Cunningham's Law comes to mind.
Such an analysis would need to control for demographics, such as % black, before pointing the finger at the "Democrat" part of Democrat-run city governments. Even if it's plausible Democrat policies result in increased homicide on the margins, % black tends to be a pesky variable in explaining homicide rates.
Your substack post also has multiple typos.
The participants in the Reddit BoRU and RA threads are unwittingly putting on an illustration of our threads that discuss male vs. (lack of) female approaching, the Women are Wonderful Effect, the societal eagerness to vilify men.
The elephant in the room there, an elephant that Reddit women will generally avoid (or whose existence they will deny, as the elephant makes them feel less like strong independent #GirlBosses), is that women are extremely passive when it comes to approaching and will not take initiative to… initiate. Men have the burden of performance. It’s up to men to read women's minds as to know when/how to approach or risk making women “uncomfortable,” since nothing is worse than the sin of being a man and making a woman feel “uncomfortable.”
Not that the slightest of fucks is given to a man’s comfort—like hypothetically, gossiping to turn his classmates against him, confronting him about asking a girl to hook up (when it’s none of your business), or texting him from an unfamiliar number to insult him.
How dare Study Session Guy look for a friend with benefits when he’s a stupid low-status virgin? Ugh, the male entitlement. Who does he think he is? Doesn't he know he's a low-level character who lacks the EXP to unlock that part of the map yet, much less pursue that quest? He should be grateful for her friendship, know his place and patiently stay in the friendzone, slowly orbit and monkey dance and maybe one day the friendship evolves into a relationship if he’s lucky she so deigns.
It’s also amusing how young women sometimes act like spoiled children—especially when it comes to courtship and dating—and we pretend it doesn’t happen, provide an “oh dear, dear, gorgeous” like the Ramsay meme, or actively condone and encourage them. Study Session Girl could had just said “no thanks” and discontinued the friendship. She could had even said “no thanks” and continued the friendship. Either way, a level-headed response that might befit an adult. Yet, she had to poison the well, start a gossip mill, sink his reputation, and essentially create a hostile work study session environment for affronting the Lady's honor, for having the audacity as to be insufficiently attractive while thinking she might be That Kind of Girl (which she likely is, just not for him). The crowd had to be set upon him, in name of her honor. Slay, queen! He had it coming.
Obviously, this is not to say directly asking a girl to be your friend with benefits is wise, tactically. Quite the opposite, as it takes away her plausible deniability and ability to dodge accountability, her ability to tell herself and others “we were just talking and hanging out; somehow one thing led to another and omg it just like happened!” If a younger brother, male cousin, nephew, etc. recounted me a story like Study Session Guy's, I'd shake my head and be like "Did we not teach you anything? Let's review the ways that could had gone better..."
@Quantumfreakonomics remarked earlier this week that he would in the past think:
"oh, I'm just too honest for the dirty, lying, backstabbing tricks required for success in the dating market." I typically dismiss this as egoistic rationalization, but I am again starting to wonder if it is true.
I wouldn’t say dirty, lying, backstabbing tricks are necessary for success; I certainly wouldn't like deploying dirty, lying, backstabbing tricks (Russell Conjugation, perhaps: “Others might deploy dirty, lying, backstabbing tricks, but I deploy subtle, creative, smooth maneuvers”). However, I would say a large degree of social engineering and maintaining kayfabe is certainly needed for consistent success. Asking a girl if she wants to be your friend with benefits breaks kayfabe.
"Yes means yes” comes to mind and how it can be construed as an intentional or unintentional civilisational-level shit-test. The nice feminist guys who take it slow and overcommunicate every step of the way will fumble their chances away and remain pussless, whereas the toxic inconsiderate chauvinists who go full steam ahead all gas no brakes will see many more touchdowns. It separates the socially savvy from the non-socially savvy (and in the case of “yes means yes,” helpfully gives women another way to retrospectively claim non-consensuality if they so feel like it).
