Having a Certain Value Gives You Other Types of Value

people painting on wall

Feminism, or Third Wave Feminism anyway, is just a form of social engineering. They want to change people’s attitudes and behaviour in a way that the government passing laws cannot. For feminists to get what they want, they must control the media, the schools, the news, the advertising, the justice system, social networks, forums and more.


There is a concept that feminists use called objectification. Most people don’t know what it means, as it is ambiguous and not easy to define. Feminists define it as when someone is treat as if they are not a person in the basis of one’s sexual desire or display of sexual attraction. Finally Feminism 101 uses this definiton.

News Anchor Greg Kelly Shamelessly Ogles Bikini-clad Fellow Reporter On Air

Sexual objectification is the viewing of people solely as de-personalised objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities and desires/plans of their own. This is done by speaking/thinking of women especially as only their bodies, either the whole body, or as fetishised body parts.

Sexual attraction is not the same as sexual objectification: objectification only occurs when the individuality of the desired person is not acknowledged. Pornography, prostitution, sexual harassment and the representation of women in mass media and art are all examples of common sexual objectification.


Under feminism due to the concept of objectification being a phonomenon and one that is a problem, the following things can be seen as inappropriate and the person doing so can receive a punishment for it [EDIT LATER!!! I will add sources for the bullet points later]

  • Complimenting a woman
  • Cold approaching a woman
  • Telling a woman you want to have sex with her
  • Staring at a girl’s face
  • Staring at a girl’s boobs
  • Writing a girl a love letter
  • Asking a girl what she’s wearing
  • Using pet names like babe, darling and honey
  • And more

Feminist say that glamour girls like Page 3, booth babes, beauty pageants and grid girls should be banned. They do not see a woman using her body to flaunt her sexuality by getting dolled up or wearing revealing clothes, as empowering.

Men’s sexuality and women’s sexuality is expressed differently in society, and has a different role.

Feminists wish that they were valued the way that men are valued.

How feminists think: If men can not have to shave their legs, women shouldn’t have to either. If men can be promiscuous without being shamed, women shouldn’t have to either. If men can influence society by working in STEM or politics, women should be able to as well. If men can have a career in their 20s or have a career and and be a parent at the same time, then women should be able to as well. The list goes on.

The same concept applies sexually too. A woman’s sexuality is like a “fast fluctuating asset” like Facebook shares. And a man’s sexuality is like a “stable asset” like Michelin tyres, of which the company only sells one product, tires.

  • Everyone wants facebook shares and everyone wants sex
  • The value of facebook shares can go up or down rapidly overnight for predictable and unpredictable reasons, like a woman’s sexuality
  • Good people increase the value of facebook shares (coca cola) and bad people decrease the value of facebook shares (cambridge analytica), just like how a good bartender or friend can protect a woman or a bad person can rape, sexually assault or sexually harrass a woman.
  • Facebook is subject to what economics call “market distortion”, where a group of private individuals or the governmentm can artificially inflate or deflate the value of something through regulation (force or oppression) (government regulation) or shaming (pressure or repression) (the media and petitions), that restrict how much profit facebook can make, women are restricted in how much they can exhibit and capitalise on their sexuality. Women have to deal with slut shaming, body shaming, fat shaming, skinny shaming, plus size shaming, physical and verbal abuse from male entitlement, policing clothing, the concept of virginity which harms women by repressing their right to have multiple sex partners consensually or consensual casual sex, and arranged marriage. All these things and more, hurts women and strips them of their autonomy.

Men (like me) don’t have to be affected by these things, or even be conscious about them in their day to day life or even think about these four things from time to time. A man’s sexuality is like Michelin stock.

If I walk down the street, I know that regardless of how attractive I am, whether I am ugly or attractive, I won’t be catcalled (by women). And if I am, it is rare. As far as abuse is concerned, I won’t have creepy people following me, shouting at me on the street, in what is sadly deemed as acceptable behaviour or even acceptable catcalling by lots of men. On the flip side, I won’t get as much sexual choice, positive attention (or a certain type of positive attention) that a woman gets in a shop or on a social network.

As far as society’s perception of the genders are, the woman’s social role is that she is primarily valued for her appearance (or sex), and the man is primarily valued for what he earns and contributes to society and his peers (or even his character or personality). The man is the actor imprinting upon the world to gain value, and the woman is acted upon, with her value being determined by other people, independently of her behaviour.

