Dating coach banned from several countries after internet feminist outrage over misogynist vid

[Antischism]

I still remember one of the things my ex said attracted her to me after our first date. She said that despite me not having the best paying job and taking her to a McDonalds before a punk show at some dirty squat in Brooklyn, I was honest about myself/what I do and didn't give a shit that I was taking her to the closest, cheapest place. That I was just winging it and going with the flow. That I wasn't trying hard to impress her, just being myself and making interesting conversation. She actually liked the whole experience even though she was used to eating at and being taken out to fancy restaurants, because I was having fun and that made her also have fun in turn.

 

[specsaregood]

Hahaha! What a douche you were! Loads of money and picking up Walmart girls?! This is awesome! I bet you got tons of ass though!

I was young and having fun. Sometimes the pay stub would already have other girls names/numbers on them. Back then there were some cute girls working at walmarts in cali...

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

With men, attraction is pretty straightforward. Men want a woman who is young, pretty, and sexually available; all else is secondary. Women are the gatekeepers of sex which is why the vast majority of men don't have a faaaaar higher partner count (note that partner count amongst homosexual males is a lot higher than average since women are taken out of the equation).

Women are not the gatekeepers of sex. This is a bad analogy because it presumes that women as a whole want sex less than men as a whole. This is a fairly recent cultural idea that only gained steam in the 18th century; before that, marriage was seen as a good thing because it *restrained* women's sexual desire. Along these lines, men have historically determined the range of acceptable sexual behavior for both men and women and continue to do so even today. This idea that women have gained any power relative to men in this regard is frankly laughable. For God's sakes, we still live in a society where women with short hair are judged for "making themselves less sexually attractive." Sex is not a one-way transaction, nor is it a non-renewable resource; so why are women still judged on the basis of how much sex they don't have?

A lot of women actually turn out to be very interested in casual sex. This has been demonstrated in a 2011 study - see here for a detailed discussion; the paper does not seem to be available online, but I have found it in my university's library.
The results of the study were as follows: it wasn’t a matter of whether women were less interested or receptive to sexual offers than men were, it was that they were less interested when those offers came from men. Even straight women were more likely to be willing to go to bed with another woman, and even gay men propositioned by an attractive gay man were less likely to accept.

As far as the celebrities in the study went, men and women were equally likely to go to bed with the attractive celebrity and equally less likely to bed the unattractive one. Yet, when it came to opposite-sex friends, the gap re-established itself; men were more likely to go to bed with their female friend than women were with their male friend.

So we can conclude two things from the study - (1) women are more motivated by the likelihood of sexual pleasure than anything else, and (2) personal safety is a big motivator (women thought men were more likely to be dangerous and less likely to be good in bed, while men and women of all sexual orientations rated women as more likely to be safe and a better lay).

Thus, the big question for the women tends to be: risk vs. reward. Status doesn't have any effect in the choice, but familiarity does. These same women were more likely to pick sleeping with Brad Pitt than an equally attractive stranger because they felt as though they were more familiar with Brad. So it's a constant weighing of risks versus benefits, which shit-tons of feminists have been saying all along.

Women are uniquely trapped by culture; on the one hand, they have sexual drives, but on the other, they tend to be shamed for owning their own sexuality. You and others are contributing to this by perpetuating a false model of sex that treats men as the pursuers and sex from women as the commodity. This is a world in which sex is seen as having a price. If a woman gives sex away for too low of a price, it devalues her as a person. When PUAs measure themselves by how many women they sleep with, it follows that sleeping with the "easier" women gives them less glory. So in this situation, a woman is only as good as the sex she doesn't have. When you add in all the additional risk factors associated with sex (pregnancy, the fact that women tend to contract more STDs from men than vice versa), it ends up being the case that the risks of having casual sex aren't worth the potential fallout in medical as well as cultural terms. Of course, men have a chronic inability to admit these circumstances and jump right to the assumption that women aren't interested in casual sex as a means of preserving their control over sexual mores. The status argument is nothing but a big, fat red herring. The sad thing is that men are essentially making it harder on themselves to get laid in a culture that promotes blaming rape victims for their own assaults, increasing abortion and contraception restrictions, and slut-shaming. Of course men have a hard time finding sex. It's the only option they're given in the current state of society (what feminists refer to as patriarchy).