Decades of gender egalitarianism and mainstream feminist propaganda certainly don’t prepare young men for navigating sex and dating. Men and women are the same, except for when women are more Wonderful but sometimes more vulnerable—and when men are shittier and more toxic.
If you believe their pretty lies about women, the same cultural forces will only blame you for believing their lies. Study Session Guy paid the price for believing that male and female sexuality are similar, that men and women have a similar disposition toward honesty. As @erwgv3g34 commented on the Motte subreddit back in the day:
>Television: *lies to you about women all your life*
>School: *lies to you about women all your life*
>Women: *lie to you about women all your life*
>You: *believes lies about women*
>Society: "Haha, you actually believed the lies we told you about women? FUCKIN' AUTIST".
This is why I hate normies.
If you aggregate up Reddit women’s reactions to threads like these (about men bungling initiation attempts)—and their dating advice (more like “advice”) in general on approaching—it shakes out to something like this:
-
Don’t cold approach women. What kind of creep pesters women he doesn’t know? Women don’t date strangers.
-
Don’t ask out women from class or work. What kind of creep exploits school or work to pester women who are a captive audience?
-
Don’t ask out women from your social circle. What kind of creep takes advantage of his friendships or social circle to pester women?
-
Don’t ask out women that you meet through hobbies like dancing or sports. What kind of creep takes advantage of hobbies to pester women? Women are there for their interest in the hobby, not to meet men.
-
Oh and don’t message girls on online dating or social media. There’s already too many creepy losers in online dating
(like you)and what kind of creep pesters women on their social media accounts? Ugh, just because her profile is inundated with bikini pics and lingerie shots doesn’t mean she’s looking for sexual attention.
Of which, Study Session Guy violated the second (while being insufficiently attractive and sufficiently unattractive, of course). However, a man who dutifully and obediently follows these commandments will find himself with no options to improve his dating prospects. Reminds me of that hilarious Motte thread: “Just tell me where you think white people are supposed to live” started by @knob. A confused, frustrated, or indifferent man reading Reddit women’s advice might ask: “Just tell me where you think men are supposed to meet women.”
Nowhere. In the eyes of women, if you’re the type of man who deliberates about where and how to ask out women, you’re unworthy. Women generally view men who approach courtship strategically or opportunistically as inherently creepy or suspicious. They want naturals—not some imposter who, by some combination of the numbers game and clever strategery, managed to punch above his weight. After all, for women, courtship and romance are just magical things that happen to them serendipitously like Acts of God, so what’s wrong with these men who need to bombard women with messages, plot to join hobbies to meet women, or bother innocent study session classmates? So gross and unromantic.
An obvious solution for men, naturally, is to ignore women’s dating advice for men, ignore sanctimonious vilification of men who approach courtship the “wrong way,” strive toward being attractive and not unattractive, and keep a cost/benefit analysis in mind to see what trade-offs of risk and reward might work for you. My approach in recent years is to aggressively DM on social media/online dating (preselection and female mate-choice copying for the win) when I foresee having lots of free time in the near future, but be very conservative in approaching through social circle or the workplace (lest an errant attempt gets my social credit points knocked out Sonic’s-rings-style like what happened to Señor Study Session).
Sloot
1yr ago
I wonder if that trigger warning is actually taking the piss and mocking trigger warnings. Usually, trigger warnings in that subreddit are for super cereal things like adultery, self-harm, incest, abuse, sexual assault, homophobia, sexism, racism (where the last five could be in quotes)—things that are heckin unwholesome and might make the reader feel uncomfortable.
After reading
I want to live in an ordered, hierarchical society in which routes for advancement and demotion are clear and in which most people’s life path (including my own) is largely prescribed
I was expecting:
This is not an uncommon sentiment among investment bankers.
