mr_engineer

The choice to dance with you or not has nothing serious behind it. If I were in your position, I would not really care about that. The important thing you have to focus on, is chemistry. So, when you go in there, you figure out how the dance-night is organized, what the schedule is. Meaning, you map out the dance-floor and you pick a location to dance. Then, you look at all the women and you think about who you like and why. Meaning, you evaluate your chances of creating chemistry with them. I don't care if all of this thinking means that you're the last guy standing without a partner, this is what you do. Then, you take your shot with that specific woman, after negotiating the logistic obstacles. If you're feeling nervous, you do some 'warm-up' dancing with whoever you can get. Then, if you catch her alone, you approach her immediately and 'sweep her off her feet'. Doing that takes some prep, and I suggest you do that before going for it. And, check if there are problematic patterns in your dancing. For example, I've noticed that a lot of guys struggle to let go of their partner's hand when the dance-step says so, because of their own psychological issues. Or, you may like how a certain woman looks when she dances with someone else, but you'll be scared to approach her yourself. You have to work on patterns like these on your own time, because they will keep you from embodying your masculinity on the dance-floor.

What's wrong with wanting to solve external problems? If you can see that I'm hiding from something and that something is 'within me', you might as well just tell me what that 'something' is. This is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever seen in my entire life. If they were living the life that you're describing, they would not be liking posts of Instagram-models and commenting needy comments there. Do you know how much money OnlyFans girls make from simps?! On a serious note, why do you want to commodify women? You talk about women as if they're food items. Why enable this mentality?!

@mmKay The problem with this definition is that it mixes up behaviors that are criminal and behaviors that are not criminal, that result from bad game and lack of social-calibration. Or, even just flat out narcissism, but you're fundamentally a good person who doesn't want to hurt someone. (It is possible to be a narcissist who follows a morality of non-violence.) The whole point of this idea is to demonize male sexuality and to project all of your issues with sex, onto men. There is no constructive reason to have this word be a part of dating discourse and it should be eliminated.

Are you telling me that you don't vet women for communication-skills, and that 'works'?! And that if I vet a woman for the ability to communicate her feelings and actually be feminine, instead of unconsciously reacting to them, that won't work?! I have better things to do in my dating-life than sleeping with hoes, thanks.

Was that the answer to the question?

Yupp. Don't even look at women, experience their beauty and make up your mind as to whether you want to approach her or not, based on what you see. Do you just go for the hole when you approach women?! Is that the opposite of 'creepy'?! I actually want to be able to vet the manipulative women, who are willing to unleash a horde of simps on you just because they 'felt creeped out'. That's not a safe individual to be with, from male perspective.

Say that to a gay guy and he might take you up on it.

The problem is that the simps are in positions of power and they believe that it's their God-given duty to 'believe all women'. And the reason I want all this is not so that I can get laid. That's a separate conversation. My reason for this, is because I want to be able to look at a woman, appreciate her beauty and not get into trouble for it.

I trust that the world's level of consciousness is always rising, so they will see this truth when I talk about it. Why is any of this a crime?

But, what if there are no intentions? What if, the behavior is just outside the ordinary, for whatever reason? Maybe it's his style, maybe he's uncalibrated. The problem isn't the drama caused by women who call guys 'creepy'. The problem is, the simps who come to rescue her from the 'creepy guy'. Men have to be educated about what's behind this 'creepy'-talk, so that we know what's what and we know how to deal with women when they say stuff like that. It's the simps who demonize the 'creepy guy' and they tell women to demonize him.

As I said, hold women accountable for the way they feel. Educate women about the difference between what a crime is and what a crime is not, educate them about their rights. And don't turn into a simp when a woman comes to you and says 'Me feel creeped out because him'. You can start dating now. I have figured out what's underneath the manipulation-game and you can call it out now. Let's go!

Ah, I see. Now that invalidation isn't working, now we're resorting to trivialization. Got it. If all of us got together and just held women accountable for the way they feel, dating would get a lot easier. We would not have to play such a massively manipulative game to get laid, we could just directly ask women whether they want to have sex or not.

Kay, that's your definition. It's whatever makes a woman feel 'creeped out', it's very subjective. And what they're 'sensing' is wrong. If I have intentions, the only way they know, is if I express them. If you're projecting an uncommunicated intention, that's on you. And we have to recognize this, as a society. And, why is being 'inauthentic' and 'socially awkward' a crime now? You gotta call a spade a spade, right?! You gotta call BS BS.

And I have every right to hold women accountable for the way they feel. No, they don't have good reason for it. And they definitely don't have a good reason to blame me (or any man, for that matter) for feeling 'creeped out', if he hasn't committed a crime. How about you stop being a simp?!