 

[willwash]

Why do beautiful people have more daughters? Also, dibs on dannno's sweet, sweet butt.



To add, my take is that most men put women on a pedestal and try to serve their every whim. The problem with this is that it inherently lowers the male's value since the woman becomes the prize. An Alpha male with plenty of options has no need to act this way; therefore, he[/] becomes the prize.

The book is a laymans introduction into evolutionary psychology. It is fascinating. When controlling for all other variables (wealth, education, etc), it turns out that physically attractive couples have a slightly higher percentage of daughters than the average. This trend is actually inversely correlated with wealth...poor and attractive couples have the highest probability of having daughters of all demographics. The reasoning is that the genes somehow "know" that they are visually appealing, so the highest chance of reproductive success is to produce female offspring, because as you've stated, it doesn't matter if a girl is poor, as long as she is attractive she has a high chance of bagging herself a prince, thus ensuring the propagation of the line.

Wealthy couples, controlling for all variables, produce more sons, because they will be able to slay hordes of chicks, thus ensuring propagation of the line.

Just one of the many fascinating topics covered in the book. Another one is the science of gift giving. Gifts given by men to women to secure romantic favor must have 3 attributes:

1. Visually pleasing
2. Expensive
3. No practical use.

Hence flowers and jewelry. The reasoning here is that a man must prove his willingness to commit real resources to a woman to secure access to her vag. By more or less wasting money in a flamboyant way (by buying these expensive gifts) a man proves:

1. He has resources
2. He is willing to commit those resources to her (and, by extension, the future family they may build)
3. He is willing to do so in a way that vividly and ostentatiously broadcasts this commitment to others in the community

The most "romantic" gifts a man can buy generally meet these criteria. Again, the gift must be useless. You can buy a woman a visually pleasing, expensive car but that's not seen as being as "romantic" a gesture as buying her a diamond necklace.

I explain these topics quite poorly compared to the authors. It is truly a must read.

 

[Antischism]

On another note, I find a lot of the initialisms such as "HB 1-10" etc. to be unnecessary and pretty fucking shitty. Part of this 'culture' dehumanizes the experience to a point where women are viewed as mere obstacles with numbers attached to their heads indicating which pre-learned strategy you need to employ. It dehumanizes both men and women, really. Women much worse, however. The whole 'bro' culture with its initialisms and pseudo-psychology is a riot. It would do men a lot of good if they detached themselves from the toxic aspects.

 

[Antischism]

Women are not the gatekeepers of sex. This is a bad analogy because it presumes that women as a whole want sex less than men as a whole. This is a fairly recent cultural idea that only gained steam in the 18th century; before that, marriage was seen as a good thing because it *restrained* women's sexual desire. Along these lines, men have historically determined the range of acceptable sexual behavior for both men and women and continue to do so even today. This idea that women have gained any power relative to men in this regard is frankly laughable. For God's sakes, we still live in a society where women with short hair are judged for "making themselves less sexually attractive." Sex is not a one-way transaction, nor is it a non-renewable resource; so why are women still judged on the basis of how much sex they don't have?

A lot of women actually turn out to be very interested in casual sex. This has been demonstrated in a 2011 study - see here for a detailed discussion; the paper does not seem to be available online, but I have found it in my university's library.
The results of the study were as follows: it wasn’t a matter of whether women were less interested or receptive to sexual offers than men were, it was that they were less interested when those offers came from men. Even straight women were more likely to be willing to go to bed with another woman, and even gay men propositioned by an attractive gay man were less likely to accept.

As far as the celebrities in the study went, men and women were equally likely to go to bed with the attractive celebrity and equally less likely to bed the unattractive one. Yet, when it came to opposite-sex friends, the gap re-established itself; men were more likely to go to bed with their female friend than women were with their male friend.

So we can conclude two things from the study - (1) women are more motivated by the likelihood of sexual pleasure than anything else, and (2) personal safety is a big motivator (women thought men were more likely to be dangerous and less likely to be good in bed, while men and women of all sexual orientations rated women as more likely to be safe and a better lay).

Thus, the big question for the women tends to be: risk vs. reward. Status doesn't have any effect in the choice, but familiarity does. These same women were more likely to pick sleeping with Brad Pitt than an equally attractive stranger because they felt as though they were more familiar with Brad. So it's a constant weighing of risks versus benefits, which shit-tons of feminists have been saying all along.