Since banking is stereotypically a risk averse career choice and young aspiring bankers are stereotypically preoccupied (maybe even obssessed) with following the predefined One True Path to Greatness: HYPSW UG -> BB/EB IBD Analyst -> MF PE Assoc. -> HSW MBA -> Post-MBA MF PE Assoc. -> Greatness
That question is delightfully evil in many ways. Great bait. It’s like a spiritual follow-up to “World to end: Women, minorities hardest hit.”
If sampling among an option and slight cheating is allowed, I’ll select myself and eleven #6’s (eleven 21-year-old female Muslim students).
If selecting myself is disallowed, I’d altruistically send a brother or cousin in my stead, or two, three, or four of them with ten, nine, or eight 21-year-old female Muslim students.* Enjoy your mini-harem bros, try not to Eskimo brother too much.
Otherwise, if those twelve individuals are genus Homo’s last hope, I’d prefer spending my remaining time and energy with family instead of spending even a sliver of time and energy selecting among those options. Seeing those options, I’d be more than fine with Homo de-existing.
Any selection thereof would almost certainly run into effective population size issues, anyway.
*For humanity’s sake, that’d probably be better than just sending myself and 11 Muslim waifus. Me solo’ing it could end up like a greentext:
>be me, humanity’s last hope with 11 Muslim waifus on new planet
>somehow manage to knock-up all of them
>distracted by non-Muslim Earth harlots who keep hitting me up on Tinder and Insta due to my new-found fame (many of their photos are absolutely haram)
>terraforming, gardening, agriculture, and animal husbandry are boring
>tell myself I’ll train an AI to take care of those things one of these days
>not today, though, maybe tomorrow
>we finish the freeze dried beef jerky from Earth so I start passing around the packets of pork jerky
>spend my time shit-posting on the internet and refreshing my brokerage and retirement accounts that are no longer of any use to me
>waifus die due to lack of sustenance
>mfw
Sloot
1yr ago
Impressive. Sounds like an old school version of “Who would you rather babysit your kid for the weekend: Hitler, or a random person from the Bronx?”
With counterparties like those, who needs enemies?
If they’re my client who offered such “advice,” I guess I’ll just keep my crimethink to myself and pretend everything’s okay.
If I’m their client and they offered such “advice,” I’d be immediately on the market for a new widget-provider or whatever.
Sloot
1yr ago
I’d prefer a libertarian paradise.
However, given the choice at the margins between a consistent authoritarian government versus one that’ll consistently fuck me and my family members in favor of the criminally-inclined, I’ll choose consistent authoritarianism.
Tyranny > Anarcho-tyranny
Their rules applied evenly > Their rules applied capriciously against me
I’m not particularly interested in the woman-cum-backpack-reviewer at the center of the story
Hmm yeah, she does have a lot of experience with cum backpacks.
I don’t think I could had done better if I were assigned to write a satirical article with “Coffee Emoji: Backpack Edition” as the prompt.
If that is the published version of the article, I wonder what her earlier drafts were like—
Her editors: And your article provides an insightful, analytical, and comprehensive review of the backpack?
Her: Backpack?
>In 2019 I tweeted, “Please G*d, Please don’t let me be a 30-year-old with roommates.” I am 30 and a half years old, and I hear sex noises that aren’t my own when I go to sleep at night, and I think about this tweet all of the time. I don’t have my own bathroom.
Self-censors the “o” in God ironically or not, but sees no issues about broadcasting her promiscuity.
>Recently, after I finished seeing a guy who had three other girlfriends, I started seeing another guy. This one just had one girlfriend. I thought, Must be love.
Another W for polygyny and female mate-choice copying. The cringe doesn’t really get better from there and I tapped out.
It raises the question for me: does Feminism actually have any realistic solution to how men should react to female promiscuity?
