to say, who's to know bit going with the who's to say unknown possibility that she'll like you while ignoring that there was someone to say- her and she said it with her cues/signals of leave her the f*ck alone before you approached is rights violating and unhealthy interaction.

How would girls dressing provocating add anything to the discussion of your mindset and my point that it's unhealthy interaction and rights violating?

How would a guy buying a girl drink add anything to the discussion of your mindset and my point that it's unhealthly interaction and rights violating?

As for me essentially calling you a "slimy used car salesman" and "crediting" you with the "legitimacy" of clarifying your statement and the following statements connected to it.

My words: "Now you're backtracking on the "who" or clarifying."
There was no "and" it's or.

I stated you were either backtracking or clarifying. My statement that I doubt it's the author/observers that is the who implies which one I am going with.

I consider it assumptive but whatever call it a presumptous position. I thought stating "I doubt" was assumptive and that if I was presumptous I would have stated "I know you didn't mean" rather than "I doubt".

Quite interesting that you can recall that I mention some unsocial and social disordered people can't read nonverbal communication when I was pointing out that her article isn't completely illogical and irrational before you responded to me.

Yet you miss and miss and miss and continued to miss my repeats to try to state on topic of your who the f*ck is she to decide and who's to say & who's to know mindset during my responses to you.

So much so that you state it's funny/convenient that I don't address off-topic bits in my discussion with you about your mindset of who the f*ck is she to decide meeting me isn't on the menu and who's to say & who's to know when there was someone to say- her.

It is so interesting that you recall two sentences I made before my discussion with you that was about how the author's article isn't completely illogical & irrational yet you couldn't recall my repeated statements and even paragraphs of me trying to stay on topic of your mindset.

Yet you still completely overlook the entire discussion- your mindset of who the f*ck is she to decide meeting me isn't on the menu and who's to say, who's to know bit going with the who's to say unknown possibility that she'll like you while ignoring that there was someone to say- her and she said it with her cues/signals of leave her the f*ck alone before you approached."

That you choosing to ignore that she has a right to decide not meeting you isn't on the menu no matter your past social successes and that ignoring there is a who to say- her- is unhealthy interaction and essentially rights violating.

Like I stated before you you claimed my only concern was "the sequence" "my only "concern" is how you bs even when called on your bs."

And that is that.

Take a look at this vicious little echo chamber that results when one thinks in a vacuum and doesn't let the admission of new ideas in.
 
Another poster even came in, (the "This is madness" guy) but this guy treats him the same way:
 
"What does it mean to be uncreepy?  It means you're non-threatening.  It means a woman can feel comfortable entering the invevitable review process."
 
 
And to that he replies:
 
 
"Not madness seems like you just have a hard time realizing that you're dismissive to her right to not want to meet you."
 
He keeps ignoring our replies and mentioning that same point, over and over, or some iteration thereof, when we've made it abundantly clear that that's not at all what we mean.
 
 
I say,
 
 
"Women are totally the ones to say."
 
"Yes, a girl can say "We're really just having a girl's night out, but it was nice meeting you!  And the guy (ideally) should take the hint."
 
"She can give a one-word answer, and the guy (ideally) should take the hint."
 
"She can even say "fuck off, I'm not interested! as soon as the guy walks up to say the first word.  And of course while the guy is free to think (or hell, even say out loud in a case like that) whatever he thinks, he is not entitled to force is actions on her by making her talk to him or whatever nonsense."
 
And to that he replies, "Apparently she's not to say."
 
 
ME:
 
 "Approaching a girl to start a conversation, to give her the CHOICE to review, accept, or dismiss you, before even knowing what/if she's looking for, and doing this approach while not being scared shitless that you have to prove a negative, is not "violating the girl's rights.”
 
 
And to that he immediately replies, completely ignoring my response and the harmless nature of the approach I was describing:
 
 
"Your words were dismissing her right to decide not meeting you was on the menu."
 
 
As for the "Who's to say, who's to know" point, I've made it clear that I was simply referring to thinking back retrospectively at several instances of social success and healthy interactions with women, from my experiences and the experiences of lots of other guys.
 
After seeing enough of this, I concluded that it's really impossible to know whether the girl was initially interested in meeting the guy, because she sure as heck was receptive to it, and let him get away with the cold approach, and they both had a great time as a result.  I’ve certainly changed my mind (sometimes multiple times a night!) about whether I wanted to meet someone, depending on how interesting the people I meet are/how interesting/well the interactions of the night  go.
 
 
And to that he says:
 
 
"That statement is indicative of where she most likely wants to be left the f*ck alone as meeting you but you dismiss the cues/signals showing that because despite there was a say-her say-you go with who's to say because you prefer going with the unknown possibility she may like it after all."
 
He continues to mention these non-verbal cues:
 
"While ignoring that there was someone to say-her and she said it with her cues/signals of leave her the f*ck alone before you approached.”
 
"It's your mentality that suggests going up even when she's given cues/signals she wants to be left the f*ck alone because you think who the f*ck is she to decide. . ."
 
" . . . ignoring she had her say with her cues/signals of leave her the f*ck along before you approached."
 
" . . .that statement is indicative of where she most likely wants to be left the f*ck alone as meeting you is not on the menu but you dismiss the cues/signals. . ."
 
And I provide very common examples of why a guy may not see these cues:
 
- Guys who rapidly approach women so they don't stand around thinking about it, letting anxiety fester.  They likely don't even see the cues because there was simply no time to notice them.  But they'll learn soon enough whether she's looking to meet new people that night or not, and they should respect whatever he decision is.
 
- Guys who have social development issues and don't have the ability, or they have major hindrances in their ability, to read social cues.  This was even mentioned in a previous post that it may be a cogent point that some people are unable to read the social cues.
 
 
And to that he *STILL* responds:
 
 
"Apparently she is not to say."
 
and,
 
 "Quite interesting that you can recall that I mention some unsocial and social disordered people can't read nonverbal communications. . . ."
 
And,
 
"It is so interesting that you recall two sentences I made before my discussion with you that was about why the author's article . . ."
 
Yeah, and?!?
 
- but then he doesn't address it or even try to argue that it's not valid.
 
 
 
I SAY:
 
 
"Women are completely the ones to say."
 
"Men can be creepy."
 
"Women shouldn't give mixed signals and ask for drinks to be bought for them, then call the guy 'creepy' for showing interest." (He conveniently never addresses this point.)
 
"Men who are out to do no harm, and just want to put themselves out there and introduce themselves, should be given the benefit of a doubt.  Of course (I would say unfortunately) the burden is on them to sniff out the right social cues at the right time to know how (or if) to proceed.  But if it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out."
 
"Totally her right."
 
 
And to that he **STILL** responds:
 
 
"Yet you still completely overlook the entire discussion - your mindset of who the f*ck is she to say . . . while ignoring that there was someone to say -her and she said it with her cues/signals of leave her the f*ck along before you approached."
 
Nothing gets into that bubble!!!  It's like arguing with a tennis ball dispenser/shooter.
 
Those are my words, and his, as stated.  You can't hide from the truth, no matter how much you want to ignore cogent arguments, and valid replies.

Also, looks like someone is having trouble accepting the fact that a guy can have healthy and successful social interactions with women when he’s simply a nice guy out to do no harm, and approaches a girl to give her the option of deciding whether to meet him or not.

I’ve cited examples of female friends relaying their stories of the night to me:

1. Nice guy approaches, she gives him the time of day and agrees to a date.

2. Nice guy approaches, she’s really not interested and gives him one-word answers thinking he’ll just go away, then he says something he noticed about her that’s so spot-on, she’s fascinated and gives him the time of day, enjoys speaking to him, and later agrees to a date.

3. Girls who turn down every guy who approaches them, telling them they’re really not out to meet new people tonight. The guys, one-by-one, say “Cool” and walk off. One guy even tells them to have a great night anyway. One girl thinks one of the guys was so nice, and cute too, that she later wonders if she was fair to him.

His response:

“Well, that one-word turning to interest is rare, and only happens with a certain type of girl.”

“I’ve noticed a trend with your ‘tons of female friends’’ stories where either the guy gets the girl, or the girl wanted the guy.”