Women are uniquely trapped by culture; on the one hand, they have sexual drives, but on the other, they tend to be shamed for owning their own sexuality. You and others are contributing to this by perpetuating a false model of sex that treats men as the pursuers and sex from women as the commodity. This is a world in which sex is seen as having a price. If a woman gives sex away for too low of a price, it devalues her as a person. When PUAs measure themselves by how many women they sleep with, it follows that sleeping with the "easier" women gives them less glory. So in this situation, a woman is only as good as the sex she doesn't have. When you add in all the additional risk factors associated with sex (pregnancy, the fact that women tend to contract more STDs from men than vice versa), it ends up being the case that the risks of having casual sex aren't worth the potential fallout in medical as well as cultural terms. Of course, men have a chronic inability to admit these circumstances and jump right to the assumption that women aren't interested in casual sex as a means of preserving their control over sexual mores. The status argument is nothing but a big, fat red herring. The sad thing is that men are essentially making it harder on themselves to get laid in a culture that promotes blaming rape victims for their own assaults, increasing abortion and contraception restrictions, and slut-shaming. Of course men have a hard time finding sex. It's the only option they're given in the current state of society (what feminists refer to as patriarchy).

This post is perfectly on point.

 

[willwash]

Women are not the gatekeepers of sex. This is a bad analogy because it presumes that women as a whole want sex less than men as a whole. This is a fairly recent cultural idea that only gained steam in the 18th century; before that, marriage was seen as a good thing because it *restrained* women's sexual desire. Along these lines, men have historically determined the range of acceptable sexual behavior for both men and women and continue to do so even today. This idea that women have gained any power relative to men in this regard is frankly laughable. For God's sakes, we still live in a society where women with short hair are judged for "making themselves less sexually attractive." Sex is not a one-way transaction, nor is it a non-renewable resource; so why are women still judged on the basis of how much sex they don't have?

A lot of women actually turn out to be very interested in casual sex. This has been demonstrated in a 2011 study - see here for a detailed discussion; the paper does not seem to be available online, but I have found it in my university's library.
The results of the study were as follows: it wasn’t a matter of whether women were less interested or receptive to sexual offers than men were, it was that they were less interested when those offers came from men. Even straight women were more likely to be willing to go to bed with another woman, and even gay men propositioned by an attractive gay man were less likely to accept.

As far as the celebrities in the study went, men and women were equally likely to go to bed with the attractive celebrity and equally less likely to bed the unattractive one. Yet, when it came to opposite-sex friends, the gap re-established itself; men were more likely to go to bed with their female friend than women were with their male friend.

So we can conclude two things from the study - (1) women are more motivated by the likelihood of sexual pleasure than anything else, and (2) personal safety is a big motivator (women thought men were more likely to be dangerous and less likely to be good in bed, while men and women of all sexual orientations rated women as more likely to be safe and a better lay).

Thus, the big question for the women tends to be: risk vs. reward. Status doesn't have any effect in the choice, but familiarity does. These same women were more likely to pick sleeping with Brad Pitt than an equally attractive stranger because they felt as though they were more familiar with Brad. So it's a constant weighing of risks versus benefits, which shit-tons of feminists have been saying all along.

Women are uniquely trapped by culture; on the one hand, they have sexual drives, but on the other, they tend to be shamed for owning their own sexuality. You and others are contributing to this by perpetuating a false model of sex that treats men as the pursuers and sex from women as the commodity. This is a world in which sex is seen as having a price. If a woman gives sex away for too low of a price, it devalues her as a person. When PUAs measure themselves by how many women they sleep with, it follows that sleeping with the "easier" women gives them less glory. So in this situation, a woman is only as good as the sex she doesn't have. When you add in all the additional risk factors associated with sex (pregnancy, the fact that women tend to contract more STDs from men than vice versa), it ends up being the case that the risks of having casual sex aren't worth the potential fallout in medical as well as cultural terms. Of course, men have a chronic inability to admit these circumstances and jump right to the assumption that women aren't interested in casual sex as a means of preserving their control over sexual mores. The status argument is nothing but a big, fat red herring. The sad thing is that men are essentially making it harder on themselves to get laid in a culture that promotes blaming rape victims for their own assaults, increasing abortion and contraception restrictions, and slut-shaming. Of course men have a hard time finding sex. It's the only option they're given in the current state of society (what feminists refer to as patriarchy).