Yes, feminists do have realistic solutions, ones that they've successfully deployed over the past few years/decades. As evident from academia, pop culture, mainstream opinion pieces, to subreddits like AmItheAsshole and relationship_advice, and even supposedly more neutral ones like PurplePillDebate—women (and sometimes even men) will often express an opinion to the tune of:
You WILL propose to a woman after she's had her fun and is ready to settle down.
You WILL buy her an expensive engagement ring that she can show off to her friends, family, and coworkers.
You WILL give her the princess wedding of her dreams.
You WILL be happy. The past is the past. Nothing better than a woman with experience. Only incels would disagree.
Shaming, deplatforming, and pushing contrary opinions outside of the Overton Window can work in preventing men from comparing notes... and in getting women to believe that ugh, only shitty, toxic men are too insecure to date an experienced woman.
If men prefer female youth, beauty, and chastity, it’s because they’re shallow, controlling, misogynistic pedophiles. Women are Wonderful and don’t care about male height, strength, income, status, and/or ability to pull other women, but if they do it’s only due to internalised misogyny or because men are so shitty that women have to use those factors as heuristics.
Women are valid if they get the ick from short men, but it’s gross and problematic if men get the ick about committing to promiscuous women (such men are only telling on themselves).
Progressives have already gotchu, fam. Culture-based explanations to explain differences in athletic performance have been around for decades.
If blacks are disproportionately represented in the NFL and NBA, it’s due to systematic racism that prevents them from becoming doctors and engineers, thus leaving them with no choice but to pursue avenues like football and basketball. Certainly not related to them, on average, having higher leg-to-torso ratios or scoring higher on the Ape Index*, allowing them to run faster and reach farther. The NFL and NBA being disproportionately black is just further evidence that we need to transfer more wealth to and dedicate more opportunities and resources to blacks. However, if head coaches are disproportionately white compared to the players, it’s also due to systematic racism and A Problem that we need to address with affirmative action.
By keeping biological explanations for differences in athletic performance outisde of the Overton window, blank slatists can better keep the more controversial biological explanations for cognitive performance outside of the Overton window as well. Sailer labeled this type of tactic Outpost and Heartland, as a sister-concept to Motte and Bailey. Not only does evolution conveniently stop at the neck, it conveniently stops right below the skin. If some group of Kenyans are better at long distance running, it must be due to a legacy of colonization or something somehow.
The gaslighting will continue until morale improves.
*Wingspan to height ratio, of course. What did you think I meant?
Realistically:
The same proportions Harvard has now, but perhaps even more tilted in favor of blacks and latinos.
Harvard (and similar schools) will find a way to further stack the deck in favor of blacks and latinos, and against Asians and whites. Regardless of what SCOTUS has to say. It would be a distinct "fuck you" to SCOTUS, wrong thinkers, and those of the wrong demographics.
Naively:
As Espenshade and Chung (2005) found—at top schools, in the absence of racial preferences, nearly 4/5 of spots occupied by blacks and latinos would be assumed by Asians. This would only be more extreme at a school like Harvard nowadays, given tail-effects and how things in general have progressed since then.
So a conservative estimate would be like, via cocktail arithmetic and rounding "nearly 4/5" down to 3/4: 46% white, 31% Asian, 14.3% multiracial, 2.7% black, 1.6% latino, 3.8% South Asian, etc. by applying a 1 - 3/4 constant to blacks and latinos and transferring the residual to Asians. Given the assumptions, this would already be very favourable to blacks, and to a lesser extent, latinos (or should I say latinx?).
In a case about racial discrimination against Asians, it seems patently absurd to claim how Harvard officials and federal regulators pally around and openly mock Asians is somehow not relevant to the issue. It seems plain to me that the judge chose to hide it because it's embarrassing and inconvenient to Harvard.
I suppose… but the facts being embarrassing and inconvenient for Harvard is hardly new, e.g., Hsu quoting Kronman in 2019: “‘…The facts are just so embarrassing to Harvard…’”
Facts that I would posit have been embarrassing for decades, given the old age of affirmative action.