Feminists want to do a complete 180 degrees of how society views women and be valued the way men are valuedm even the way men are valued sexually.

We could get into that topic, but that would be changing the subject derailing what this article is supposed to be about.

I can see where feminists are coming from, when they talk about the way women are represented and treated in what they call an objectifying manner, in advertisements and in their personal lives (see videos below). But prohibiting compliments on a woman’s appearance, although it sounds like a good goal to achieve in society, it will not tackle the root causes of such sexually charged situations. It will not reduce the level of objectification, instead it will counter-intuitively increase the inequality of agency for both genders, and will increase male thirst which will ultimately lead to more abusive behaviours from men towards women, and not make women much happier from their newfound freedom, and not make them much happier to feel safe in the world.

To clarify about my agency remark, I am a strong believer of people’s agency, including women’s agency. A woman gas the right to excercise her autonomy by rejecting a man, and the man should respect the woman’s autonomy by not being abusive after he’s rejected. It is wrong and disgusting that men do this and don’t respect this. By autonomy earlier, I meant how much one can excercise their autonomy in relation or relatively to the other gender with equal rights being implemented, and all behaviour beng legal, proper and socially acceptable.

News Anchor Greg Kelly Shamelessly Ogles Bikini-clad Fellow Reporter On Air

Try to think or ask a feminist about what they find problematic about the things in both youtube videos, and what it is about them that makes it objectification.

2017: A man raped me #metoo
2018: A man said I look good in a bathing suit #metoo

In my opinion, nothing will be solved unless women stop being disgusted by male desire.

Value is created by demand

What creates value? What makes something valuable?

The first response is “something being good”.

But what is good? I can identify three main ways a tangible thing can be “good”.

  • It providing a utility for someone (food, clothes, smartphones)
  • It having an aesthetic or refined quality to it (art, music, books) 
  • It has intrinsic value that cannot be replicated (the Apple brand, a woman’s virginity, the royal family)

The way a woman’s sexuality is perceived by society, it would satisfy all of those three things.

But does it have to be that way?

As feminists and women who are not feminists think…

If you are not valued as a person, you are not treated as one.

When I try to ask women what that means as a woman and what repression or underprivilege they feel compared to men in regards to that, they give some minute example that can easily be glossed over with ease, or a big example that is not representative of what society deems as acceptable behaviour, and when I query them again to elaborate, they all say that it is hard to explain, and a man (not just me) can only understand if they have lived their entire lives as a woman from birth.

There appears to be two sets of two camps.

  1. Sex positive feminists (They believe in porn, glamour girls, prostitution)
  2. Sex negative feminists (They are against porn, glamour girls and prostitution)


  1. Women who don’t see objectification as a problem who also objectify themselves
  2. Women who see objectification as a problem and wrong who might objectify themselves who say they wear and look how they do for comfort or for themselves 

So who is right, the feminists or the anti-feminists? Is objectification is a bad thing, and is it bad that it only happens to women? Does it give women advantages in life and in other ways than just sex, to make women privileged?

Well feminists wish that they were valued the way men are valued, not primarily for their appearance or sex, and loads of men speak of the advantages that brings as if it’s a privilege?

I will now explain why or attempt to prove the following things

  1. Value added to a person due to sex or appearance, is good value
  2. A significant amount of human behaviour stems from sexual behaviour
  3. The disparity in attention and approaches that men and women get, even though each gender gets a different type of attention, creates a society where women are privileged sexually and for other reasons besides that.

All value adds growth

When someone adds value, it adds growth to a person. The common response when someone has privilege for something they haven’t earned is

  • Just because I’m privileged or am treated this way (if they admit it’s a privilege), it doesn’t mean I should suffer due to the disadvantages it brings, or that I shouldn’t complain about it
  • The privilege that the other group has is far greater than mine
  • Being treated in this way at the frequency and extremity that I do, is repressive, as my liberty is violated and my autonomy is repressed. I don’t have the freedom to do X like you do
  • That privilege only affects me as far as X is concerned, and it doesn’t help me for the other aspects of my life that have nothing to do with X, that I am disadvantaged in
  • How can being privileged in X make me more privileged than another group, when there is so much more to life than X?
  • The group that is underprivileged is the group that gave us the privilege of X, as you gave us the power. So if you don’t want us to have the privilege, you should stop treating us the way you do.
  • It’s not my fault I was born with my genetics into the environment I was brought up in, so I shouldn’t feel guilty about it.