The irony here is you've explained precisely WHY women are the gatekeepers of sex as your basis for saying they are not

 

[ghengis86]

I just want to interject into this thread. Michael Phelps, you poor bastard.

Why's that? I must be out of the loop

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

The irony here is you've explained precisely WHY women are the gatekeepers of sex as your basis for saying they are not

The crux of the matter is that women are not the gatekeepers of sex on a biological or a status-seeking basis. They are put in that role because men specifically placed them there and schizophrenically refuse to let their foot off the pedal of a toxic culture that superficially benefits them in a few ways, while simultaneously complaining that they can't get laid.

 

[specsaregood]

Why's that? I must be out of the loop

A woman who claims to be the girlfriend of Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps revealed in a Facebook post that she was born intersex, a fact she has not previously revealed to Phelps, among others.

Taylor Lianne Chandler, 41, wrote a lengthy post describing her early life, saying that at birth she had male genitalia with no testicles as well as a uterus, without ovaries. Born David Roy Fitch, she writes that she went on testosterone blockers and changed her name to Paige Victoria Whitney in her teens, then had surgery when she was in her 20s. She writes in a post she put up Nov. 13:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...lleged-girlfriend-says-she-was-born-intersex/

 

[ghengis86]

I was young and having fun. Sometimes the pay stub would already have other girls names/numbers on them. Back then there were some cute girls working at walmarts in cali...

Good on you, alpha! Man, that's crazy. Is that on the PUA tactic list?

 

[ghengis86]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...lleged-girlfriend-says-she-was-born-intersex/

Oh snap! Well, he had so much alphaness and PUA game he could have any person, male, female, intersex...

 

[ghengis86]

The book is a laymans introduction into evolutionary psychology. It is fascinating. When controlling for all other variables (wealth, education, etc), it turns out that physically attractive couples have a slightly higher percentage of daughters than the average. This trend is actually inversely correlated with wealth...poor and attractive couples have the highest probability of having daughters of all demographics. The reasoning is that the genes somehow "know" that they are visually appealing, so the highest chance of reproductive success is to produce female offspring, because as you've stated, it doesn't matter if a girl is poor, as long as she is attractive she has a high chance of bagging herself a prince, thus ensuring the propagation of the line.

Wealthy couples, controlling for all variables, produce more sons, because they will be able to slay hordes of chicks, thus ensuring propagation of the line.

Just one of the many fascinating topics covered in the book. Another one is the science of gift giving. Gifts given by men to women to secure romantic favor must have 3 attributes:

1. Visually pleasing
2. Expensive
3. No practical use.

Hence flowers and jewelry. The reasoning here is that a man must prove his willingness to commit real resources to a woman to secure access to her vag. By more or less wasting money in a flamboyant way (by buying these expensive gifts) a man proves:

1. He has resources
2. He is willing to commit those resources to her (and, by extension, the future family they may build)
3. He is willing to do so in a way that vividly and ostentatiously broadcasts this commitment to others in the community

The most "romantic" gifts a man can buy generally meet these criteria. Again, the gift must be useless. You can buy a woman a visually pleasing, expensive car but that's not seen as being as "romantic" a gesture as buying her a diamond necklace.

I explain these topics quite poorly compared to the authors. It is truly a must read.

Sorry, which book?

 

[willwash]

http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-People-Have-More-Daughters/dp/0399534539/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Lots of negative reviews due largely to its breaches of political correctness and people hating the player, not the game.

 

[ghengis86]

http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-People-Have-More-Daughters/dp/0399534539/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Lots of negative reviews due largely to its breaches of political correctness and people hating the player, not the game.

Thank you

 

[Philhelm]

Women are not the gatekeepers of sex. This is a bad analogy because it presumes that women as a whole want sex less than men as a whole. This is a fairly recent cultural idea that only gained steam in the 18th century; before that, marriage was seen as a good thing because it *restrained* women's sexual desire. Along these lines, men have historically determined the range of acceptable sexual behavior for both men and women and continue to do so even today. This idea that women have gained any power relative to men in this regard is frankly laughable. For God's sakes, we still live in a society where women with short hair are judged for "making themselves less sexually attractive." Sex is not a one-way transaction, nor is it a non-renewable resource; so why are women still judged on the basis of how much sex they don't have?