He presumes there is this “certain type of girl” but when pressed, cannot elaborate on exactly what “type” he was referring to and what he meant by that.

Stating that one-word answers turning to interest is rare, and the “trend he noticed” with girls’ accounts of nice, socially successful guys shows that he simply can’t buy that nice guys who put themselves out there to approach women just to see if they’re interested in meeting anyone that night, can be successful, get dates, and have a (mutually) great time.

Again, you can’t hide from the truth, certainly when you:

Flat out deny arguments when you have no basis to show, and make blanket statements with no supporting evidence,

Such as:

- Stating definitively, without a doubt, that you know for sure that when women aren't interested, they're ALWAYS giving nonverbal cues/signals that they want to be left the f*ck alone.

. . .and that a guy is "violating" the girl's rights when he doesn't notice these cues and wants to approach a girl simply to give her the option of deciding whether she wants to meet him or not, even if when he's told, "Not interested", he then says, "Cool." and walks off. How dare he!

Or,

Imply that you have some sort of special knowledge, when you’re unable to show any evidence.

Such as:

- Stating for sure that you know something is uncommon, like the "one-word turning to interest." How do you know this? Have you interviewed every single woman throughout history who's ever been approached?

- Stating that you can attribute some behavior to "a specific type of girl" when you later can't explain anything about what you meant by that.

You're a liar.

Í'm still amused at how you bs your way even when there is proof.

I didn't state "Your words were dismissing her right to decide not meeting you was on the menu." to your harlmess approach.

In fact I repeated several times that your example was healthy interaction and was commently unrelated to your words.

You "Who the fuck is she to decide whether or not meeting me was "on the menu for the night"? "

Me
"Who the fuck is she to decide whether or not meeting me was "on the menu for the night"?"

A human being with rights.

People aren't obligated to be social because you want them to socialize.

People have the right to not want to meet people.

People have the right to not want to meet certain people.

The "Who the fuck is she to decide whether or not meeting me was "on the menu for the night"?" shows a lot of self-entitlement. That her needs are unimportant and that she's in the wrong for daring to decide she doesn't want to meet you.

Interesting that because you want her attention she can't dare decide that meeting people is not on the menu today.

You:
"Considering my past and social success, who is she to say whether meeting me was on the menu for that night or not?

Results stand on their own.

Looking back retrospectively at a rejection and thinking, "who is that bitch to think she can . . . " is one thing.

That's not at all what I said.

I'm simply saying: who's to say; who's to know?"

Me:
""No, you misunderstand. Considering my past and social success, who is she to say whether meeting me was on the menu for that night or not?"
A human being with rights.

Seems like you mistunderstand that.

Just because you've had good past appraches & social success doesn't mean she can't state she doesn't want to meet you on that night.

At least you validated your past & social success as to why you have self-entitlement issues and that a girl deciding she doesn't want to meet you gets this "who is she to say" rather than she has the right to decide who she wants to meet.

"Looking back retrospectively at a rejection and thinking, "who is that bitch to think she can . . . " is one thing.

That's not at all what I said."

Really? "Who the fuck is she to decide whether or not meeting me was "on the menu for the night"?"

That suggests looking at rejection as who the f*ck does she think she is deciding she whether or not she wants to meet me. How dare she think she has an option to decide who she wants to meet who the f*ck is she to decide that.

"I'm simply saying: who's to say; who's to know?"
""Who the fuck is she to decide whether or not meeting me was "on the menu for the night"?" doesn't really simply say that

Your continued dismissal of a person's right to decide who they want to meet doesn't really simpy say that.."

Those are yours and my words.

However they are not as stated.

Show me where I immediately responded to your harmless approach with "Your words were dismissing her right to decide not meeting you was on the menu.""

Oh that's right liar because you can't.

I repeatedly stated that your example was healthy interaction.

I repeatedly stated that your example was unrelated to your previous statements of whot he f*ck is.

I repeatedly stated that I was talking about your previous statements of who the f*ck is she to decide meeting me is not on the menu and ignoring that there is someone to say because you'd prefer the unknown possibility that she may like yo you go with the who's to say/who's to know.

Recall this you bs liar:
"Interesting that the exmaple you placed is extremely different from your words.

Your words were not just approach the girl.

Your words were dismissing her right to decide not meeting you was on the menu..

Your words were well it doesn't matter what she thinks because after all there's the unknown that she may like me because of my past successes.

I'm not completely off the rails. You seem to be with the lack of correlation between your words and your example."

Or this:
"You've lost me because as I already stated before none of your previous statements mesh with that example.

Once again that example isn't violating rights. I was talking about your mindset of who the f*ck is she to decide meeting me isn't on the menu and who's to say/who is to know because apparently she's not to say.

That example was healthy interaction while your previous statements were about dismissing her right to decide not to want to meet you via cues/signals and you persisting anyway because who the f*ck is she to decide that or she's not to say rather it's who's to say/who is to know.
Quite interesting that you picked an example that doesn't relate to your previous statements.

Quite amusing that you keep going with that example when it was already pointed that it doesn't have the who the f*ck is she to decide that or who's to say/who is to know because she has no say mindset.
"

It seems like you're the one with troubles.

Since in your first response to me you ended with f*ck you.

Since when you went to name calling, cursing, and putdowns when you were called on your bs that this discussion was about the authro's extreme claim that mall/most men are labeled creeps instantly rather than your words of who the f*ck is she to decide and who's to say/who's to know.

Show me where I have trouble accepting the fact that a guy can have healthy interaction with a woman?
I've repeatedly stated that your example was healthy interaction?

Oh thats right because you can't without misquoting and editing.

Here's what you misquoted to suit your bs.

Hmm...looks like I state once again an example of yours is healthy interaction.

Only this time I state one of them because one word turning into interest when he starts talking about her seems more like self-onterest rather than genuine interest and usually occurs with a certain type of girl.

ME: "Once again that is an example of healthy interaction.

I say example because the bit with the one-word answers where she's showing a lack of interest and he's still persisting so he has to use something he notice about her to get her interest. It's not really interest in him but self-interest since what interested her in him was a something about herself.

Side note: The bit are the one word answers turning into interest are extremely uncommon and usually happen with a certain type of girl.

I'm talking about your who the f*ck is she to decide meeting me is not on the menu and who's to say, who's to know when she clearly had her say via vues/signals that she wasn't interested in meeting anyone.

It's not the going up and assuming she'll like it I'm discussing it's your mentality that suggests going up even when she's given cues/signals she wants to be left the f*ck alone because you think who the f*ck is she to decide that and going with the who's to say unknown possibility that she'll like you rather than listing to her say of cues/signals that were there before you approached.

I do notice a trend in these examples from your tons of "female friends" the guy gets the girl or the girl wants the guy. The one word answer example turning into interest and the girl rejecting the guy and yet wondering if she was "fair" to him."
Yeah how is that me having trouble with guys interacting with women?

I stated one of the examples was healthy interaction while the one where one word answers suddenly turn to interest when he starts talking about her usually tends to be self-interest not genuine interest in the guy and happens with a certain type of girl."

In what way did you press me?
You: "Now you're just grasping for straws. What "type of girl"? What are you insinuating? How do you know?"

How did I not elaborate when pressed?
Me: "I'm not grasping for straws on that bit of the type of girl. I'm not insinuating anything except that it's one word answer to interest conversations are uncommon. I would know that it's uncommon and usually occurs with a certain type of girl because I highly doubt you've been around as much women as I have and seen them in open dialogue when they aren't spewing pc/societal correct bs."

No offense but if a girl is disinterested in a guy until he starts talking about her more than likely her interest is self-interest and that usually happens with a certain type.

And now he's being very typical; he's resorting to insults and put-downs.

Those are my words and his, as stated.

Nothing is edited or misquoted because he has maintained those same points and arguments throughout, and has used them as the response to every one of my comments and examples. So whether or not one little snippet came before a statement of mine is really irrelevant. These arguments were maintained as overarching and constant throughout. So on one hand he gets to try to have it both ways and say "that is an example of a healthy interaction", but in the same breath gets to write "apparently she is not to say."

There's nothing like being able to have your argument both ways, and being able to keep up accusations about someone, regardless of how many explanations and validqualifiers you get.