However when someone has value, they grow in the following ways, and this applies to all privileges in life.

  • You gain traits that you can use to gain in life.
  • You gain traits that makes others like you.
  • You gain knowledge and wisdom that you can utilise to make better decisions.
  • You get to exert your influence onto other people, so you can use your power and influence to make others bend to your will
  • You gain connections so your status rises as you get to know more cool, higher status and more interesting people
  • You have more tools about yourself you can use to manipulate people
  • And more

Compliments are still compliments when someone wants something in return

I was talking to a feminist, and although I am not a feminist, in fact I am against feminism, I class her as a “good feminist”, as I never saw her advocate for anything that seriously would strip men of their rights and agency – and if she did (which she kind of did), the differences would be minimal. She told me that when she was walking down the street, men told her that she looked good. She was catcalled. The abusive catcalling wasn’t happening such as her being shouted at, followed, had her personal space invaded and all that. It was the “good catcalling”, because all they did is give her a compliment as they walked past, then walk away. They respected her autonomy, and if she wanted to follow up the compliment with a conversation or giving any of the men her number, that was her choice. The men left it up to her, after they gave her the hint.

If you ask me, approaching people you don’t know, or even complimenting them, is perfectly normal social interaction. If nobody did those things, the nature of social interaction would break down. People approach people they want to get to know or find out whether they will be compatible with them. That’s perfectly normal human behaviour, right?

“The man who told you you look cute as you walked down the street, that’s a compliment.”
“That’s not a compliment”
“Why isn’t it a compliment?”
“It’s not a compliment if you want something in return.”
“But the men were genuine with their compliment. They never gave a false compliment. And besides, it is perfectly normal for men to appreciate a woman’s appearance or beauty. It’s funny how if I say a woman is intelligent, mature or funny, then she considers that as a compliment, but if a man compliments her beauty or looks, then that’s somehow bad. It’s not bad to be attractive or to be considered attractive. When a man compliments a woman on her personality, it is very clear that he is talking to her because she likes her personality as her personality is different to everyone else’s. If the same applies to appearance, why should women be offended and say it’s not a compliment, if it is clear that men talk to women who have good personality traits that the woman can’t control her personality and the way she thinks, so those traits when they are exhibited in conversation, give him something in return, but somehow when those traits are sex, it magically turns bad, even though the man gets something in return from positive traits from a woman’s personality, but just like sex? Especially when feminists are the ones who are fighting to legalise prostitution and end slut shaming, so women shouldn’t be demonising men who ask for women’s consent to have sex.”
“You don’t understand. You’re not a woman. You haven’t lived life as a woman from birth to know what it’s like and understand why it’s objectification. I’m going to stop talking to you now, as you won’t get it.”

I had a long think for some time, and I then came up with a good reason why a compliment is still a compliment, if the person wants something in return. It goes like this.

Imagine you go to a coffee shop, and you order a latte. However on this occassion, the barista before taking your money, asks you why you want their coffee. You then answer their question, you pay your money, then you receive your coffee.Not only did you show interest in the coffee by handing the barista money and asking for a latte, you also answered WHY you want the coffee.

The compliment you gave of the shop’s coffee is still a valid compliment, and you expressing why you like their coffee or that you want their coffee because you like what you see or had it before, in no way detracts from the value of the coffee. In fact the coffee gains value for being having qualities that make it desirable, and a positive and ethical transaction can take place where both people exchange different things in order to gain a positive experience that is ethical because it’s consensual and honest.

Why is it socially acceptable to pay money for something, but not socially acceptable for someone to say why they want something when they ask for something – in regards to sex (or even other things)? Yes, the shop sells coffee and has a menu of different coffees that they sell, but often people go to shops like supermarkets and department stores and asks the retail assistant whether they sell something that the store doesn’t sell. Is the customer wrong for asking whether the shop sells something they do not advertise or have on display? People also have something to offer others as well. 