And Kronman, as Hsu would like you to know, “is an anti-Trump lifelong democrat.” That is, Hsu and Kronman are both One of the Good Ones.
If AI were to bully someone like Miles Teller, that’s a positive sign toward alignment for me.
In their forced apology letter, Karissa and Kelly spend half of it non-apologising.
It’s not our fault that we lied; if you believed our lies, it’s your fault for misinterpreting. We had no way of knowing our accusations of sexual abuse would be interpreted as accusations of sexual abuse; our campaign to accuse Chris of sexual abuse was not intended to accuse him of sexual abuse.
They spend the other half reiterating their allegiance to women, minorities, LGBTQIA+ persons. People whose safety and security matter. The safety and security of white heterosexual men, on the other hand…
It’s pretty funny that, even in a statement on falsely accusing a man of sexual abuse, they managed to allocate half of it to idpol preening. It’s also funny them doing so isn’t even surprising nowadays. Next steps for being better would be to include a stolen land acknowledgement and a reaffirmation of their commitment toward sustainability and combating climate change.
"He got me blackout drunk on Midori Sours (on the company dime).
“He got me,” not “we got” or “I got.” As if Chris beamed the Midori Sours into her stomach using a Star Trek transporter, with her having no role in the part. What happened to being passionate about the agency of women? Schrödinger’s feminism: Strong, independent #GamerGirls one moment and damsels in distress the next.
He and two friends somehow got me back to my room, where he pounced in front of the other guys.
Okay, the image of Chris pouncing made me chuckle internally. Pounced, like a cat! And what would she claim his game-plan here was? Bang her in front of the other guys while they watched? Run a train in the spirit of “It ain't no fun, if the homies can't have none”?
Along with the lawsuit, Avellone published a blog post titled "It's Come To This"(opens in new tab), in which he claims that Barrows became antagonistic toward him when his relationship with a friend of hers soured. In 2020, Barrows claimed that her best friend "endured over a year of heartache, gaslighting, and emotional abuse at [Avellone's] hands." Avellone says that the friend in question did become "unhappy," but that they had not been in a committed relationship. (The friend is only identified in the post as someone named Jackie. She is not identified in the lawsuit, either.)
So it sounds like this whole thing started because Chris did not treat a member of his soft harem with the wonderfulness she and her friends thought she was entitled to, thus hoes maddening ensued. Between this and UVA, a takeaway is to avoid girls named Jackie/Jacqui.
Originally, I had no idea who these people were, so I did some googling (how does a video game writer, of all people, have so many groupies in the first place? Maybe I’m in the wrong profession). Jacqui’s Insta quickly came up, which like those of many young women, has a fair share of bikini pics, and outfits and poses to show off her rack. Including a bikini pic with one of the more blatant displays of camel toe I have seen on the app.
I was about to make a sarcastic comment like “ugh, stupid Chris. How could he proposition her over text message, thinking she’s that kind of girl?” But I returned to read some more about the situation.
Apparently, the Insta camel toe pic is just the tip of the thot-iceberg. Jacqui has actually done porn, a video with James Deen under the name “Violet,” evidence of which she has since tried to scrub away from the internet. However, NeoGAF commenters here have receipts in the form of screenshots, and tips on how to find the video.
One commenter remarked in that thread: “Now we know why she talks shit. She eats JD's ass!” Interesting, but I haven’t watched the video to verify. Another noted: “To her credit as a upstanding feminist, she doesn't seem to be among the ones that let Deen shove their heads into the toilet during sex.”
The irony of a porn actress pearl-clutching over some sexual text messages did not go unnoticed. For example, RPG Codex user ScrotumBroth declared: “A frigging porn cumbucket moralising sexual advances via text is a new peak.”
The existence of corners of the internet like RPG Codex and NeoGAF that still contain many based users gives me greater hope for the world.