You also can't hide from the truth.

1. Show me where I was: "Stating definitively, without a doubt, that you know for sure that when women aren't interested, they're ALWAYS giving nonverbal cues/signals that they want to be left the f*ck alone."

Oh that's right you can't.

I've REPEATEDLY stated that I was talking about dismissing and ignoring cues/signals because of your mindset of who the f*ck is she to decide or prefer the unknown possibility she may like it versus what her cues/signals said is rights violating.

I never stated that women always give them.

2. Show me where I was saying "that a guy is "violating" the girl's rights when he doesn't notice these cues and wants to approach a girl simply to give her the option of deciding whether she wants to meet him or not, even if when he's told, "Not interested", he then says, "Cool." and walks off"

Oh that's right you can't you bs liar.

I've repeatedly stated it's your mindset of who the f*ck is she to decide not meeting me & who's to say/who's to know because you prefer ignoring that she has a say.

How can I state that a guy who doesn't notice these cues are rights violating when I stated sucks to be socially awkwwrad because it's often seen as a creepy indicator....yeah nothing about it being rights violating you bs liar.:

"4. Look for cues and signals which is pretty reasonable since verbal/nonverbal communication is what socializing is about.
^ sorry socially awkward people.

Not getting cues/signals may be a creepy indicator since it's not intrepreted as being scially awkward but not caring about what's she's signaling. If a girl is signaling she's not comfortable with a guy being close and the guy remains that close most would assume that he got the cue and just doesn't care.

How is this an illogical & silly "argument"? What valid point do guys here raise about it?

I can see a valid point in perhaps he was socially awkward not intentionally ignoring cues/signals yet I don't recall any guy on here stating that. Only cue/signal thing was that guys want women to be upfront...odd considering the male reaction to a woman being upfront with this guide that's intended to be helpful. Now image the male reaction to a woman being upfront telling you she thinks what you're doing is creepy or makes her uncomfortable."

I'd really like for you to show me where I stated a guy doing as in your example was rights violating when I repeatedly told you what I thought was rights violating:
"Having the mindset of who the f*ck is she to decide not to want to meet me so you approach everyone regardless of if they look receptive is violation."

"Having the mindset of it doesn't matter if she doesn't want to be approached because who there's the unknown possibility she may like it is violatiing her rights and all my past successes validate trumps her desire"

I'd really like for you to show me where I stated a guy doing as in your example was rights violating when I repeatedly told you that your example was healthy interaction:
"Interesting that the exmaple you placed is extremely different from your words."

"You seem to be with the lack of correlation between your words and your example."

"The example of a guy approaching a girl is extremely different from your words:
"Who the fuck is she to decide whether or not meeting me was "on the menu for th"e night"?""

"You've lost me because as I already stated before none of your previous statements mesh with that example."

"Once again that example isn't violating rights. I was talking about your mindset of who the f*ck is she to decide meeting me isn't on the menu and who's to say/who is to know because apparently she's not to say."

"That example was healthy interaction while your previous statements were about dismissing her right to decide not to want to meet you via cues/signals and you persisting anyway because who the f*ck is she to decide that or she's not to say rather it's who's to say/who is to know."

"Quite interesting that you picked an example that doesn't relate to your previous statements."

"Quite amusing that you keep going with that example when it was already pointed that it doesn't have the who the f*ck is she to decide that or who's to say/who is to know because she has no say mindset."

I repeatedly stated this:
" Having the mindset of who the f*ck is she to decide not to want to meet me so you approach everyone regardless of if they look receptive is violation."...pretty sure most intelligent people would get thinking who the f*ck is a woman to decide not to wwant to meet me and not caring if they are receptive is what is rights violating not your example.

"Having the mindset of it doesn't matter if she doesn't want to be approached because who there's the unknown possibility she may like it is violatiing her rights and all my past successes validate trumps her desires."....pretty sure most intelligent people would get thinking since I have past successes it doesn't matter if she doesn't want to be approached because there's always the unknown chance she may like it that is rights violating not your example.

"Once again that is an example of healthy interaction."

I am amused by your claim that I responded to this:
"- Guys who rapidly approach women so they don't stand around thinking about it, letting anxiety fester. They likely don't even see the cues because there was simply no time to notice them. But they'll learn soon enough whether she's looking to meet new people that night or not, and they should respect whatever he decision is.

- Guys who have social development issues and don't have the ability, or they have major hindrances in their ability, to read social cues. This was even mentioned in a previous post that it may be a cogent point that some people are unable to read the social cues."

with ""Apparently she is not to say."

You're such a bs liar because if you press find on the page of any sentence in those two paragraphs it's not found. So you never even typed those words.

My god you do go far in your bs lying don't you RobSchmod

Seems like you're forgetting that you were being very typical by resorting to insults and put-downs first.

Are you forgetting your FIRST response to me?
You: You're talking about an over year and a half article I reflected on angrily.........PS:Go fuck yourself, feminist cunt.
Me: Wow just wow. Seems like you still got that anger.

Are you forgetting your other response that you ended it with F*ck you too?
You: Fuck you too.
Me: "Yeah....that "F*ck you too" shows a lot of anger."

Are you forgetting this?
You "I think it's time for you to get a fuckin' life."
Me: "So you're resulting to putdowns & cursing because you've been called on your bs."

You did this without provocation.

At least I'm calling you a bs liar because you are one.

Your only post on the autistic was this:

It's laughable because in it you ADMIT that I tagged on the nonverbal bit that some men can't read them....with no mention of me claiming that it was rights violating. Yet you now bs that I was telling you that I responded with "Apparently she's not to say" when you discussed autistic guys.

Your post
"You tag on this non-verbal thing as well, but mentioned in an earlier post that it may be a cogent point that some men cannot read the non-verbals. Okay, well, this has actually been gnawing at me for a while, so I'll raise that point right now, but there're actually two sides to it:

1. It's called a "mild form of autism"/aspergers syndrome. You see it every day/night when you go out, and it's not just from guys. The most noticeable (and pathetic) male cases are the totally socially inept guys who go out and the first thing they do is slam a bunch of shots of vodka, and become the creepiest guys in the place. While the causes may be in dispute, this is an obvious (and apparently increasing) trend: lack of ability/extreme difficulty reading social cues. My money is on the video-game culture that we've found ourselves in, but gain, it'll be some time before we know for sure what causes this."

My response to that bit in your post
"Quite interesting that you can recall that I mention some unsocial and social disordered people can't read nonverbal communication when I was pointing out that her article isn't completely illogical and irrational before you responded to me.

Yet you miss and miss and miss and continued to miss my repeats to try to state on topic of your who the f*ck is she to decide and who's to say & who's to know mindset during my responses to you."

Are you really that much of a bs liar?

Yes you did misquote to quote somone stating they responded to your post with that when they did not is misquoting.

I'm not trying to have it both ways.

Any intelligent person could see I stated the examples were nothing like your mindset and examples of healthy interaction.

Since I repeated it countless times.

Any intelligent person could see I was talking about your mindset being unhealthy/rights violating not the examples.

Since I repeated it countless times.

It's not having it both ways.

I'm saying it's rights violating/unhealthy interaction to be ignoring and dismissing cues/signals because your mindset is who the f*ck is she to decide meeting me isn't on the men & prefering to ignore that the cues/signals you dismissed was her having her say because you prefer who's to say/who's to know as you want to go with the unkown possiblity she may like it.

I'm saying your examples are unrelated to your mindset which is why they are healthy interaction.

And you know better than to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

I'm amused that after I've shown how you've been bsing again this "and you know better bit" is all you can state. LMAO XD

Is that all you have left after your failed attempt of look I've been responding rationally while he's been stating this and now he's insulting me has failed doue to being shown you're bsing, you're editing and misquoting.

When did I justify my behavior? LMAO XD

Never stated I was right or wrong just that I'm calling you a bs liar because that's what you are once again doing

I just reminded you of your own bad behavior your "PS:Go fuck yourself, feminist cunt." and "Fuck you two" in your first responses to me. Your repeated name-calling and the insult/put-down when I called you the first time on your bs claim that this was about the author's extreme claim rather than your own words.