So same concept applies for why a person isn’t wrong for asking another person for something that they do not advertise or do not have on display, even if it’s asking for a lighter, day ticket for a bus or cigarette. To suggest otherwise, is disingenous (intellectually dishonest) as it denies or downplays the good of sex, and portrays it as a horrible and shameful thing. Feminists and women make sex a taboo too.

Value sprouts other types of value

In movies, certain actors are typecast, so they only perform one type of role in movies. I’ll give some examples

  • Adam Sandler does comedy movies as a thick klutz
  • Hugh Grant only does romance movies as a quirky british guy
  • Will Smith only does action movies as a fearless hero
  • Morgan Freeman only does action and spiritual movies as the wise guy
  • Jim Carrey only does funny movies playing a funny and zany guy
  • Tom Cruise only does action movies as a bold hero
  • Steve Carroll only does funny movies as the adorable eccentric person
  • Jennifer Aniston only does romance movies as the love interest
  • Danny Trejo is the mean chicano guy with tattoos

Let’s see how feminist websites define privilege.

Privilege refers to the granted social, cultural, financial, and other advantages (or lack of disadvantages) that a group or individual holding a measure of institutional power possesses as part of their identity. The more institutional power a group possess, the more privileged they are; for any group to be privileged, they must hold institutionally-granted advantage over some other group.

Privilege is a key concept within a sociological and social justice context. It describes the benefits and advantages held by one group relative to another, often arising through the oppression or stigmatization of minority groups. These benefits and advantages are not usually codified as legal rights and arise as secondary qualities to suppression. As such, they can be difficult to spot, and remain unseen or unrecognised. This privilege blindness sometimes leads those who ostensibly support equal rights to inadvertently marginalize the concerns of less-privileged groups.[citation needed]

Privilege is a concept used in anti-racist, anti-sexist, and similar anti-oppression movements.
Anti-oppressionists use “privilege” to describe a set of advantages (or lack of disadvantages) enjoyed by a majority group, who are usually unaware of the privilege they possess. It is a term of art that may not align particularly well with the general-use word “privilege” or the programming term “privilege”.
A privileged person is not necessarily prejudiced (sexist, racist, etc) as an individual, but may be part of a broader pattern of *-ism even though unaware of it.

One thing that that feminists (and women) think, is that if you are only privileged in one aspect, that that only privilege only gives them positive effects in that aspect of their lives. They fail to realise that that privilege also gives them advantages in other areas of their lives. Even if they are aware of those advantages, they will attribute it to a different privilege they have instead of the privilege you are talking about and claiming it stems from, or they will attribute it to repressive norms society has that people follow, which harm people of both sides instead of behavioural differences caused by one expressing their individuality in a way that doesn’t violate one’s liberty, lifestyle or autonomy.

Value sprouts other types of value. I will give examples of value people get, that sprouts a different type of value

  1. Being seen as intelligent due to being well spoken or articulate, gives you the privilege of gaining rapport more easily as people open to you easier and more likely
  2. Being seen as looking youthful, gives you the privilege of being approached more by people
  3. Being well spoken or articulate, gives you the privilege of people opening up to you and asking you for advice
  4. Being seen as well connected or having status, gives you the privilege of people approaching you and giving you free stuff

People don’t have to have the same needs in every relationship

People don’t need to agree politically to be in a relationship

To prove this assertion, I only need to use tweets.

People don’t need to like the same hobbies or favourite things to be in a relationship

Nothing much needs to be said to prove this point. Yes it’s good to have a common ground, but hobbies and favourite things are not the only common ground people need to have to be able to get along with each other or have a relationship.

People don’t need to have the same emotional needs to be in a relationship

Nothing much needs to be said to prove this point. Yes it’s good to have a common ground, but hobbies and favourite things are not the only common ground people need to have to be able to get along with each other or have a relationship.

People only need the same end goal to be in a relationship

The only thing people need to have a good relationship, is have chemistry and have the same end goal. Sometimes women do things which make them less receptive to there being chemistry in an interaction, but that’s a different topic for a different article.