Sloot
1yr ago
Indeed, women have always been the primary victims of men getting falsely accused.
However, where did you see “devalue the words of real victims”? I might have missed it in the links above.
As with many things, there's a large "Who? Whom?" motivation for the types who tell you to "have some empathy."
Generally, they're telling you to have more empathy for the correct groups, where you exhibiting more empathy overall is merely incidental. You exhibiting greater empathy overall by way of exhibiting more empathy for incorrect groups, is of course Toxic and Problematic and some combination of -ist/-ism/-bic (new pronouns?) one way or another. For example, an article we previously discussed on the Motte subreddit ("Foreperson: 3 jurors unwilling to convict Resiles based on race"): Some people can have a seemingly infinite amount of empathy for perpetrators of violent crime—and yet none for the victims—depending on Who? Whom? factors.
Ask Reddit what should a programmer know. A majority of the answers are "people skills", "empathy", and other soft skill horseshit. Are those things really more important than design patterns and version control? Or did we just get psyop'ed into thinking that being a people pleaser is the end-all-be-all to making the world go round?
This could actually be unintentionally subversive and black-pilled advice in a way. That, for hiring and/or career advancement, it's better to be a people pleaser (and of the right demographics) than be competent.
Product management is much different than programming—but see for example, the TikTok video of that young female Meta product manager whose day-to-day chiefly involved "[trying] to look cute everyday," literally making coffee ☕, and "me being cuuuutte" (cue brief clip of her dancing on the office rooftop) while vocal frying left and right.
She doubled down on LinkedIn with: "I love romanticizing the daily grind that is my life, being a woman in tech, and being a recent new grad trying to figure everything out. Content creators like myself have the utmost power to influence how young people view corporate life, and working in these popular industries" before rage-quitting her social media damage control when it became too apparent the mockery was defeating the simpery.
Yes, yes—as she has shown, such a grind being a #WomanInTech.
Landlords in poorer areas earn “basically double” those in more affluent districts — an extra $50 per apartment per month, after expenses. The outperformance, calculated from national surveys, held even when researchers factored in faster price rises in richer areas.
Oh wow, a full 50 USD per apartment per month. Sounds like where practical difference vs. statistically significant difference might depart, if a statistically different result exists in the first place.
Landlords in poorer areas do experience greater variability in profits: some take large losses because their tenants default.
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? It's funny how the relationship between risk and reward is often rediscovered unwittingly.
All else equal, I would expect the return on investment for being a landlord for the poor to be greater than that for the return on being a landlord for the affluent. Greater reward for greater risk is expected.
Holding ROI constant, I'd greatly prefer being a landlord for the affluent than the not-so-affluent.
It's analogous to investing in general. A "good" company is not necessarily a good investment if you're looking for higher returns, given the relationship between risk and reward.
Furthermore, dealing with those on the lower end of the socioeconomic bell curve sucks, so there should be an additional premium above that of mere naive modeling of financial risk and reward.
Bougie Karen might harangue you about the angle of her towel rack installation, but at least her online autopay will go through and she'll otherwise be chill. Keranique, on the other hand, will be trying to hand you physical checks that will bounce, ditching her kids at your office for your staff to babysit, ditching her kids at your other tenants’ place to babysit, have friends and family over that wreck your property and disturb your other tenants, and will often have over babies daddies slash boyfriends that result in having the police being called, for reasons ranging from domestic violence to property damage to assaulting other residents.
In a brighter timeline, “gender-affirming care” would refer to men going on TRT or doing a steroid cycle. “Yeah bro, I’m undergoing some gender-affirming care. Currently on 500mg Test a week and 50mg DBol a day.”
Sloot
1yr ago
Sloot
1yr ago
I've long felt high school wrestling is an underdiscussed controversy in this aspect: Wrestling coaches and parents condoning (and even encouraging) a practice—weight-cutting—that could lead to permanent loss of height for boys.