Ah, so that's what you're projecting. Got it.

Oh, Mr. Mind Reader is here. What are my shadows?!

I don't know what you're projecting.

No, that's not why I got in trouble. It's because of the projection of the 'uncommunicated intent' that's behind their interpretation of the facial expression, as stated in the OP. For some weird reason, everyone agrees on the interpretation and then comes to get you. You have to put the blame where it belongs, when authorities abuse their power. And no, this is not a discussion about 'game'. If having bad game is a crime now, that's a problem with the society, not the person with bad game.

✌️

Physically infringing on your boundaries is a crime under the law and you have the right to take action against that. But, being a narcissist/not caring about someone's feelings/having bad game - these are not crimes. And, authorities should not be involved if you're dealing with someone like that. They actually are reasons to call the cops. You can threaten the guys with that. If they don't stop, you can actually call the cops. One less sexual predator for the rest of society to deal with. Ah, I see. In that case, I'd suggest that you make a list of all the things that men do that make you uncomfortable and you google whether they're a crime or not. The general rule of thumb is that if they physically transgress your boundaries, it's a crime and if they don't, it's not. The word 'creep' is used by women to 'warn each other' about specific guys who they think is upto no good. No proof, just gossip. I was accused for looking at her the wrong way. Nothing else, no catcalling, didn't move a muscle towards her, I just looked at her. That was seen as a 'problem' by the teacher. She threatened to complain, I said 'go ahead, it's bullshit'. Then, she did complain and, instead of telling her that it's no big deal like she should have, the teacher confronts me about it! And threatens to call my mom over it. For the longest time, it didn't make sense why everyone agreed that I was the 'creep' in the situation. Now, I see why. It's because of what I mentioned in the OP.

Sexual harassment glossary time. Sticking their tongue out implying they're eating your pussy - cat-calling Rubbing their cock on you/uninvited ass-touching - molestation These are crimes under the law. You use these words, they'll get the job done. You have the right to take action against these guys and to book them on these charges. You don't need to gossip about them, about how you feel about them. No offense, but 'creep' comes across as a gossip-girl term to me. It adds unwarranted drama to an already messed-up situation. Please use the right terminology so that the authorities know what to charge them with, so that the authorities don't get free rein to abuse their power against all men who don't follow social-norms. Because, even the best, most masculine men don't follow social-norms.

Can you factually prove that they're a threat? Or, is it your feelings, your 'gut'? And, you're just labelling them as 'creepy' because you don't personally like them? If it's the latter, the solution is to engage with them and to deal in a transactional way. That's how you deal with narcissists. The more you resist them, the stronger they get. You get to the bottom of what they want, help them get it to the best of your ability and then you're done. You may think that 'this is a lot of work, this shouldn't be my responsibility'. First of all, there is a pattern to what they want, so it's doable. At least, it's a safer option than ignoring them. Secondly, if you want to date, you're going to be doing this anyways. You're going to be looking at guys who approach you and figuring out what they want anyways. And thirdly, when you come across someone who's out of the ordinary, you'll be able to spot them. You won't unconsciously reject them. Defending social-norms is incredibly counterproductive for women's dating-objectives. Because ultimately, women are attracted to the guys who break them anyways. So, why defend them, why enable simps?! Just get the masculine men that you're into, to protect you!

How to not be a simp 101 : Hold women accountable for their feelings. Look at whether the man in question is actually doing something wrong or not, before demonizing him for it, then based on this factual information, hold the concerned party accountable. Don't get your own ego into the conflict-resolution process.

I would use the word 'molester'. That would be more accurate. (Hint: Actually name the offense, don't just use a feeling-word to demonize somebody) If I'm into that, problem solved. If I'm not into that, I would resist. Then, I would get an idea of your morality based on your reaction to that. Why would I fear you, though? You are who you are and you're into what you're into. And, even if you have issues taking 'no' for an answer, I'd just distance myself from you. I would not see the point of demonizing you. There are ways of figuring out whether someone's a threat without demonizing them, you see?! You can talk nicely to them and ask them why they're behaving out of the norm. I don't quite understand why you'd become very sensitive towards 'odd behavior'. It was a big conundrum for me, until I figured out what I said in the OP.

The renaissance is coming. In the last thread, we figured out how to deal with feminists. Now, in this thread, we're figuring out where the good women are. The best part is that they're branding it as 'soft girl'. All the problems just get solved immediately. It sends the message to feminists that they're not as feminine as they could be, it hits the narrative of 'independence above everything', and the best part - it creates the space for men to be men. Feminists, you lose. So, pack it in. Game over.