  • So if a woman wants to get married, it wouldn’t make sense her being a man who doesn’t want to get married. 
  • If a woman wants children, it doesn’t make sense her being with someone who doesn’t want children
  • If a woman wants sex on a regular basis, it makes no sense for her to be with a man who doesn’t
  • If a woman wants affection like compliments, pet names, her hand held, to be told I love you, and whatever else she wants, it doesn’t make sense for her to be with a man who refuses to give her that after she specifically asks him to do so on a regular basis

So although a relationship is about love or sex, or both, if the end goal is marriage, kids and affection, and the partner refuses to give them that on a regular or constant basis after they specifically ask for that, the relationship will not work. For some things it takes the work of both people to produce an intended result, and for some things it just needs one person to exert themselves onto another person. For the former, they both need the same end goal, for the latter, the happiness of one’s partner becomes their happiness, so they get enjoyment and value to see the people they care about be happy.

A significant amount of non-sexual behaviour stems from sexual behaviour

There are two ways you can live your life

My friend who writes politically incorrect sociology books about game theory, wrote that there are two ways you can live your life, for evolutionary biology or for consumerism.

If you see an energy drink or wine that costs £1, and another one that costs £5, you know that the £5 energy drink or wine drink is than the £1 energy drink because it’s more expensive. To live for consumerism, you live to consume culture, and not only culture, the most expensive culture.

However to live for evolutionary biology, you instead live your life in a way that increases your chances of reproducing. It’s not about wanting to reproduce (or even get married), but simply to increase the chances that you can. Such thing would be having a good job, earning more money, reading books, creating things, having a good car, being popular.

When one considers that most women have shallow interests like watching netflix, listening to music, shopping and smoking weed, merely consuming what culture is around and extracting resources. And that men are the ones whose interests actually contribute to society by creating the culture around us like books, music, and contribute to the systems we live in like the government, construction workers and being CEOs, one understands that it is women who live for consumerism and men who live for evolutionary biology. A woman’s life is only interesting if a man makes it interesting, and a man’s life is interesting only if he is motivated and astute. Men in Britain pay 82% of income tax, and women control the majority of the spending decisions worldwide.

When one looks at the different attitudes and behaviours that men and women have, we can see that they stem from the different ways that men and women live their life. So one could argue, that a significant amount, (if not most) of human behaviour, stems from the differing sexual behaviour of men and women.


I will quote myself from an earlier article, and then quote Norah Vincent, a woman who disguised herself as a man for 9 months to know what it’s like to be a man, to explain this subheading.

I do not believe that refusing to acknowledge race, sex, religion and sexuality will eradicate bigotry and privilege inequality.

I do agree that the perceived perceptions of demographics can make those groups underprivileged to a certain extent or maybe be a victim of hate crime, but to demonise innocent and proper words and actions. But to use microaggressions to claim claim that women are second class citizens because of microaggressions, is one sided, and fails to consider the other side of the coin of which I call microkindness. Female privilege and microkindness is real, and women are not aware of it.

Angry woman
  • A person (male and female) has never smiled at me and asked me “how are you” when I order pay for something at a shop counter. Women get that treatment off men.
  • A person has never helped me get off the ground by holding their arm out to pull me up, after I fall on the ground. Women get that treatment off men.
  • A person has never approached me in school or university and offered to help me with my work. Women get that treatment off men.
  • A person has never someone in my presence who has visibily upset me to apologise for what they did. Women get that treatment off men.
  • A person has chimed in to defend me or backup my arguments, when I’m in a debate with someone or multiple people online on a forum or social network. Women get that treatment off men.
  • Women being represented in a positive way in television and movies rather than be portrayed as stupid, violent or criminal like men are.
  • Newspapers having women’s sections which provide content for women, but no men’s sections.
  • Having more funding given to breast cancer than testicular cancer.
  • Female colleges and universities existing, of which the male equivalent does not exist
  • When police are called to the house to sort out domestic abuse situation, the woman is automatically belived by the police because she’s female
  • Domestic violence shelters being exclusively for women and none existing for men to live in

There is probably more examples, but given that I’ve missed out on a lot of things in life for being a man without it being blatantly obvious or shown by an undeniable event, how would I know?


Women hold all the privilege in society and men are the disposable sex

Given the last two subheadings, it should be although it may be surprising to some, it should be surprising that in society, females hold ALL the privilege in society.

When it comes to attitudes tragedies, justice and sexuality – it is all skewed in favour of women. What feminists do is that they look at the people in power or leadership roles, see that they are mostly men, and use that to conclude that men hold the privilege in society. However they are conflating “collective power” with “blanket power”. Yes most of the politicians, millionaires, CEOs, boardroom members, STEM, writers and musicians are men – but most men do not have the power that those in leadership positions have.