First, I never stated that women don't desire sex as much as a man. The difference is that women tend to be far more discerning as to whom they will bed. The average male will have sex with 33% of the female population given the opportunity, since his yardstick has far fewer criteria. 33% of the male population is far less attractive to women based on their standards.

Also, women haven't gained power in all respects. Marriage did indeed help reign in the Alpha male and female advantage since most men were able to find a mate. Today, there are de facto harems in which the tip-top tier of men are bedding far more than their fair share of women. Otherwise, explain why the vast majority of involuntarily celibate people are males? I've seen the nastiest cows with children, so presumably they've had sex at least once, while there are some men with average looks that have horribly depressing sex lives.

A lot of women actually turn out to be very interested in casual sex.

No kidding. Women are capable of a partner count that I could only dream about in an Icelandic saga.

This has been demonstrated in a 2011 study - see here for a detailed discussion; the paper does not seem to be available online, but I have found it in my university's library.
The results of the study were as follows: it wasn’t a matter of whether women were less interested or receptive to sexual offers than men were, it was that they were less interested when those offers came from men. Even straight women were more likely to be willing to go to bed with another woman, and even gay men propositioned by an attractive gay man were less likely to accept.

Okay...

As far as the celebrities in the study went, men and women were equally likely to go to bed with the attractive celebrity and equally less likely to bed the unattractive one. Yet, when it came to opposite-sex friends, the gap re-established itself; men were more likely to go to bed with their female friend than women were with their male friend.

So...women are the gatekeepers of sex? Of course men would bang their female friends...duh! But male friends are simply disposable assets for the female who strings the men along while sleeping with higher value men.

So we can conclude two things from the study - (1) women are more motivated by the likelihood of sexual pleasure than anything else, and (2) personal safety is a big motivator (women thought men were more likely to be dangerous and less likely to be good in bed, while men and women of all sexual orientations rated women as more likely to be safe and a better lay).

So...you're saying that women are the gatekeepers of sex?

Thus, the big question for the women tends to be: risk vs. reward. Status doesn't have any effect in the choice, but familiarity does. These same women were more likely to pick sleeping with Brad Pitt than an equally attractive stranger because they felt as though they were more familiar with Brad. So it's a constant weighing of risks versus benefits, which shit-tons of feminists have been saying all along.

So...they're the gatekeepers of sex and they prefer a guy that is famous and has high status over an equally unknown attractive male.

Women are uniquely trapped by culture; on the one hand, they have sexual drives, but on the other, they tend to be shamed for owning their own sexuality.

Most of the slut-shaming I've heard in my life comes from...other women.

You and others are contributing to this by perpetuating a false model of sex that treats men as the pursuers and sex from women as the commodity.

Men often are the pursuers, at least on planet Earth. Also, women have higher value then men, which is why men die in wars, are generally shit on, and are the ones to put the pussy on the pedestal. A young, beautiful woman is of the highest value.

This is a world in which sex is seen as having a price.

There is a price to pay.

If a woman gives sex away for too low of a price, it devalues her as a person.

Which is precisely why women slut-shame other women. Men love sluts; maybe not to marry, but certainly for casual fun.

When PUAs measure themselves by how many women they sleep with, it follows that sleeping with the "easier" women gives them less glory. So in this situation, a woman is only as good as the sex she doesn't have. When you add in all the additional risk factors associated with sex (pregnancy, the fact that women tend to contract more STDs from men than vice versa), it ends up being the case that the risks of having casual sex aren't worth the potential fallout in medical as well as cultural terms. Of course, men have a chronic inability to admit these circumstances and jump right to the assumption that women aren't interested in casual sex as a means of preserving their control over sexual mores. The status argument is nothing but a big, fat red herring. The sad thing is that men are essentially making it harder on themselves to get laid in a culture that promotes blaming rape victims for their own assaults, increasing abortion and contraception restrictions, and slut-shaming. Of course men have a hard time finding sex. It's the only option they're given in the current state of society (what feminists refer to as patriarchy).