Your "And now he's being very typical; he's resorting to insults and p"and you know better" bit was amusing to me since it seems like you were trying to give off this bit preachy impression that somehow you were weren't indulging in this behavior while I was being the typical one.

Your editing and misquoting only furthers that impression.

LMAO XD thanks for the chuckles on Thanksgiving. I've shown my friends this.

Condescending women like this is why I only date Asian ladies, American white woman I don't want you

I just discovered this article and read it top to bottom.

It was pretty obvious the guy was reffering to the AUTHOR when he said "who the fakk is she to tell me what's on the menu" or whatever the line the deceptive feminist keeps pasting over and over.

This feminist has NO argument so he keeps distorting what was said to always try to squeeze it in his/her frame of always trying to make everything about a conspiracy to take away women's rights.

It's obvious to everyone reading this he was referring to the author, so it surprised me when he kept getting requoted wrongly later. But then he even CLARIFIED, and the feminist keeps trying to twist his words into a "patriarchal conspiracy to take away female rights".

Pretty pathetic - but then again, that's typical of femmies.

I didn't make everything about taking away women's right. I applied rights violating to his particular mindset. In fact with his examples I told him they were unrelated to his mindset because they were healthy forms of interaction.

"That example was healthy interaction while your previous statements were about dismissing her right to decide not to want to meet you via cues/signals and you persisting anyway because who the f*ck is she to decide that or she's not to say rather it's who's to say/who is to know."

Nor did I even mention feminism, the patriarchal or conspiracies. o.O

I have an argument. Plenty of them.
1. He claimed that the guys commenting had valid arguments.
I listed the guys arguments and showed that it was irrational/illogical. I asked him to show me the valid arguments or show me the logic in their comments.

He could not and did not.

2. He claimed that her arguments were silly & illogical.
I listed the rationality in some of the authors advice. I asked him to show me where is the silliness in "Not to harass, whistle, fondle, or follow a girl."

What he did do was respond saying he had made his comments quite a while ago and that they were out of anger.

As well as telling me that he had and to f*ck myself repeatedly.

Guess he still had that anger.

Anger that repeatedly resurfaced.

Especially when I broke down the conversation when he claimed the discussion was about the author's premise that guys are automatically assumed to be creeps that rather than his own words such as the particular comment of who the f*ck is she.

It's not pretty obvious the guy was referring to the author when he said that because when he refers to the article he states the author, the author's premise, or the article.

When made who the f*ck is she comments to the author and it was pretty obvious that he was referring to her.

Such as this one
Exactly, when you open with "I'm trying to teach you nice guys how not to be creepy"...then you immediately follow with, "Sorry but 98% of girls already assume you're a creep.
Who the fuck is she???!!! I've gotten great rapport, numbers, and dates just from approaching women on the subway platforms, complaining about the time

Note my response to that:
Interesting when you got this great rapport, numbers, and dates did you get them by doing the things she advised against:
1. harassing, whistling, fondling, or following a girl.
2. persist when she's not interested
3. looking unkempt & a threat to her safety
4. ignoring her cues/signals that she wanted to be left alone
5. not seeing her level of involvement when engaging her
If you got this rapport by doing all of the above then I guess your f*ck you Ali is warranted. If not might want to hold back on your anger issues.
How is it a one-sided approach to not harrass, persist when she's not interested, and look for cues/signals of her involvement?

The particular comment of his I referred to wasn't talking about the author or referencing the author.

Especially since the particular comment of his:
Who the fuck is she to decide whether or not meeting me was "on the menu for the night"?

His only mention of the article/author in that response with that particular who the f*ck is she comment is to state the article is skewed to insist that most guys would be using those creepy harassing approaches such as fondling yelling screaming whistling, etc.
^ something it did not by the way.

After I told him people have the right to decide who they want to meet.

He went to
1. oh I've had previous social success so results stand for themselves.
"Considering my past and social success, who is she to say whether meeting me was on the menu for that night or not?"
* I told him past successes doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to decide not to meet you *

then
2. oh I meant in retrospect I was talking about not the girl but observers while in the same response stating who's she to state she meeting me isn't on the menu because she might like it.

Hence when I called him on either backtracking or clarifying.

That yeah she might like it but going in with the mindset that if she decides meeting you or anyone is not on her menu it doesn't matter to you because hey she just might like it is unhealthy

You're dealing with someone who simply refuses to not have the last word.

Seems rather you can't have the last word.

That when called on your bs you ignore it and switch arguments.

1. When called on your bs that this discussion was about the author's claim rather than you by given a breakdown of the convo thus farL
You went insulting.

2. When called on your bs of apply misquoting me by my quotes as responses. As well as lying since one of your supposed quotes doesn't exist when you search for it on the page:
You went she's resorting name-calling by calling me a bs liar.

I told you that if you're trying to play being typical by resorting to put-downs you're forgetting that from your first responses to me you were insulting.

Since it seems like you can't play the typical resorting to insults card you go the two wrongs don't make a right card.

When shut down with I wasn't justifying my behavior just reminding you of your own.

No responses from you since you no longer have any other diversion cards to play after being shown that you lied, misquoted, and even made up a quote of yours.

"1. harassing, whistling, fondling, or following a girl.
2. persist when she's not interested
3. looking unkempt & a threat to her safety
4. ignoring her cues/signals that she wanted to be left alone
5. not seeing her level of involvement when engaging her"

This is assuming this is an all inclusive list.

This was the autor's outreach to hardcore cases of creeps. The ones who probably wouldn't reply contending that they are nice guys. This list obviously did not refer to me so I didn't address it.

My reading of her article, especially the "We're talking about the cold approach."

- is referring to, well, ALL cold approaches. I responded in kind.

And as for that "mindset", I have clarified,

- yet you miss, and miss, and miss, and continue to miss that such depiction of any such "mindset" was totally directed at the author and her views on cold-approaches from nice guy.

Again, sad, just sad.

As for your legitimate holes...seems like you continue to lack reading comprehension.
1. What "certain type of girl are you referring to who'd become interested in the right guy, even if she initially feels she wouldn't be?"

Seems like you're forgetting some key info.

You: ". . . so, at first I was just giving him one-word answers and thought he might just go away, but then he asked something because he noticed something about me that was spot on! I couldn't believe it! 'How did you know that about me?' I asked, and decided to give him the time of day, so we started talking and he actually turned ou to be a pretty interesting guy, and I said I'll let him take me out next weekend."

Me: "the bit with the one-word answers where she's showing a lack of interest and he's still persisting so he has to use something he notice about her to get her interest. It's not really interest in him but self-interest since what interested her in him was a something about herself.

Side note: The bit are the one word answers turning into interest are extremely uncommon and usually happen with a certain type of girl""

You: "Now you're just grasping for straws. What "type of girl"? What are you insinuating? How do you know?"

Me: "I'm not grasping for straws on that bit of the type of girl. I'm not insinuating anything except that it's one word answer to interest conversations are uncommon. I would know that it's uncommon and usually occurs with a certain type of girl because I highly doubt you've been around as much women as I have and seen them in open dialogue when they aren't spewing pc/societal correct bs."

I later when you claim that you pressed me for this as if I one question is pressing and as if I didn't answer said question. I give:
"No offense but if a girl is disinterested in a guy until he starts talking about her more than likely her interest is self-interest and that usually happens with a certain type."

Not that hard to get the type of girl is one who becomes interested in conversations and guys when the subject and focus is her.

Sad, just sad.

1. I called you a bs liar because you misquoted.

You applied my quotes as responses to other quotes that they were not responses to.

I showed that the my quotes you applied as responses were in fact not responses.

I even showed that one of things you supposedly said did not exist.

2. I never argued that that mindset is directed at any girl who is about to be approached.
In fact I called several approaches healthy interaction.

In fact I ever
"Quite amusing that you keep going with that example when it was already pointed that it doesn't have the who the f*ck is she to decide that or who's to say/who is to know because she has no say mindset."

Hmm...right there that shows that is an example of approaching without that mindset.

In fact I repeatedly label examples without your mindset as healthy interaction.

3. I never implied that you were referring to what every guy should think when he decides to walk up to a girl.

I never stated the mindset as your mindset and never stated/implied that you believed that is what every guy should do.

Your other legitimate hole.
2. "Violating a girl's rights" for not seeing/not being good at reading a girl's nonverbal cues that she wants to be "left the f*ck alone"?

I never stated that it's rights violating when you can't read the cues.

In fact you you made that first claim I responded with:
“Show me where I was saying "that a guy is "violating" the girl's rights when he doesn't notice these cues and wants to approach a girl simply to give her the option of deciding whether she wants to meet him or not, even if when he's told, "Not interested", he then says, "Cool." and walks off"
Oh that's right you can't you bs liar.
I've repeatedly stated it's your mindset of who the f*ck is she to decide not meeting me & who's to say/who's to know because you prefer ignoring that she has a say.”

You couldn't show me.

Rather you did a diversion tactic of me being very typical by resorting to insults.

In fact I'm the one who brings up not being good at reading people and it wasn't brought up with being rights violating.

I bring it up in a much earlier post way before your rights violating mindset when I was showing how the rationality in some of the authors advice on how not to be creepy.
“4. Look for cues and signals which is pretty reasonable since verbal/nonverbal communication is what socializing is about.
^ sorry socially awkward people.
Not getting cues/signals may be a creepy indicator since it's not intrepreted as being scially awkward but not caring about what's she's signaling. If a girl is signaling she's not comfortable with a guy being close and the guy remains that close most would assume that he got the cue and just doesn't care.”

Nothing about it violating a girl's right but that some girls may see it as a creepy indicator.

Even more lying from you.
You claim that I sidestepped & swept under the rug guys not being able to read the nonverbal with said responses:

"Amusing you would mention that . . ."
^ that response doesn't exist. Just click find on any browser.

"Funny you would mention that . . ."
^ that response doesn't exist. Just click find on any browser.

"Interesting that you would bring up . . ."
^ that response doesn't exist. Just click find on any browser.

I really question why you would continue to make up quotes when people can just hit ctrl + F and see you're a bs liar.

The only thing of mine that remotely similar was in response to not reading cues was my response to your whole how it's convenient I didn't mention several offtopic things then adding your explanation of the not reading nonverbal:

"Girls dressing provocatively but then being supprised when they get all this male attention is probably also a matter of severity. Funny you don't address it at all, convenient, one might even say...?
Another issue which seems to teeter on matters of severity is this whole idea of a guy buying drinks for a girl. You also don't address this, and I find this convenient for you as well.
....
You tag on this non-verbal thing as well, but mentioned in an earlier post that it may be a cogent point that some men cannot read the non-verbals. Okay, well, this has actually been gnawing at me for a while, so I'll raise that point right now, but there're actually two sides to it:
1. It's called a "mild form of autism"/aspergers syndrome. You see it every day/night when you go out, and it's not just from guys. The most noticeable (and pathetic) male cases are the totally socially inept guys who go out and the first thing they do is slam a bunch of shots of vodka, and become the creepiest guys in the place. While the causes may be in dispute, this is an obvious (and apparently increasing) trend: lack of ability/extreme difficulty reading social cues. My money is on the video-game culture that we've found ourselves in, but gain, it'll be some time before we know for sure what causes this.

To be fair, the female cases usually manifest themselves in quiet girls, who are surrounded by a bunch of (usually equally or more attractive) female friends, and simply stay single. I've known many cases through high school, and are the same in their early 30's.

Many are also called out by guys as well, "Don't bother with her man, she's wierd with guys." For better or worse, that's how it is. That's the terrain. You are free to agree or disagree on what I feel about the circumstances, but those are the facts.

2. "The three-second-rule." Many men who've had difficulty meeting women take on certain self-help beliefs that they should approach the first (or any) girl they see in a bar/club/social place within the first three seconds of meeting her. There're a WHOLE lot of guys who do this, some with, some without the associated self-help material. So for better or worse, a lot of guys are doing this.

When approaching girls right away, right on sight, of course they wouldn't be able to "perceive and read" the social cues, because they don't even see them. They've just been hit with so many "No's" or whatever the reason, they've decided that the best way to do it from here on out is to just play the numbers and introduce themselves to as many women who seem socially "out there" as possible." - a noble move actually, if they adhere to what you yourself called "a healthy interaction.""

Recall:
“Quite interesting that you can recall that I mention some unsocial and social disordered people can't read nonverbal communication when I was pointing out that her article isn't completely illogical and irrational before you responded to me.

Yet you miss and miss and miss and continued to miss my repeats to try to state on topic of your who the f*ck is she to decide and who's to say & who's to know mindset during my responses to you.

So much so that you state it's funny/convenient that I don't address off-topic bits in my discussion with you about your mindset of who the f*ck is she to decide meeting me isn't on the menu and who's to say & who's to know when there was someone to say- her."

Read above guys, again. Sad huh?

A bit sad that you can't even come up with originality:
"Yet you miss and miss and miss and continued to miss my repeats to try to state on topic of your who the f*ck is she to decide and who's to say & who's to know mindset during my responses to you."

Really...really now.

I don't miss, and miss, and miss, and continue to miss that such depiction of any such "mindset" was totally directed at the author and her views on cold-approaches from nice guy.

When your who the f*ck is she was about the author, the article, or her views I responded in like:
Exactly, when you open with "I'm trying to teach you nice guys how not to be creepy"...then you immediately follow with, "Sorry but 98% of girls already assume you're a creep.
Who the fuck is she???!!! I've gotten great rapport, numbers, and dates just from approaching women on the subway platforms, complaining about the time
Note my response to that:
Interesting when you got this great rapport, numbers, and dates did you get them by doing the things she advised against:
1. harassing, whistling, fondling, or following a girl.
2. persist when she's not interested
3. looking unkempt & a threat to her safety
4. ignoring her cues/signals that she wanted to be left alone
5. not seeing her level of involvement when engaging her
If you got this rapport by doing all of the above then I guess your f*ck you Ali is warranted. If not might want to hold back on your anger issues.
How is it a one-sided approach to not harrass, persist when she's not interested, and look for cues/signals of her involvement?

The particular who the f*ck is she to decide meeting me is not on the menu comment was nothing about the author, the article, or her views.

Nor when I told you people have the right to decide who they want to meet did you state it was.

Rather you went from
1. oh I've had previous social success so results stand for themselves.
"Considering my past and social success, who is she to say whether meeting me was on the menu for that night or not?"
* I told him past successes doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to decide not to meet you *

then
2. oh I meant in retrospect I was talking about not the girl but observers while in the same response stating who's she to state she meeting me isn't on the menu because she might like it.
*this is when you claimed it was about observers like the author right after past social success negates her right to decide failed*
*while amusingly at the same time saying oh the who is the observers but as for the girl who's she to decide not meeting me isn't on the menu she might like it *

Hence when I called you on either backtracking or clarifying.

As well as saying going in with your mindset that if she decides meeting you or anyone is not on her menu but that doesn't matter to you because hey she just might like it is unhealthy.

Yes please read above and see how sad he is.

Again, sad, just sad how you still continue to make up quotes.
Right after I've already shown you how you misquote and made up something as a quote when you never even had typed it before.

Again, sad, just sad how you claim to have legitimate holes that were never holes to begin with.

Though what's even more sad is your fixation on nice guys.
Recall: “Your issue seems to be with the word creepy and nice guys. ”

Though what's not sad is how rather than ignore and insult/put down when called on your bs you now just state sad just sad.

It's really amusing.

I see you like your new diversion tactic of avoiding being called on your bs & lies.

Really though why misquote, edit, and even make up quotes when ctrl + f can show how you edit, misquote, and invent things.

This is clearly someone with some emotional/hormonal disorders.

I was posed the question: "Did my social success come from fondling whistling, etc."

- and you saw how I addressed that. That list was meant for the extreme not the nice guys making the "we're talking about the cold approach" that the author was mainly addressing.

So in that case yes, my "fuck you Ali" statement still stands.

As far as the "who the f is she to judge ...menu"/"who's to say, who's to know", my clarification has made it clear, clearer, clearer, and yet even more clear that I was referring only to the author (as a fellow reader thankfully noticed and stated) or anyone who would look back retrospectively at such social success.

Again, we're talking about a poster who not only tries to play psych-doc by, in previous posts, stating things such things as "seems like you have a problem with..."

"seems like you have trouble with"....

I'm not sure of the level of certification this wacko, radical feminist has, so let me do some diagnosing of my own.

It takes a special kind of imbalanced person to create different logins just to respond to each person.

Again, I'm sure we'll hear plenty, as we've heard, and he/she won't let me down of course by not referring following one of the 5 rules I've stated.

And again, sad huh? Just sad.

PS:

The only reason I'm posting this late on a Saturday night is because a date (of the the two I arranged last weekend) cancelled on me because she was sick. (she definitely sounded sick when she called me to cancel) and I kicked it around and decided to just chill in for the evening.

That date I set up by sitting at a bar waiting for a buddy of mine, and just started chatting.

The other one I already had (Wed actually) and I met her by simply walking up to her on the street after the barset out, and saying hi. That was it. After the date, she texted me that I was such a gentleman and wanted to see me again.

So nobody's above some good insulting when it's due. And that's that.

This is clearly someone who's on his last diversion tactic.

Naming/insulting when called on your bs doesn't work.
EX: stating this entire discussion was about her claim that rather than a particular who the f*ck is she to decide not meeting me comment.

Misquoting, editing, and even making up quotes when called on your bs doesn't work.

Now the sad, just sad isn't working for you.

Sad, again, quite sad.

Really dude what did I state about ctrl + F?

"Again, we're talking about a poster who not only tries to play psych-doc by, in previous posts, stating things such things as "seems like you have a problem with..."

"seems like you have trouble with"....

Ctrl + F

Search for seems like you have trouble with....nothing.

Search for seems like you have a problem with....nothing.

I've only stated you may still have some anger issues.
Pretty reasonable since you stated you made the comments I had responded to in anger then proceeded to repeatedly tell me to f*ck myself in your first few responses.

I've only stated it seems like you have issues with the words creepy & nice guy.
Since you show some hostility with the word creepy.
Since you continually bring in nice guys when I'm discussing your mindset not guys, not nice guys, just your and your words.

Stating that it seems you have issues is not playing psych-doc to me.

If I tried to delve deeper into whys/hows and made the discussion about the issues then that be playing psych-do. I have not.

If I stated with absolute certainty that you had those issues then it would be playing psych-do. I have not.

After all I don't claim you're playing psych-doc on me by stating "This is clearly someone with some emotional/hormonal disorders."

Hmm...that's a diagnosis there what did you state:
"I'm not sure of the level of certification this wacko, radical feminist has, so let me do some diagnosing of my own.

It takes a special kind of imbalanced person to create different logins just to respond to each person.""

Wow two diagnoses.

Ironic that you claim I'm playing psych-doc by making statements that it seems like you have anger issues and issues with the word creepy & nice guy.

When you make clear absolute assessments of me and not seem just is.

When you actually make a diagnosis...ah irony.

It's like when you did the he's being typical by resorting to insulting....as if you had forgotten you had insulted me far more and from the get-go.

* I didn't create different logins...I create different names...I don't have an account on here. I used different names so that the people would now who I'm responding to. *

You haven't made it clear, clearer, and yet even more clear that I was referring only to the author with that particular who the f*ck is she comment I responded to.

What you did was state make a particular who the f*ck is she that in did not mention the author, the article, or the author's views.

Nor when I told you people have the right to decide who they want to meet did you state it was.

Rather you went- oh I've had previous social success so results stand for themselves so who is she to decide to not want to me meet.
"Considering my past and social success, who is she to say whether meeting me was on the menu for that night or not?"

Then went- oh I meant in retrospect I was talking about not the girl but observers while in the same response stating who's she to state she meeting me isn't on the menu because she might like it.

Read above, again, quite sad. And at 3:06am on a sat night.

I'm only writing because I was woken up by the email chime from my phone, and read the response and felt that I had to respond.

Read above, again, quite sad. And at 3:06am on a sat night.

I'm only writing because I was woken up by the email chime from my phone, and read the response and felt that I had to respond.

Read above, again, quite sad. And at 3:06am on a sat night.

I'm only writing because I was woken up by the email chime from my phone, and read the response and felt that I had to respond.

Read above, again, quite sad. And at 3:06am on a sat night.

I'm only writing because I was woken up by the email chime from my phone, and read the response and felt that I had to respond.

Read above, again, quite sad. And at 3:06am on a sat night.

I'm only writing because I was woken up by the email chime from my phone, and read the response and felt that I had to respond.

That question was posed when you were saying her arguments were illogical & silly then later that you have gotten plenty of great rapport, numbers, and dates so f*ck her.

Quite clearly I was saying unless you got this by doing the things she advised again then the f*ck you is warranted. To further show that there is logic in some of her advice.

Most reasonable response would to that would be either:
yes I went against her advise so f*ck her
no I did not go against her advise so no f*ck her

You however ignore f*Ck her if you went against her advise & succeeded but f*ck you Ali still stands because the list was meant for the extreme not the nice guys making the "we're talking about the cold approach" that the author was mainly addressing....o.O?

You:
“Exactly, when you open with "I'm trying to teach you nice guys how not to be creepy"...then you immediately follow with, "Sorry but 98% of girls already assume you're a creep.
Who the fuck is she???!!! I've gotten great rapport, numbers, and dates just from approaching women on the subway platforms, complaining about the time
Until the next train, etc.
Oh, and I wasn't even in a bar!
I was in a subway station (well, metro here in DC) and I obviously wasn't regarded as a creep. The girls giggled, laughed along with my joke, and that was that.
So essentially I'm saying fuck you Ali, and your dipshit, one-sided approach to attraction.”

Me:
“Interesting when you got this great rapport, numbers, and dates did you get them by doing the things she advised against:
1. harassing, whistling, fondling, or following a girl.
2. persist when she's not interested
3. looking unkempt & a threat to her safety
4. ignoring her cues/signals that she wanted to be left alone
5. not seeing her level of involvement when engaging her
If you got this rapport by doing all of the above then I guess your f*ck you Ali is warranted. If not might want to hold back on your anger issues.”

You:
"I did none of that. But got a *whole* lot of dates. Who the fuck is she to decide whether or not meeting me was "on the menu for the night"?

The problem is that the article is skewed, as to insist that most guys would be using those creepy harassing approaches such as fondling yelling screaming whistling, etc.

From (vast) experience, just being a nice, polite, funny, and definitely *fun* guy will get you a date whether meeting you was "on the menu" or not.

Fuck you too."

Sad, again, quite sad the irony in stating I'm playing psych-doc in the same post where you make a statement about me psychologically with absolute certainty and make diagnoses.

Sad, again, quite sad is the whole feminist thing since I've never mentioned feminism you brought that up as a slam/insult.

Sad, again, quite sad is fellow reader AlekNovy's interpretation of this was me trying to twist your words into patriarchal conspiracy to take away female rights".

Though let's not forget that AlekNovy also thankfully didn't notice how you went to insults/putdowns the first time you were called on your bs. Or how you went to misquoting, made up quotes, edited and when called on your bs the second time

I like the sad, just sad you went to when called on your bs this time.

Oh and when I accused you of being a faux-mental-health professional, I never said that you stated: "For certainty, these are your issues."

Not even a psychologist with 30 years experience could do that.

Yet you simply insert that little qualifier, which I never mentioned, as another way to wiggle out, like the sleezeball you are.

Mental health professionals say: "seems like you've got issues/problems, with etc."

No one from any profession can state any of that for a certainty .

So yes, my accusation of your standing-in as a faux-mental-health professional stands.

As does my clarification of who's to say/ who's to know/who's to tell me what's on the menu.

Nice try. Now go do something productive, please.

Though I'm not sure what's more sad that or you clarfying why you're online twice.

The first being with a long winded ps to anyone who may happen to read this. Yeah hey anyone who may read this Im not a loser I'm just here because of such & such.

The second being I'm only responding because he responded. Something you posted thrice...error or maybe you just felt the need to ensure that anyone who may read this just know you're not a loser.

Are you trying to play the I'm not a loser I'm just here because while this person doesn't have a life card?

If so haven't you've seen how your card playing has panned out?

Oh, so now after I concede that women do have all of the rights but nice guys should "ideally" use some common sense, if they have the ability to, re: social cues., etc.

No acknowledgement.

And don't even try those references to who's to say/who's to know, because they've been clarified. Dig as far up as you want. I'm calling it now; I've read up that far and they don't hold water.

Oh, so now where're gettin' down to it aren't we??!

Proving I'm not a loser? My very satisfying life stands on its own.

I never stated/implied that you had stated I stated anything like for certainty these are your issues.

So I'm quite unsure of why you felt the need to state this: "Oh and when I accused you of being a faux-mental-health professional, I never said that you stated: "For certainty, these are your issues.""

I'm not wiggling out of anything with a qualifier. What would I be wiggling out of that you think I was playing psych-doc? o.O

I don't care if you think I'm playing psych-doc I stated my opinion that “Stating that it seems you have issues is not playing psych-doc to me."

Keywords...to me....I'm quite clear others may have a different opinions and I have no issue with that.

I then expand on what is psych-doc to me:
"If I tried to delve deeper into whys/hows and made the discussion about the issues then that be playing psych-do. I have not.
If I stated with absolute certainty that you had those issues then it would be playing psych-do. I have not."

And if you keep replying like this, I've set up a script that will basically post lots of my un-published posts, that continue to degrade you and portray you as the mentally unstable person you obviously are. And they'll keep coming, with each repost of yours

It's necessary at this point. You've earned it please don't test me. It can get very ugly for you.

Just don't write back please.

"Oh, so now after I concede that women do have all of the rights but nice guys should "ideally" use some common sense, if they have the ability to, re: social cues., etc."
No acknowledgement."

Like I said in my response to your post with that bit in it I wanted to stay on topic.

The whole women have all the rights thing actually you put women are completely the ones to say was irrelevant to me stating a certain mindset is rights violating/unhealthy interaction.

It was like someone saying thinking this way is unhealthy then being responded with ways of healthy thinking.

That's nice & all but the discussion was this is unhealthy not what is healthy.

Plus that bit was tacked on at the end and I had loads of other things to address like you:
saying it's funny/convenient I didn't address girls dressing provocatively but being surprised when they get male attention
saying it's funny/convenient I didn't address a guy buying drinks for a girl

o.O?

You:
"Women are completely "the ones to say."
Men can be creepy.
Women shouldn't give mixed signals and ask for drinks to be bought for them, then call the guy "creepy" for showing interest.
Men who are out to do no harm, and just want to put themselves out there and introduce themselves, should be given the benefit of a doubt. Of course (I would say, unfortunately) the burden is on them to sniff out the right social cues at the right time to know how (or if) to proceed. But if it doesn't work out, it simply doesn't work out. And that's really where I'm leaving it. The girl flirts for two hours, then says, "ummm, I'm gonna just go over there and talk to my friends" and gives a guy the cold shoulder for the rest of the night.
Totally her right. In my book: "It didn't work out." In my view, it's pretty shitty, but still totally her right, and she should be left alone.
The only alternative is the guy chooses to rape her, but of course that doesn't change her decision.
And that, as they say, is that."

Yeah I didn't see much sense in acknowledging that when my topic was a certain mindset is rights violating & unhealthy.

If we're getting down to it:
Are you going to respond to me proving that you misquotes, edited quotes, and invented quotes?

Are you going to respond to my requests to show me when/where I stated some of the things you claimed I was arguing?
You: "make blanket statements with no supporting evidence,
Such as:

- Stating definitively, without a doubt, that you know for sure that when women aren't interested, they're ALWAYS giving nonverbal cues/signals that they want to be left the f*ck alone.

. . .and that a guy is "violating" the girl's rights when he doesn't notice these cues and wants to approach a girl simply to give her the option of deciding whether she wants to meet him or not, even if when he's told, "Not interested", he then says, "Cool." and walks off. How dare he!"

Really I'm mentally unstable person?

Weren't you just accusing me of playing psych-doc as a way to portray my character negatively?

Amusing I'm the unstable one when:
You admitted the posts I had responded to were made from anger.

You were insulting, cursing, name-calling from the first few responses.

You when first called on his bs went to insults/putdowns.

You when called on your bs a second time went to misquoting, editing quotes, and making up quotes.

You were and still are asserting that I stated/argued things yet ignore requests to show me where I stated/implied any such thing.

Yeah hey anyone who may read this, I"m not a loser I'm just here because of such & such":

You posed this as one of the facets of arguing that I'm justifying why I'm not a loser.

My reason was quite valid, yet you refused to mention it, or give it any acknowledgement at all.

Now that's obviously a personal attack, and sure, I could come back with a whole lot of bad stuff, we'll forego that. You sure as hell haven't said why you're posting on a forum like this at 4:30 est. either. I've stated my reasons; I'm still up; insomnia...

I think, all in all, we're in agreement of lot here.

Maybe we could just point out spots where we may agree to disagree, and call it that.

Just a thought.

You "degrading" me is a non issue to me and will actually have no effect on me other than amusement.

I've already stated that I've shown this to my friends and we can laughed at you. In fact we're laughing right now.

You put "Oh, so now where're gettin' down to it aren't we??!" then put don't write back please.

Guess you can't handle getting down to it..LMAO XD

So I guess this is your last card to play since the others have bombed.

The he's irrationally responding to my posts card bombed.
I showed you how you were misquoting, editing quotes, and even making up quotes while calling you a bs liar.

The he's being typical by resorting to insults card bombed.
I reminded you of your own behavior if you were trying to give the impression that you're handling it rationally while he's insulting/name-calling.

The he's justifying his bad behavior with other bad behavior card bombed.
I was reminding you of your behavior and never once justified my behavior.

The sad, just sad card bombed.
I easily applied that to you.

I love the card playing rather than face the proof of misquoting, editing quotes, making up quotes, still continuing to make up quotes...ctrl + F dude, and claiming and still claiming I argued things I did not.

I thought the reason to list why you're on here other then because you want others to know why.

I wasn't aware that a reason given as to why you're telling anyone who may read this why you're explaining you're on here late on a Saturday.

So what reason for why you're explaining why you're on here on did I refused to mention it, or give it any acknowledgement at all....O.O

You: “The only reason I'm posting this late on a Saturday night is because a date (of the the two I arranged last weekend) cancelled on me because she was sick. (she definitely sounded sick when she called me to cancel) and I kicked it around and decided to just chill in for the evening.
That date I set up by sitting at a bar waiting for a buddy of mine, and just started chatting.
The other one I already had (Wed actually) and I met her by simply walking up to her on the street after the barset out, and saying hi. That was it. After the date, she texted me that I was such a gentleman and wanted to see me again.
So nobody's above some good insulting when it's due. And that's that.”

You: “Read above, again, quite sad. And at 3:06am on a sat night.
I'm only writing because I was woken up by the email chime from my phone, and read the response and felt that I had to respond.”

I did not pose that as one of the facets of arguing that you're justifying why you're not a loser.

I said it was sad you clarified twice why you're here, my interpretation of each clarification and asked if you're trying to play the I'm not a loser but he is card.

Me:
"Though I'm not sure what's more sad that or you clarfying why you're online twice.

The first being with a long winded ps to anyone who may happen to read this. Yeah hey anyone who may read this Im not a loser I'm just here because of such & such.

The second being I'm only responding because he responded. Something you posted thrice...error or maybe you just felt the need to ensure that anyone who may read this just know you're not a loser.

Are you trying to play the I'm not a loser I'm just here because while this person doesn't have a life card?

If so haven't you've seen how your card playing has panned out?"

You were warned:

Here's the olive branch and you do this.

Okay....all arguments aside (and who cares about your friends/possible bets? (which I don't believe by the way)

You got:

1. Reasoned explanations of my positions.

2. An olive branch.

Yet you keep on keepin on.

Can't do a lot for you there. My rational, logical arguments are made, and have been substantiated by myself and other readers. Yet you stil recap old, unqualified statements of mine, then smack at the olive branch, when offered.