The way it works is that even though it’s the men in leadership roles, it is the women who dictate to the men what to do. Women create the rules, get men to follow them, but they in no way apply the rules to themselves, and in that way dominate men. So men exist to serve women and throw their entire gender under a bus. That’s the theory of the disposable male.

You can read about that here.

Asia vs the west

I was talking to my attractive asian friend from the phillipines whose ethnicity is indonesia and half chinese and half dutch, and she was saying that in asia, for example in countries like the phillipines, china and korea, it is not the men who are the disposable sex, but instead women are the disposable sex, not the men. Of course it is hard to put this into words, but she did give some examples of how society is in asia.

1. When a man cheats his wife society says its normal, it’s second puberty. When a woman cheats society says she is a whore, egoistic, doesn’t think about her children, she should give a good example and protect them.

2. Women lifetime are til their 40 because soon she can’t have children. Thus she is worthless after 40. While men are always on the go till they are 70. Unmarried man in their 50 will pick a 30 yo women because they can bear children.

3. A rich man I know cheats many times from his wife. His wife knows but she can’t do anything about it. She just close her eyes because she doesn’t work, she can’t get a divorce. She doesn’t work because most husband don’t allow their wife to work. Wives must take care of the house and children. Husbands are the source of life, a family source of financial thus he is the king because he provides everything for family. He only think about work. Everyone must take care of his feeling and mood. Why? Because if he pissed off he can’t work. His feeling and mood is more and the most important than any other family members feeling. Have you ever watch a Chinese empire movie? That’s a radical example of this situation.

4. I work in architecture, the job which dominated by men still. Once me and a male friend went to a client. I spoke about everything, my male friend were silent because it wasn’t his cope of works. This male client didn’t look me in the eye at all or even look once at my face, he kept looking to my male friend hoping he was the one talking. Like saying ‘why is she the one talking not you?’ never been I met a sexist client like that .

5. My grandma is a mistress. A wife couldn’t bear childs so this man took my grandma and then had 2 sons with her. For the sake of having children 

6. A woman begging a married man to marry her and make her the second wife. Can u believe that? True story.

So it should be no surprise that men have more agency (or power) in relationships in asia than in the west, and will get more unsolicited messages in asia too.

When you have power, people give you more power that you never asked for

When you have power, people give you more power that you asked for.

I’ve been catcalled by a girl, she asked me if I liked dinosaurs because she was shy. I’ve been cold approached by a group of girls. However due to feminism calling cold approach objectifying due to Hollaback and women being disgusted by male desire, it is not socially acceptable for men to do the same thing. Men never asked for that power, but the men who are complicit in this, especially powerful men who allow this to happen, give women more power that they never asked for. A society where only women can approach men and women can’t approach men, gives women the power dynamic, as the one who is on the concluding end of a transaction has the bargaining power, unlike the initiator.

Aside from who pays, it’s also important who asks Suppose you have a wristwatch and you badly need $200. You might go up to someone and say, “I just paid $400 for this watch last week. Look, here’s the receipt. Here’s the warranty card. It’s legit. I need some cash quick. I’ll sell it to you for $200.” The other person says, “I don’t need a watch. I have a watch. I don’t like that watch. I’ll give you $100.” And you say, “$150.” And he says, “$125.” And you say, “Deal! I’ll take it.” And you end up getting $125 for your $400 watch. Now suppose somebody comes up to you and says, “Man, I need a wristwatch bad! How much did you pay for that one?” And you say, “$400.” And he says, “I’ll give you $500 for it.” And you say, “I don’t need the money. I like this watch. It’s special. It has sentimental meaning to me.” And he says, “I’ll give you $600.” And you say, “It means so much to me.” And he says, “$700.” And you say, “Make it $800.” And he says “$750.” And you say, “$775.” And he says, “Deal! I’ll take it.” And you end up getting $775 for your $400 watch. What’s the difference between the two situations? Why is the watch worth $125 in one transaction and $775 in another? What’s the difference? The difference, as Fred Hayward of Men’s Rights, Inc., points out, is that the person who initiates the transaction is almost always in the weaker bargaining position.