Height is arguably the single most important variable for male life outcomes in Western countries—especially when it comes to sex and dating given the female desire for male dominance signals like height—yet adults who should have these boys' best interests at heart are too blinded, oblivious, negligent, or conflict of interest'ed to better advise them.
Sloot
1yr ago
A boring dystopia.
I enjoy how “hotdesking” has already been rebranded as “agile seating” because it’s so widely despised. The euphemism treadmill strikes again.
Thanks to hotdesking and hotwifing, I’ve been conditioned to automatically hate anything that starts with a “hot” and ends with a “-ing.”
Graham launched into an interrogation of the system, questioning multiple executives about it. Amazon took the issue seriously and dropped the system of ranking shows based on audience scores… Still, several Amazon veterans believe the system remains too dependent on those same test scores. “All this perpetuation of white guys with guns — it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy,” says one. And another: “Relying on data is soul crushing … There’s never, ‘I know the testing wasn’t that great, but I believe in this.'” Graham declined to comment.
Am I out of touch? No, it's the audience who are wrong.
The principal-agent problem allows executives and middle managers to express their open hatred for white men through corporate operations, hiring, and promotions at little to no personal cost. Even personal gain. And there’s nothing anyone else can do to stop them.
It’s funny how normalised this all is nowadays.
I’ll throw my hat in the ring and provide another data point attesting the rarity of women approaching.
I’ve banged a low triple digit number of chicks. After some mental-straining, I can’t think of a single bang that resulted from a girl approaching me, whether in person or her sending the first message in online dating or social media.
I can remember a few times over the years where I didn’t eventually seal the deal but a girl approached or messaged me first (such occasions are memorable because they’re so rare), and I still had to grab the wheel and drive the interaction from there if I wanted the encounter to continue. Think of a generalisation of the modern Bumble tip-off to start the game, when a girl messages the guy “hi” or “hi :)” to put the ball in his court so he has to take over and lead the conversation.
The closest to a girl approaching and my later converting that I can think of was quite a few years ago in a nightclub. She walked by me with her friends; we made eye-contact and she smiled. Yet, that was that and she didn’t make it straightforward much less easy for me at all. I still had to approach her at her table surrounded by her mixed group of friends and hold court for the night (she was decently hot so I stuck it out). Despite my efforts that night into the technical morning, including a few shifts from club to club to afterparty, we ultimately parted ways with me leaving with just a number; I had to get her to come over a different night where I converted. If not for me having limited time in her city, she would have likely ghosted and I would have been chumped.
In my experience and that of many others, girls will generally be neutral bystanders at best in the dating process. They're extremely passive in the approach stage and through the early game of courtship. To the extent that they’re active, it’d be to your detriment. Oftentimes, after the approach (if successful from your end), they'll be adversarial in being a pain for scheduling dates with*, stalling, flaking, ghosting, pushing for dinner dates and/or dates that involve her bringing her friends (so you can monkey-dance and court-jester for her friends, too, and still not get laid). This might not change until you’ve banged her and then suddenly she has skin in the game, thus she becomes more reliable and a team-player in communicating and coordinating with you.
To the extent women approach (or should I say “approach”), it’s generally in the form of standing, sitting, or dancing (if in bar/nightclub) in your vicinity, hoping you’ll read her mind and initiate a conversation (see meme: "How females shoot their shot"). My most stereotypical Chad-ish friends, guys who look like they could be The Bachelor, still need to aggressively approach if they want to get laid with new chicks beyond a Lizardman’s constant.
*There’s a Latin American Spanish meme to that effect. My paraphrased translation:
Guy: So when are you free to hang-out
Girl: Anytime you want!
Guy: How about tomorrow?
Girl: No, I can’t tomorrow
Guy: Monday?
Girl: Can’t
Guy: What about Thursday?
Girl: Thursday? Can’t either.
Guy: When then?
Girl: Anytime you want!
More options
Context Copy link