Believe you me, that previous poster won't be the first to realize that you're an imbalanced, hard-headed, feminist radical, and post his feelings too. I was at least giving you the opportunity to just call it "leavin' it at that" with us. I probably would've edited and even cut some posts of mine to make you come off better. But at this point, it's up to you.

They're gonna think what they're gonna think. (and judging by your first recent protester), this can be a sign of things to come I'm sure.

I'll soon be unsubscribing from this thread, and won't be checking it, so your BS won't reach me anymore.

But rest assured, you've got an avalanche of bad-will coming your way, from what I've seen.

I tried to help, but hey....

Really a sad state of affairs when you ask:

"Can we just find some stuff to agree to disagree on?"

-- and you get accused of pulling another "card"

Good luck to you

You sure as hell haven't said why you're posting on a forum like this at 4:30 est. either.
Perhaps because I haven't felt any reason as to why tell the reason I'm posting at a certain time just in case anyone happens upon it...o.O

Though if you recall "My only issue is insomnia." was posted much earlier in a response of your insult/putdown post to when I first called you on your bs.

Perhaps if they really wish to know why I'm online at this time they can take a guess.

Nowhere did I state find some stuff to agree to disagree on was a card.
– “And if you keep replying like this, I've set up a script that will basically post lots of my un-published posts, that continue to degrade you and portray you as the mentally unstable person you obviously are. And they'll keep coming, with each repost of yours
It's necessary at this point. You've earned it please don't test me. It can get very ugly for you.
Just don't write back please.”
--You "degrading" me is a non issue to me and will actually have no effect on me other than amusement. …..............So I guess this is your last card to play since the others have bombed.

The whole post where I accuse you of playing a card was a response to you I've set up a script and it'll degrade you bit.

Really a sad state of affairs when you attempt to twist things.

Laters. Good luck to you.

You didn't make much rational, logical arguments when you misquoted, edited quotes, made up quotes, and claimed that I was saying things and arguing things I did not.

It was substantiated by two readers.

First: “Hey anonymous, that guy who's arguing with that robshmob guy,
Hey, what color panties are your girlfriend's panties?
mmm, are the booty shorts, thongs, boy-cut? please describe in detail, and attach photos.
You can even blur out the face.
Please get her to dress sexy for us like she does everyone else,
because i know she doesn't do that for you, little fagboy.”

The other AlekNovy claimed to have read it from top to bottom yet somehow overlooked the parts of me showing you where you misquote, edit quotes, make up quotes, and can't show me where/when I stated or argued what you claimed I have.

1. Reasoned explanations of my positions.
Yeah your positions were offtopic and unrelated to me asserting that a certain mindset is unhealthy/rights violating.
The response to such a topic is yes, no, maybe, don't know....not going off on unrelated tangents and getting upset when one wants to stick to the topic.

2. An olive branch
If we're getting down to it:
Are you going to respond to me proving that you misquotes, edited quotes, and invented quotes?

Are you going to respond to my requests to show me when/where I stated some of the things you claimed I was arguing?
You: "make blanket statements with no supporting evidence,
Such as:

- Stating definitively, without a doubt, that you know for sure that when women aren't interested, they're ALWAYS giving nonverbal cues/signals that they want to be left the f*ck alone.

. . .and that a guy is "violating" the girl's rights when he doesn't notice these cues and wants to approach a girl simply to give her the option of deciding whether she wants to meet him or not, even if when he's told, "Not interested", he then says, "Cool." and walks off. How dare he!"

You were amusing.

Like I already stated you can have your friends laugh at me.

My friends were laughing at you from the get-go.

I even told you of our amusement.

I wonder if your friends went OMG at your repeated Goodbyes yet keep coming back on here. Mine did.

I wonder if your friends went OMG at you actually making up quotes then when called on it you still continue to. Mine did.

I wonder if your friends went OMG at you saying I played psyh-doc by saying it seems you have anger issues & issues with the word nice guy/creep to portray me negatively in the same response where you made an absolute statement on me psychologically & even diagnosed me. Mine did.

I wonder if your friends went OMG at you claiming to getting down to it then after I showed you your getting down was just repeated bs you stated don't respond. Mine did.

I wonder if your friends went OMG at you stating you have a script that will post lots of unpublished posts to degrade me. Mine did.

That's in fact where we started the betting.

Thanks goldmine you've been amusing and money-making

Bud,

Come on, you don't have any friends who were reading this with you.

Come on, please. Those things you stated that should be funny, people have shrugged off.

As for the goodbyes followed by a return, I was advised a couple times: "no you've gotta respond to that. It may trip off another 5-page repetitious essay post, but still."

So after thinking it all through, I did.

My friends were in awe at how much of the page-copy was taken up by your posts, literally dozens upon dozens of repeats!

There's no way your friends wouldn't have noticed that too, unless of course they're just as socially retarded as yourself.

Betting??! Come on, stop making up this fairy tale fantasy BS. There was no betting going on, and you certainly didn't win $1,500!! Your "friends" would've simply agreed with you and said, "there's no bet here."

Why come up with a story like that??

Please, please,PLEEEEEEEEAAASE I beg you to just get a life a stop posting this bs.

It looks like only when called on his bs does a social retard get antsy.

And the screenplay was NOT your idea! Just some twisted, delusional interpretation of a guy approaching a girl in a club.

Please don't give us any more material. We're taking shots and laughing our assess of at you.

What will the next dumbassed comment be?

Look I'll be frank with this article because I literally googled I'm so tired of girls thinking every guy is a creep. But this article is a piece of shit... FACT! Look we guys have no problem talking to other guys we have little to fear.Honestly girls need to think more like a guy and grow some f**cking hair on there vaginas and toughen the f**k up. Seriously this article should think more like this. Would you rather have attention or would you rather be ignored? No,none of this "it depends" smartass shit, I'm saying would you rather have attention or be ignored. So yes, whether your single or had a lot of relationships I think MOST people reading this garbage will apperciate this comment more then this article here. So yes for all the girls still going "Creeper" over every guy that approached you I am giving you a personal fuck you and I'm out.

oblivious greed

I HAVE TO GIVE UP POT JUST TO NOT BE A CREEPY GUY???? Sounds like all women are picky and have been brainwashed into thinking pot is a bad thing. The worst part is, women who actually do smoke pot only date dealers, or gangbangers, just for the free weed.

naw not really I actually know a lot of girls who smoke pot.. and that said please delete this article was a complete waste of my time and I only read half of it. thank you.

Great, she pointed out how to not act like a fucking idiot (common sense) and stroked her ego by pointing out she doesn't want to fuck said idiots. Pulitzer prize material.

Well, women never approach men. This means that men are the ones to experience the stress and alienation of constantly having to approach women, which in turn - of course - make us come off as creeps.

Imagine a society where women took equal responsibility of their romantic life and didn't rely on men to do all the work. When that day comes, all the world's creeps will disappear since men will have no trouble finding a romantic partner.

Very true I think it's pressured too much on the guy to ask a girl out. There's no point either because the girl often has already made her decision even before you ask her out. I think girls don't spend near enough time getting to know people either. I guess they like the element of mystery, but frankly I find it very overrated and it just makes guys look so bad.

Guys do this walk up to the girl give her a compliment or say what's actually on your mind. Talk to her briefly then get her number. If she looks at you and you can tell in her body language that she not intrested or she tells you verbally say nice meeting you and walk away. If she says no to the number but is flirty and smiling keep talking to her it means tried harder dumbass. Ask one more time when you actually got to know her after a good talk. If she says no again don't take it personally move on. Also alway stop a girl to chat to her from the front so she can see who the fuck you are never ever ever approach from behind

Oh please, I get women all the time and I never do any of that bullshit you mention above. Girls don't give that much of a fuck. Nor do they have so many supposed "tricks" with hidden languages. I hate guys acting like they know how to pick up women like it's some sort of damn gimmick just talk to her for god's sake that is all then ask for her number if not then press your next button all there is to it. No magic, or bullshit or body language reading crap needed. If a girl thinks you are creepy chances are there not worth a shit anyway because more often then not those same girls make guys feel like shit if they ever get in a relationship with them. I knew a girl like that.. I broke up with her because she was so bitchy and ironically called people creepy all the time. My current girl is much nicer and better anyway ;D