If Men Have All the Power How Come Women Make the Rules

Another situation happened when I was in school and my female friend moaned that the room was cold. When the teacher said to the class that they can choose to do their work outside the class. When most of the room was walking out of the class, the teacher asked her if she was leaving the class. She said she was. I then told the teacher “That’s because she feels the room being cold”. She immediately put on an upset expression and told me in a disheartened voice “I didn’t say that!”. I did not respond. The teacher then told me to apologise. I at first refused, saying “But she did say it”, and he told me to apologise anyway, so I did. She looked much happier from that moment on. I know that the only reason why I was told to apologise is because I’m male and she’s female, and she also knows that too, but I don’t have to say that, as I don’t need to state the obvious. When she left the room first, he told me “When a girl is upset, you apologise to her.” I do apologise to girls, but not for everything, and I had no reason to apologise for that. Behaviour like this is prevalent for women and on a more grand scale.

It is also no wonder why when doing coursework or school work, or if a car has a faulty tyre, whenever they need help, why women get more help in these situations than men.

You get social proof for being friends with girls as that’s harder, so your social status increases

Someone explained years ago why contrary to what most people think, women derive more value from rejecting a man than by having sex with him.

I was always confused by women’s tendency to reject sex from men that they desire sexually. Especially if it was someone with whom they already had sex, and it was a positive experience for them – for me it seemed really illogical that they wouldn’t want it again. I would jokingly say that they “hate fun.” I said this as a joke, yes, but I also wasn’t entirely joking. Because it seemed like such nonsense to me, I couldn’t understand their motivations. “This action will be a good experience for ; it will be fun, exciting, and we will both enjoy it. Therefore I don’t want it.” I know this isn’t what’s going through their heads actually. But I didn’t get what they were really thinking… until just recently.

For women, because sex isn’t scarce, it isn’t valuable. The act of sex itself for them holds much less importance because they can get it any time from any source. The act of rejection, for women, enhances their sense of value. To reject a guy makes them feel as though they are more valuable, more pretty, more desirable, of higher social ranking. How many women fantasize about being surrounded by guys who all want her, but she grins smugly and says “nope you can’t have me”? This is the difference between the male and female fantasy. A man surrounded by doting girls wants to fuck all of them – it is an opposite fantasy.

In most instances, a woman perceives that she will achieve more utility from rejecting a guy than from having sex with him. The pleasure of the sex act for them is all but absent from the equation – much more important is how much perceived social value they can extract from the transaction. If they think they can get a higher sense of value from rejection than from sex, this will be the outcome.

This is why women collect orbiters. I never understood it before – but it makes sense. And it explains a lot of things.

I live in a developing country. There is a common myth that foreign guys can get girls easy here. It’s believed by all local people, and therefore foreign guys believe it because they’re told it. But it isn’t at all true. What ACTUALLY happens is that status-whores start hanging around these guys a lot and giving false IOI’s because it’s trendy to be seen with foreign guys. (Because most locals are wholly ignorant about the world, they think that foreign = rich. I’ve had a woman ask me with total sincerity if I had an airplane… because I was American, and therefore super rich, and probably had my own airplane). But they won’t fuck them. Because these local girls stand to gain more sense of social value by being publicly seen hanging around “rich” foreigners – and the first thing they’ll do is drag you around to be shown off to all her friends and family so she can brag.

In this case, being “high-value” according to local culture doesn’t actually increase your likelihood of getting laid. In a lot of cases it decreases it – because the girl will extract more “social value” from being seen around you without fucking you. You have “rejection value” – you being rejected, transfers value to the girl.

Of course, a clever man knows how to overcome this, and knows how to cultivate desire in the mind of the girl. Nevertheless, I think it’s important to keep in mind in which cases a girl will gain a sense of value from giving in to you, and in which cases a girl will gain a sense of value from rejecting you. It was something I hadn’t thought of before, but now that I’ve had this epiphany I will not forget about it.

Edit: It’s really interesting how much controversy I’ve stirred up with this post. I seem to have offended a lot of people with my speculation.

While all the men are using online forums and chat rooms, women are busy living it up socialising afk interfacing with people. The sexual dynamics of men deriving value from having sex with women as he has achieved access to something that hundreds or thousands of men failed to get, and women for rejecting a man gives her value as it means she can get better quality men in future, makes perfect sense.