The double standard in slut-shaming is due to the fact that it is so much easier for a woman to get laid (being the gatekeeper and all...). Even a fat, unattractive woman can stand on a bar top and announce that she's hosting a gang bang at her house...if she so chooses (since women are the gatekeepers of sex). I guarantee you that she will get several men to follow her home. A man simply does not have that option. Therefore, when a man brags about partner count it is based upon the fact that he managed to convince X number of women to have sex with him. When a woman brags about partner count it would be like me bragging about how many times I've masturbated - there is simply no challenge worth taking pride in.

Since it is so easy for women to get an astronomical partner count if she so chooses, a man doesn't want to be one of a thousand cocks. A woman with only five sexual partners will likely place more value upon the man whom she marries than the woman who had a gang bang in the club restroom.

 

[KingNothing]

The numbers game is this.

A huge percentage, not a majority, but a huge percentage of women apparently prefer guys to treat them badly. And there are so few men who treat them badly.

What kind of psychopath treats someone badly, intentionally?

You suggest - just act nice to the girl, and you suggest what kind of nice is good, and what kind of nice is bad. And the woman who wants that chooses between one of the many many many guys who do that. The woman who wants that is the majority, and the men who do that are a huge majority. The woman who wants that has a wide variety of choices.

I'm not saying "act nice," I'm saying be the best human that you can be, and don't give a shit what the girl, or anyone else, thinks about it.

The women who get turned on, intrigued, get their emotions twisted up in a way beneficial to men - they are much much more common than the feminists and their male lapdogs (to continue with the dog analogy from before) would like to admit. But there are so few men who are giving the women who like being treated badly what they want that the rare PUA just cleans up.

The women who like being being treated badly might say "I don't like being treated badly". But, somehow, they are getting what they want.

You can get women like that without treating them poorly. The easiest way is general indifference towards hanging out with them, and to be righteous as you do it. Don't talk to them, don't hang out with them, when you've legitimately got other, better, things to do. If you're making a game out of it, you've already lost it. You can be a total gentleman and a great human, if everything you do is sincere and rooted and positivity, and still pull in all types of woman.

Feminists have argued that all of these things are socially determined. But those same women just can't help themselves, and end up choosing the PUA style guys. Actually, those guys probably have no idea what a PUA is, that's just naturally how they are - they didn't read a book of tricks.

For what it is worth, I hate ALL progressive feminists. The way they seem to totally disregard evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, and science, and math, and really anything logical, is infuriating.

 

[willwash]

When a woman brags about partner count it would be like me bragging about how many times I've masturbated - there is simply no challenge worth taking pride in.

.

I dunno, I knew a guy in college who claimed 23 times in a day

 

[Antischism]

http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-People-Have-More-Daughters/dp/0399534539/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Lots of negative reviews due largely to its breaches of political correctness and people hating the player, not the game.

Hah! Please, don't take anything written by Satoshi Kanazawa seriously. I've had the displeasure of writing about this clown before. Be sure to check out his hard-hitting article entitled (then modified, and totally removed from psychologytoday), “Why Are African American Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?”

 

[KingNothing]

I don't believe that women want to be treated badly. Given a choice, they would prefer a man who is nice to them, which is different from a Nice Guy (tm). A Nice Guy is usually a spineless, thirsty Beta who puts the p****y on the pedestal since he is often deprived of it; he is spineless since he allows women to take advantage of him due to his desperation. An Alpha can treat a woman well, but since he can have his pick of the litter he has no need or desire to bend over backwards for a woman when he can just as soon find a replacement. When the Alpha is done F'ing her, she will then go to her flock of admirers who act as emotional tampons; they are the ones who listen to her talk about her day, her friends, her feelings, and all of the other bullshit that the Alpha can't be bothered with. Of course, the Beta flock never/rarely gets to have sex with this women; in essence, the typical woman uses men since the men so readily allow themselves to be used. It's so prevalent that many women act like entitled princesses, since why shouldn't they? Even if one were to call out a woman on her shit, there would be plenty of White Knights to take up lance and shield in her defense, never to actually sleep with her though.

Regarding feminist advice, the fisherman never asks the fish how to catch other fish. Women (including mothers) will always give bullshit advice such as be nice, be yourself, and other panty-drying crap.

This is, without a doubt, the best post in this thread.