This is why it is harder to become friends with females than males, so being friends with females boosts your social status, and gives you more social proof than you would get if you hung around males. When you spend time around females, people approach you more, you are gossiped around more, people treat you nicer. That’s just the way it goes.

Spending time with more privileged people will make you well connected

You know what they say, Birds of a feather flock together.

  • Interesting people know other interesting people. 
  • Attractive people know other attractive people
  • Popular people know other popular people
  • Intelligent people know other intelligent people
  • Powerful people know other powerful people
  • Emos know other emos
  • Nerds know other nerds
  • Polys (polyamorous people) know other polys
  • Hippies know other hippies

As women are more privileged than men and have a larger social circle than men, being friends with women will give you connections with privileged people and will give you a larger social circle.

When you’re vetted by the people with power, their power rubs off onto you

Sexual agency

When I had a hareem of girls fighting over me, I got sexual agency that women enjoy that 99% of men do not enjoy. Because I got social proof from the people with power, I was vetted, so some of their power rubbed off onto me.

I was in a girls school for years and had a hareem of girls who liked me. A girl who I was chatting to in front of her female friend who I didn’t know, were having a conversation and she was smiling excessively and giving the come on signs, so obviously me as the male has to escalate. Impress her, escalate, then get her number.

Every man who is not a homosexual knows that females hold ALL the power in relationships. People complain about men being promiscuous or not getting married as if it’s men’s fault that relationships don’t mean as much as they did 100 years ago. Men do not get to choose what they get off women.

If a woman does not want to get married or does not want to have sex on the first date, there is nothing he can do about it. He is forced to interact with her in the hope of a relationship, he is forced to behave in a way that women want him to behave like in order to enter a romantic or sexual relationship, and if women in general all or mostly don’t behave in a certain way, he is not in a position to tell a single woman what to do in order to do something that most women don’t do. But a man will marry a woman to keep her even if he doesn’t believe in marriage. A man will cater to a woman’s bullshit emotional needs and compromise on his self respect, authenticity and backbone, being a doormat who will let women walk over him.

So the girl who likes me who has butterflies and is all giddy every time I’m around, it was years ago, but she mentions a faux pa I did in order to tease me as her friend I have never seen before is watching.How can the person who likes me, make her friend’s first impression of me, that I’m a spaz?So what did I do?It was predictably silent. (She was shit testing me.) I looked at her friend for a brief moment not saying anything, then moved my focus to the right to look at the girl who likes me, then I moved my arm out and PUSHED her by her shoulder. She didn’t fall over, but she had some trouble balancing for a moment.

Did I get in trouble for sexual harassment? NO
Did I get told off by any of the two girls? NO
Did I get reported to any of the school teachers? NO
Did anything bad happen to me for touching a girl without her consent while her friend watched? NO

Somewhere else in the country a man is making a woman uncomfortable for stroking her leg or arm, or putting his arm round her for some sort of PUA kino (a man faced 6 months in prison for stroking a girl’s leg). Also know that a man was facing 2 years in prison for stroking a woman’s leg. Another thing I did from getting social proof from girls is be allowed to write on girls clothes but over their boob area without being accused or in trouble for sexual harassment.

Momokun sexually harass person at a con

Guess what? The girl who liked me, was SMILING. She was really buzzing, glowing and very happy, amazed by what I did, because me as a heterosexual male reversed the power dynamic in the dating market.From that moment on, her desire and love for me went through the roof. She was obsessed with me much more since then.

PS. Don’t get it twisted. I don’t refuse to follow a girl’s lead or let a girl dominate me. I don’t refuse to let girls dictate the terms of a conversation (interaction). I don’t give a shit about frame. In fact I don’t care about frame. I don’t try to act with frame.That was a one off event. I never did anything like that to her or any other girls again. Girls gossip. Gotta keep it fresh

And more

When I interact with people, men and women, I enter the female club of getting free stuff but without anyone expecting me to give something in return. Me having social proof from women or having previously gained it, gives me an agency privilege that all women are used to. And I also get invited to events by people I do not know, just like how women get invited out to places by men they don’t know, for that reason. And some of their agency that they have, well not all of it, but some of it, rubs off on me for me to use. I wouldn’t fully know, as I don’t aim or try to get things off other people in my interactions. I try to avoid that.


So in conclusion, those are the reasons why it’s only a privilege to be friends with girls, not guys

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *